Look at all the pretty windmills....

Discussion in 'Environment' started by westwall, Nov 11, 2019.

  1. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    16,617
    Thanks Received:
    1,806
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +10,289
    What's the matter Kilroy? Finding it difficult to produce any peer reviewed published science which supports the B.S. you have been led to believe reading alarmist blogs?

    Unsurprising....in fact, I predicted it.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 1
  2. Kilroy2
    Offline

    Kilroy2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    1,438
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +684


    Quote - No one has said that CO2 levels aren't increasing...I said, and backed up with peer reviewed, published science that we are not responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2...in fact, our contribution to the total CO2 in the atmosphere is vanishingly small. end Quote

    Unless you put the conclusion that the author reaches and the discussion then posting a review as being meaningful but it is small as it is just someones opinion and it got published. Tell us what the conclusion was and the discussion that is in the review then we can get to it. Then we can reach a real consensus

    You say quote " we are not responsible for the increase in CO2"

    then you say that Quote" our contributions are small"

    whether small or significant is irrelevant as you admit that mans activities do contributing to increase levels of CO2 in the atmosphere

    Pass it over as minor but in a balanced eco system everything matters. As population increases and more people are causing CO2 to rise, then Man continues to put more CO2 in the atmosphere

    Everyone one is aware of the other sources of CO2 but the CONSENSUS is still there that we have to control man's emissions of CO2

    Thus you argument is small


    So what do you do? You show evidence that CO2 is rising..no question there..and hang a big assed assumption on your evidence that we are the ones causing the rise when the fact is that we don't produce enough CO2 to even overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...

    You are a dupe rocks...a handwaving hysterical dupe...

    dupe: -n- a person who unquestioningly or unwittingly serves a cause or another person:

    Ohh very scientific of you to use the word DUPE but it goes both ways

    CO2 levels are rising but you don't care because its political thus it is apparent that you serve a specific political cause because you want to focus the argument elsewhere instead of on the consequences of mans actions. Still you are entitled to your beliefs even though it is not the CONSENSUS of those who study the issue

    here is the deal you are the minority and it is you who is on the island waving that flat

    Hey who is that waving something out there, never mind its just a non believer

    Maybe I should wave back at him, no that will just encourage him
     
  3. Kilroy2
    Offline

    Kilroy2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    1,438
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +684
    It is not surprising because you do tend to ignore the obvious that peer reviews is nothing more than someone getting there opinions and ideas published and out to the scientific community in this instance. It does require others who are experts to give there opinions whether it is an approval or disapproval. So bypass the boring and go along with the majority of experts is the best way to go.

    It is the smart way to go but hey each to there own


    Why would I need to read a peer review when there are many governments and scientific organization that support the theory of global warming by man and that it needs to be controlled.

    There is a consensus on the science of global warming and its likely effects
    special interests groups exist to suppress the consensus
    while others work to amplify the alarm of global warming.

    Your posting are nothing more than making global warming political. The result is a clouding of the reality of the global warming problem.

    which is the consensus

    NASA
    IPCC
    WHO
    UNDP

    187 countries signed on the Pairs Agreement (UNFCCC) while only 60 have ratified it.

    Consensus is difficult to achieve

    I can say that it I disagree with what you say and that I would defend your right to say it.

    Still why would I defend someone else's freedom when I believe what they say is wrong.

    Quite the conundrum
     
  4. Kilroy2
    Offline

    Kilroy2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    1,438
    Thanks Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +684


    Yeah the thing about sea levels rising is that cities and people live in coastal areas now and historically they didn't. New Orleans with its man made effort to keep the water out failed miserable with a high death toll and the amount of money spent. Maybe NO did not happen and it was just a dream

    The fact that people live on the coast has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we are causing sea level rise via our CO2 emissions. New Orleans flooded because the corrupt city government didn't do the improvements on the levies that they were supposed to do and failed to do them even after katrina...

    The fact that people line on the coast has absolutely no bearing on whether or not we are causing seal levels rise

    The question is - are sea level rising and what will be the toll world wide on coastal cities.

    Coastal cities will be one of the casualty of global warming. That is the issue. Katrina is just an example of how arrogant man is in his beliefs that he can control his environment and what he beliefs he can do. What is the cost of such arrogance

    Arrogance is assuming that man's contribution of CO2 levels has no role in this issue

    History shows us that the scientific consensus is wrong more often than they are right...

    So are you saying you know who is right and who is wrong

    well prevention is better than the cure

    I do not get paid for my beliefs, Do you
     
  5. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    16,617
    Thanks Received:
    1,806
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +10,289
    Guess you didn't actually look at the papers...in several, I provided the conclusions...and the conclusions are there for anyone to read who may actually be interested in what the science says rather than what alarmist blogs and the mainstream media say. Clearly you aren't.

    Still waiting on some empirical evidence that demonstrates that it matters. And again, I don't expect for you to provide any, because there simply isn't any. To date, there has not been a single peer reviewed, published paper in which the claimed warming due to our production of so called greenhouse gasses has been empirically measured, quantified, and blamed on said so called greenhouse gasses. The science simply isn't there...

    As I have already stated, and supported with actual science, our CO2 emissions are not even enough to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery...meaning that our CO2 isn't enough to alter the balance...that is the whole point of all the papers I have provided...they show that the amount of CO2 we produce is so trivial, when compared to the CO2 that the earth produces, that it just doesn't matter...and again, there is no physical evidence which demonstrates that CO2 has anything at all do do with global temperatures...

    And you keep talking about the piddling amount of CO2 we put in the atmosphere when we know that concentrations of 7000ppm didn't cause anything like run away warming..and ice ages began with concentrations of 5000ppm. You are assuming that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere matters...there is no physical evidence to suggest that it does. The models which predict warming from additional CO2 have failed completely...before you go on about adding CO2 to the atmosphere, you need to first produce some physical evidence which suggests that it matters...and no such physical evidence exists.

    Why? What physical evidence can you produce which suggests that the CO2 we produce has any effect whatsoever on global temperatures?

    My argument is supported by peer reviewed, published science...so far, yours is based on nothing at all...no science, no literature, nothing except your own opinion...if my argument which is based upon, and supported by published literature is small, then that must mean that your argument is non existent. You are doing nothing more than flapping your hands claiming that the sky is falling and the only evidence you have is an acorn at your feet....an acorn is not the sky.

    It might, if you could actually provide some science which provides physical evidence to support your claims...but you can't. I know you can't because I have spent the past 3 decades looking. I didn't become a skeptic because I just like to argue. I became a skeptic because I expect science to provide actual evidence to support its claims...climate science hasn't...All the real science, based on observation and empirical evidence says that the models upon which climate science is based are wrong.

    CO2 levels are rising and I don't care because history has shown us that it doesn't matter. It is your side who is wrapped up in politics as evidenced by your inability to provide actual science to support your position. Thus far, you have shown nothing at all by way of physical evidence which suggests that there is any consequence at all to our piddling addition to the total atmospheric CO2 level...nor are you likely to.

    What you will do, if you continue is to give more political reasons to alter our lifestyles with no actual science to support the changes you want to have made.

    Guess you really don't know much about science...it is the few who actually have the physical evidence who win out in the end...Consider the number of long held scientific consensus views which have fallen in the past few years as a result of a few scientists out there who actually asked questions and did real science to see if the consensus view was supported...The consensus view that stomach ulcers were caused by stress has fallen...the consensus view that salt causes high blood pressure has fallen...the concuss view that quasi crystals can not exist has fallen....the consensus view that natural fats are worse for you that polyunsaturated fats has fallen...the consensus view that cholesterol causes heart disease has fallen..and on and on and on.

    The sad fact is that if you pick any topic in science....any field...especially a relatively new field like climate science, the odds of being right are heavily in your favor simply by going against the consensus view...I certainly don't subscribe to the consensus view any more and don't because the published, peer reviewed science says that the consensus is wrong...

    Science isn't about belief...science is about evidence and while I can support all of my views with peer reviewed, published science you don't seem to be able to support any of yours at all with anything like actual science. I am not prepared to simply "believe" in a climate crisis because the media, politicians, and activist scientists say so....I expect science to be able to provide actual physical evidence to support their claims and climate science simply can't do it..

    If you want to hold quasi religious beliefs because some activists who share your politics say that you should believe, then believe all you want..but don't call it science...Science is about actual physical evidence and you have none...
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    21,070
    Thanks Received:
    3,568
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +13,738
    The greening of the earth due to CO2 fertilization stopped in the 1990s and appears to be reversing. That means that anything past 1990s levels would be too much.

    https://skepticalscience.com/ridley-murdoch-lomborg-greenwash-global-warming.html

    [​IMG]

    But then, that's just hard data, so feel free to ignore it, being that it contradicts your sacred cult scripture.

    It is interesting. The data says that, by denier standards, deniers want to exterminate life in general. We always knew that deniers desire the extermination of much of humanity, being that so many of them act like psychopaths here, but we never thought they actually hated all life in general.
     
  7. westwall
    Offline

    westwall Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    62,089
    Thanks Received:
    13,611
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Location:
    Nevada
    Ratings:
    +49,656




    A laughable assertion, as are nearly all of your claims
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    16,617
    Thanks Received:
    1,806
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +10,289
    Wrong again hairball...do you ever look beyond alarmist blogs for information? And your 2013 information is waaaaayyyyy out of date..

    Error - Cookies Turned Off

    clips:
    “The recent warming hiatus (1998–2013) was identified as a potential key mechanism behind the increased land sink during this period via reduced ecosystem respiration (Ballantyne et al., 2017).”

    “At the global scale, simulated NPP [net primary production, greening] increased substantially over the 20th century to present day from 56.2 (mean of 1901–1910) to 66.0 Pg C/year (mean of 2007–2016) with positive contributions from all drivers considered, including rising CO2 concentrations (referred to as CO2 fertilization), nitrogen deposition, climate, and carbon‐nitrogen as well as carbon‐climate synergies. The relative contribution of these drivers to this overall NPP increase amounts to 60% for increased CO2, 15% for nitrogen deposition, 8% for carbon‐nitrogen synergy, 9% for carbon‐climate synergy, and 8% for climate. Both CO2 fertilization and nitrogen deposition individually caused a smooth, transient increase in NPP, in line with the trajectory of the corresponding drivers.”
    “[R]esults show a global NPP [net primary production, greening] increase of 3.4 Pg C/year between the early 1990s (mean of 1990–1996) and the end of our study period (2010–2016), with CO2 fertilization and climate being the dominant drivers, accounting for 56% and 35% of the overall change, respectively.”

    “Carbon‐climate interactions led to significant increases in tropical forests and the forests of North America, Eurasia, and China.”


    Earth system models underestimate carbon fixation by plants in the high latitudes

    Clip: “Historical increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration, from 280 to current 400 ppm, has resulted in enhanced GPP [gross primary production/greening] due to its radiative and physiological effects, which is indirectly evident in amplified seasonal swings of atmospheric CO2 concentration and large scale increase in summer time green leaf area. Thus, these observables, expressed as sensitivities to ambient CO2 concentration, might serve as predictors of changes in GPP and help to reduce uncertainty in multimodel projections of terrestrial carbon cycle entities. This study is focused on the northern high latitudes (NHL, north of 60°N) where significant and linked changes in climate and vegetation have been observed in the past 3–4 decades: 52% of the vegetated lands show statistically significant greening trends over the 36-year record of satellite observations (1981–2016, Methods), while only 12% show browning trends, mostly in the North American boreal forests due to disturbances.”


    Changes in rainfall distribution promote woody foliage production in the Sahel

    Clip: “Recent Earth observation studies find a greening of the Earth and in particular in global drylands, which is commonly interpreted as a global increase in net primary production and has been attributed to climate change. Although changes in rainfall, fire regimes, elevated temperatures, atmospheric CO2 and nitrogen depositions are suggested explanations, only few studies provide quantitative evidence on both the biophysical processes (changes in vegetation cover, structure and composition) and controlling factors of long-term dryland vegetation trends.”


    GMD - Modelling northern peatland area and carbon dynamics since the Holocene with the ORCHIDEE-PEAT land surface model (SVN r5488)

    Clip:
    Our results show that both net primary production (NPP) and heterotrophic respiration (HR) of northern peatlands increased over the past century in response to CO2 and climate change.”

    The “remarkable” vegetation greening in the Yellow River Basin since 2000 is expected to continue for 73% of the region.


    https://www.researchgate.net/public...ches_of_the_Yellow_River_Basin_over_2000-2015

    Clip: “Changes in Vegetation Greenness in the Upper and Middle Reaches of the Yellow River Basin over 2000–2015 … In this study, the vegetation dynamic characteristics were analyzed for unconverted forestland, shrubland, grassland, cropland, and converted forestland, shrubland, and grassland from cropland over 2000–2015 in the upper and middle reaches of the Yellow River. … The results obtained were as follows: (1) Vegetation greening was remarkable in the entire study region (0.036 yr−1).”
    “Overall greening trend in the upper and middle reaches of the Yellow River indicated great achievements have been obtained since the implementation of the GTGP. Vegetation restoration exerted stronger influences on converted types from cropland than unconverted types. In the future, approximately 73.1% of the study region is expected to continue increasing [greening].”

    How many more would you like hairball...all new research.. all finding that the earth continues to green as a result of increased CO2 and warmer temperatures...why don't you wack jobs want the earth to green and flourish?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  9. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    16,617
    Thanks Received:
    1,806
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +10,289
    Did you notice that her SS "evidence" is damned near 7 years old? All the new research based on actual observation as opposed to models finds that the earth started greening back in the 80's and continues and is expected to continue. One has to wonder why alarmist wackos are opposed to a greener earth...
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  10. Billy_Bob
    Offline

    Billy_Bob Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2014
    Messages:
    20,432
    Thanks Received:
    4,466
    Trophy Points:
    1,010
    Location:
    Top Of The Great Divide
    Ratings:
    +22,815
    upload_2019-12-7_20-38-7.png

    Now how silly are these people?
     

Share This Page