Tropical forests are now emitting more carbon than oxygen, alarming new study finds

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh, so now he won part of a Nobel Prize, but it wasn't for science. LOL So you lied about it in the first place. LOL Gee, Toddy boi, you seem to have a problem with truth.

Oh, so now he won part of a Nobel Prize,

He did? How large was his share of the money?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh, so now he won part of a Nobel Prize, but it wasn't for science. LOL So you lied about it in the first place. LOL Gee, Toddy boi, you seem to have a problem with truth.

Oh, so now he won part of a Nobel Prize,

He did? How large was his share of the money?

Who cares? He has been lying to get rich all his life, he didn't need it, just ask you.

 

[westwall]

Now Toddy, have you ever been a major part of anything that won a major prize such as the Nobel Prize? I would bet not. Dr. Mann was a major figure in the writing of the paper that won the Nobel Prize.

Now Dr. Mann is considered one of the premier scientists in this discipline in the world. Are you even considered competent in your job? I really love the way you willfully ignorant 'Conservative' asses try to discredit people that have made real contributions to society, while they, the 'Conservatives' are doing all they can to tear down society.

Your hero, mann, LIED about being a Nobel recipient. There is no rational way to explain that away. He's a liar, and PROVABLY so. If he weren't, he wouldn't have removed the claim from his bio.

Game. Set. Match.

The IPCC won the prize, and they acknowledged him, by name, as a contributor. Boy oh boy, you really got him there. This loser is merely a "contributor" to nobel prize winning work, and not the direct recipient. Yeah boy, you sure are awesome next to him. As evidenced by your zero published science in any of these fields. You bristle at the slightest mention that, oh just maybe, you are both being dishonest and migjt not have a clue what you are talking about. When this happens, we all get treated to a synopsis of your resume (real or imagined) and a blubbering counterattack.


Yet here you are, trying to discredit a lifelong scientist (and all of the science, let's not play coy about that) . Trust me , this accomplished man would not throw a hissy like you do, should he find you questioning his honesty and competence. He doesnt need to....his work speaks for itself.

He claimed in his bio to be a Nobel recipient. The fact that you continue to carry his water shows me that you are as unethical as he is.

 

[westwall]

Now Toddy, have you ever been a major part of anything that won a major prize such as the Nobel Prize? I would bet not. Dr. Mann was a major figure in the writing of the paper that won the Nobel Prize.

Now Dr. Mann is considered one of the premier scientists in this discipline in the world. Are you even considered competent in your job? I really love the way you willfully ignorant 'Conservative' asses try to discredit people that have made real contributions to society, while they, the 'Conservatives' are doing all they can to tear down society.

Your hero, mann, LIED about being a Nobel recipient. There is no rational way to explain that away. He's a liar, and PROVABLY so. If he weren't, he wouldn't have removed the claim from his bio.

Game. Set. Match.

The IPCC won the prize, and they acknowledged him, by name, as a contributor. Boy oh boy, you really got him there. This loser is merely a "contributor" to nobel prize winning work, and not the direct recipient. Yeah boy, you sure are awesome next to him. As evidenced by your zero published science in any of these fields. You bristle at the slightest mention that, oh just maybe, you are both being dishonest and migjt not have a clue what you are talking about. When this happens, we all get treated to a synopsis of your resume (real or imagined) and a blubbering counterattack.


Yet here you are, trying to discredit a lifelong scientist (and all of the science, let's not play coy about that) . Trust me , this accomplished man would not throw a hissy like you do, should he find you questioning his honesty and competence. He doesnt need to....his work speaks for itself.

This loser is merely a "contributor" to nobel prize winning work, and not the direct recipient. Yeah boy, you sure are awesome next to him. As evidenced by your zero published science in any of these fields.

The Nobel Prize wasn't for science.

Correct, it was not specifically for science. It was even bigger than that. It was for compiling and disseminating the gained scientific knowledge, and how to use it. That knowledge was, among other things, Mann's scientific work.

"The Nobel Peace Prize 2007 was awarded jointly to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr. "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change"

Yes manns "contribution" was his now infamous hockey stick fraud. What a farce.

 

[Old Rocks]

The hockey stick has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies. Including one done by the National Academy of Sciences. You, and people like you are the fraud, Mr. Westwall.

 

[westwall]

The hockey stick has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies. Including one done by the National Academy of Sciences. You, and people like you are the fraud, Mr. Westwall.

No, it hasn't. It has been confirmed using the same bullshit "data" that mann created. There has been nothing proved other than he's a fraud, and anyone who uses his crap data is likewise a fraud.

 

[SSDD]

The hockey stick has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies. Including one done by the National Academy of Sciences. You, and people like you are the fraud, Mr. Westwall.

No, it hasn't. It has been confirmed using the same bullshit "data" that mann created. There has been nothing proved other than he's a fraud, and anyone who uses his crap data is likewise a fraud.

Amazing isn't it? That there are people so uninformed as to still believe in the hockey stick...didn't the IPCC drop it from their program because it has been debunked so many times?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The hockey stick has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies. Including one done by the National Academy of Sciences. You, and people like you are the fraud, Mr. Westwall.

Correct, it has been confirmed. Many times over.

 

[Old Rocks]

The hockey stick has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies. Including one done by the National Academy of Sciences. You, and people like you are the fraud, Mr. Westwall.

No, it hasn't. It has been confirmed using the same bullshit "data" that mann created. There has been nothing proved other than he's a fraud, and anyone who uses his crap data is likewise a fraud.

Crap, Mr. Westwall. You are certainly a lying fuck.

Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong

 

[westwall]

The hockey stick has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies. Including one done by the National Academy of Sciences. You, and people like you are the fraud, Mr. Westwall.

No, it hasn't. It has been confirmed using the same bullshit "data" that mann created. There has been nothing proved other than he's a fraud, and anyone who uses his crap data is likewise a fraud.

Crap, Mr. Westwall. You are certainly a lying fuck.

Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong

I hate to break it to you but a blog, run by a cartoonist, and funded by the very asshat who created the hockey puck, is not a compelling argument. Get real dude. Talk about your ultimate biased source.

 

[Old Rocks]

The hockey stick has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies. Including one done by the National Academy of Sciences. You, and people like you are the fraud, Mr. Westwall.

No, it hasn't. It has been confirmed using the same bullshit "data" that mann created. There has been nothing proved other than he's a fraud, and anyone who uses his crap data is likewise a fraud.

Crap, Mr. Westwall. You are certainly a lying fuck.

Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong

I hate to break it to you but a blog, run by a cartoonist, and funded by the very asshat who created the hockey puck, is not a compelling argument. Get real dude. Talk about your ultimate biased source.

And you are one fucked up liar. Yellow line, Crowley;

Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years | Science

Abstract
Recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and climate forcing over the past 1000 years allow the warming of the 20th century to be placed within a historical context and various mechanisms of climate change to be tested. Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to those of control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models' value as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ∼1000-year time series results in a residual with a very large late-20th-century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system. A 21st-century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the past 1000 years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial.

 

[westwall]

The hockey stick has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies. Including one done by the National Academy of Sciences. You, and people like you are the fraud, Mr. Westwall.

No, it hasn't. It has been confirmed using the same bullshit "data" that mann created. There has been nothing proved other than he's a fraud, and anyone who uses his crap data is likewise a fraud.

Crap, Mr. Westwall. You are certainly a lying fuck.

Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong

I hate to break it to you but a blog, run by a cartoonist, and funded by the very asshat who created the hockey puck, is not a compelling argument. Get real dude. Talk about your ultimate biased source.

And you are one fucked up liar. Yellow line, Crowley;

Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years | Science

Abstract
Recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and climate forcing over the past 1000 years allow the warming of the 20th century to be placed within a historical context and various mechanisms of climate change to be tested. Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to those of control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models' value as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ∼1000-year time series results in a residual with a very large late-20th-century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system. A 21st-century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the past 1000 years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial.

Wow, you're pretty fucking stupid. Here is the operative sentence. They compare "observations" but don't tell you how they were gathered, with a model. Yet more science fiction. When will you ever learn.

Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism.

 

[Old Rocks]

Trees tell of past climates: but are they speaking less clearly today?
K. R. Briffa, F. H Schweingruber, P. D. Jones, T. J. Osborn, I. C. Harris, S. G. Shiyatov, E. A. Vaganov, H. Grudd
Published 29 January 1998.DOI: 10.1098/rstb.1998.0191

• Article
• Info & Metrics
• eLetters
• PDF

Abstract
The annual growth of trees, as represented by a variety of ring–width, densitometric, or chemical parameters, represents a combined record of different environmental forcings, one of which is climate. Along with climate, relatively large–scale positive growth influences such as hypothesized ‘fertilizationrsquo; due to increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide or various nitrogenous compounds, or possibly deleterious effects of ‘acid rain’ or increased ultra–violet radiation, might all be expected to exert some influence on recent tree growth rates. Inferring the details of past climate variability from tree–ring data remains a largely empirical exercise, but one that goes hand–in–hand with the development of techniques that seek to identify and isolate the confounding influence of local and larger–scale non–climatic factors.

By judicious sampling, and the use of rigorous statistical procedures, dendroclimatology has provided unique insight into the nature of past climate variability, but most significantly at interannual, decadal, and centennial timescales. Here, examples are shown that illustrate the reconstruction of annually resolved patterns of past summer temperature around the Northern Hemisphere, as well as some more localized reconstructions, but ones which span 1000 years or more. These data provide the means of exploring the possible role of different climate forcings; for example, they provide evidence of the large–scale effects of explosive volcanic eruptions on regional and hemispheric temperatures during the last 400 years.

However, a dramatic change in the sensitivity of hemispheric tree–growth to temperature forcing has become apparent during recent decades, and there is additional evidence of major tree–growth (and hence, probably, ecosystem biomass) increases in the northern boreal forests, most clearly over the last century. These possibly anthropogenically related changes in the ecology of tree growth have important implications for modelling future atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Also, where dendroclimatology is concerned to reconstruct longer (increasingly above centennial) temperature histories, such alterations of ‘normal’ (pre–industrial) tree–growth rates and climate–growth relationships must be accounted for in our attempts to translate the evidence of past tree growth changes.

| Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Now Mr. Westwall, do you want me to go through each line, and show the scientific study from which they are derived. Jones is the red line.

 

[Old Rocks]

The hockey stick has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies. Including one done by the National Academy of Sciences. You, and people like you are the fraud, Mr. Westwall.

No, it hasn't. It has been confirmed using the same bullshit "data" that mann created. There has been nothing proved other than he's a fraud, and anyone who uses his crap data is likewise a fraud.

Crap, Mr. Westwall. You are certainly a lying fuck.

Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong

I hate to break it to you but a blog, run by a cartoonist, and funded by the very asshat who created the hockey puck, is not a compelling argument. Get real dude. Talk about your ultimate biased source.

And you are one fucked up liar. Yellow line, Crowley;

Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years | Science

Abstract
Recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and climate forcing over the past 1000 years allow the warming of the 20th century to be placed within a historical context and various mechanisms of climate change to be tested. Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to those of control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models' value as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ∼1000-year time series results in a residual with a very large late-20th-century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system. A 21st-century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the past 1000 years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial.

Wow, you're pretty fucking stupid. Here is the operative sentence. They compare "observations" but don't tell you how they were gathered, with a model. Yet more science fiction. When will you ever learn.

Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism.

In other words, you are not going to accept anything published by real working scientists. I think that most intelligent people favor the scientists over anonymous posters on a 'Conservative' message board.

 

[westwall]

No, it hasn't. It has been confirmed using the same bullshit "data" that mann created. There has been nothing proved other than he's a fraud, and anyone who uses his crap data is likewise a fraud.

Crap, Mr. Westwall. You are certainly a lying fuck.

Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong

I hate to break it to you but a blog, run by a cartoonist, and funded by the very asshat who created the hockey puck, is not a compelling argument. Get real dude. Talk about your ultimate biased source.

And you are one fucked up liar. Yellow line, Crowley;

Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years | Science

Abstract
Recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and climate forcing over the past 1000 years allow the warming of the 20th century to be placed within a historical context and various mechanisms of climate change to be tested. Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to those of control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models' value as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ∼1000-year time series results in a residual with a very large late-20th-century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system. A 21st-century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the past 1000 years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial.

Wow, you're pretty fucking stupid. Here is the operative sentence. They compare "observations" but don't tell you how they were gathered, with a model. Yet more science fiction. When will you ever learn.

Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism.

In other words, you are not going to accept anything published by real working scientists. I think that most intelligent people favor the scientists over anonymous posters on a 'Conservative' message board.

No, I am not going to accept anything that is primarily based on computer derived fiction. Real scientists understand that models aren't data. Anyone who claims they are is either an imbecile, or dishonest as hell. I'll let you choose which one you are.

 

[SSDD]

The fact is rocks...that GOLD STANDARD temperature reconstructions derived from ice cores from both the arctic and antarctic show us that most of the past 10,000 years have been warmer than the present...and trees, and settlements turning up as glaciers retreat demonstrate that fact. The myopic short term view taken by alarmist pseudoscientists simply is not supported by what we know about the past.

 

[Two Thumbs]

There are more trees now than there were 100 years ago.


In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920." The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival.

 

[gipper]

Crap, Mr. Westwall. You are certainly a lying fuck.

Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong

I hate to break it to you but a blog, run by a cartoonist, and funded by the very asshat who created the hockey puck, is not a compelling argument. Get real dude. Talk about your ultimate biased source.

And you are one fucked up liar. Yellow line, Crowley;

Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years | Science

Abstract
Recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and climate forcing over the past 1000 years allow the warming of the 20th century to be placed within a historical context and various mechanisms of climate change to be tested. Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to those of control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models' value as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ∼1000-year time series results in a residual with a very large late-20th-century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system. A 21st-century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the past 1000 years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial.

Wow, you're pretty fucking stupid. Here is the operative sentence. They compare "observations" but don't tell you how they were gathered, with a model. Yet more science fiction. When will you ever learn.

Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism.

In other words, you are not going to accept anything published by real working scientists. I think that most intelligent people favor the scientists over anonymous posters on a 'Conservative' message board.

No, I am not going to accept anything that is primarily based on computer derived fiction. Real scientists understand that models aren't data. Anyone who claims they are is either an imbecile, or dishonest as hell. I'll let you choose which one you are.

He's both.

 

[gipper]

The hockey stick has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies. Including one done by the National Academy of Sciences. You, and people like you are the fraud, Mr. Westwall.

No, it hasn't. It has been confirmed using the same bullshit "data" that mann created. There has been nothing proved other than he's a fraud, and anyone who uses his crap data is likewise a fraud.

Amazing isn't it? That there are people so uninformed as to still believe in the hockey stick...didn't the IPCC drop it from their program because it has been debunked so many times?

Well he is an enormous DUPE...so there is that.

 

[gipper]

The hockey stick has been confirmed by more than a dozen independent studies. Including one done by the National Academy of Sciences. You, and people like you are the fraud, Mr. Westwall.

No, it hasn't. It has been confirmed using the same bullshit "data" that mann created. There has been nothing proved other than he's a fraud, and anyone who uses his crap data is likewise a fraud.

Crap, Mr. Westwall. You are certainly a lying fuck.

Climate myths: The ‘hockey stick’ graph has been proven wrong

I hate to break it to you but a blog, run by a cartoonist, and funded by the very asshat who created the hockey puck, is not a compelling argument. Get real dude. Talk about your ultimate biased source.

And you are one fucked up liar. Yellow line, Crowley;

Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years | Science

Abstract
Recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and climate forcing over the past 1000 years allow the warming of the 20th century to be placed within a historical context and various mechanisms of climate change to be tested. Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to those of control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models' value as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the ∼1000-year time series results in a residual with a very large late-20th-century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system. A 21st-century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the past 1000 years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial.

Wow, you're pretty fucking stupid. Here is the operative sentence. They compare "observations" but don't tell you how they were gathered, with a model. Yet more science fiction. When will you ever learn.

Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism.

We do know two things for certain and simulations are not necessary to prove these two things.

One...AGW is a hoax designed to enrich and empower government.

Two...OldCrotch is really fucking stupid.