OH YEA??? Well this guy is so disputed by "settled Science"!!!

[jc456]

The combustion of fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide.

dead plants produce carbon dioxide. Now what?

 

[healthmyths]

To you pasting up the entire contents of Trump's personal claim to fame? Yeah, that's my retort. Pretty funny that in a thread that's devolved into a discussion of journalistic ojectivity, you thought pulling out the biggest liar in a good chunk of the world's recorded history was a good tactic. Just in general, I think you should take a bit of a lesson from the fact that I've been able to make pertinent responses to your posts with about one one-hundredth the byte load. Put in a little more thought and little less loud graphics and unrelated filler.

Again do you really think anyone believes YOU? Zero proof that "Trump..biggest liar in a good chunk of the world's recorded history"
What a truly dumb ass comment especially from someone who SUPPOSEDLY has a BSc in Ocean Engineering! If this comment is representative of your work output... wow.., "gross exaggeration"... NO proof... how pathetic.
You have made ZERO! Where are your links especially with a comment like biggest liar in a good chunk of the world's recorded history"!
Just another example of your tendency to hyperbole and with NO proof!

 

[healthmyths]

Hahahaaaa.... I suspect there may be other reasons for the lack of response.

That you sound like a fruitcake? Just kidding. I found 640 trees per person and so from the world population I get 5.318 trillion trees. Healthy forests run 165-170 trees per acre. That gives me 31,750,000,000 acres. The area of the United States, including Alaska and Hawaii, is 2,400,000,000 acres. So all you need is to find an location slightly in excess of 13 times the area of all 50 states that can support a forest but that currently has none and plant the whole thing at 167.5 trees per acre. Of course, you'll need about 6 trillion healthy seedlings.. So, yeah, what IS the problem?

A more pertinent fact is that prior to the modern era, for the entire existence of homo sapiens on this planet, CO2 levels had never exceeded 300 ppm. Noting that CO2 *briefly* hit 7,000 ppm 600 million years ago is about as meaningful as noting the CO2 levels on Venus or Mars.

NOTE: No it would not. A couple points. 1) You need to melt the poles before you get the slowing effect that you're suggesting is causing the warming that would melt the poles. 2) Slowing the Earth's rotation will not increase the Earth's temperature. For every extra millisecond of daylight, you'd get an extra millisecond of nighttime. The Sun's heating of the Earth is determined by the Earth's albedo and it's distance from the sun. Melting the poles will decrease our albedo and cause us to warm faster, but, as noted in #1, you first have to have the heat to melt the poles.

Oh pleee-uzzz not this shite again.

So... do a little more thinking before setting fingers to keys, okay?

What was your source for this comment:

I found 640 trees per person and so from the world population I get 5.318 trillion trees.

A brief search shows your seat of the pants, wild ass guess "640" trees is WRONG!

The most recent forest evaluations rely on satellite images to determine tree cover. Forests occupy 30% of the Earth’s total area and are home to over a billion trees, and the current world’s tree population is estimated at more than 3 trillion.
A recent Yale University study found that for every person on the planet, there are around 422 trees.

How Many Trees Are in the World? By Country, Type, Year (Updated 2023)

How Many Trees Are in the World? How Many Trees in the US? How Many Trees in South America? Current Forest Rates Based On Satellite Data.

8billiontrees.com

 

[Concerned American]

dead plants produce carbon dioxide. Now what?

Also nitrogen which makes up 78% of the air we breathe. Also promotes growth of new plants.

 

[Crick]

What was your source for this comment:

I didn't write it down. Mea Culpa. But here we get 730 trees/person

https://iee.psu.edu/news/blog/how-many-trees-are-needed-take-carbon-dioxide-i-release-every-day#:~:text=If%20you%20add%20up%20all,7%20acres%20of%20forested%20land.

This one says 725-1000 trees/person

How Many Trees Needed to Offset Your Carbon Emissions?

Trees are crucial for the environment, but also for ending global warming. How many trees are needed to offset carbon emissions?

8billiontrees.com

This one says 6 trees/month per person

Individuals Can Offset Their Own CO2 Emissions by Planting Six Trees Per Month

The platform Tree-Nation has planted five million trees on four continents with the help of more than 130,000 individuals and 2,200 companies...

www.globenewswire.com

So, it varies. This last article pointed out that humans produce about 6 tons of CO2 per year (global average) but that Europeans produce about 9 tons, so there is some significant variation around the globe.

A brief search shows your seat of the pants, wild ass guess "640" trees is WRONG!

The most recent forest evaluations rely on satellite images to determine tree cover. Forests occupy 30% of the Earth’s total area and are home to over a billion trees, and the current world’s tree population is estimated at more than 3 trillion.
A recent Yale University study found that for every person on the planet, there are around 422 trees.

How Many Trees Are in the World? By Country, Type, Year (Updated 2023)

How Many Trees Are in the World? How Many Trees in the US? How Many Trees in South America? Current Forest Rates Based On Satellite Data.

8billiontrees.com

That is not what I was saying. I had done a search asking how many trees would compensate for the CO2 produced by a single person. 640 trees was the answer in the first link Google came up with.

 

[ding]

Can't wait to see the predictable surprises of man's efforts to control the planet's climate.

 

[Crick]

Can't wait to see the predictable surprises of man's efforts to control the planet's climate.

We've already seen it but you might not with your head in the sand like that.

 

[healthmyths]

I didn't write it down. Mea Culpa. But here we get 730 trees/person

https://iee.psu.edu/news/blog/how-many-trees-are-needed-take-carbon-dioxide-i-release-every-day#:~:text=If%20you%20add%20up%20all,7%20acres%20of%20forested%20land.

This one says 725-1000 trees/person

How Many Trees Needed to Offset Your Carbon Emissions?

Trees are crucial for the environment, but also for ending global warming. How many trees are needed to offset carbon emissions?

8billiontrees.com

This one says 6 trees/month per person

Individuals Can Offset Their Own CO2 Emissions by Planting Six Trees Per Month

The platform Tree-Nation has planted five million trees on four continents with the help of more than 130,000 individuals and 2,200 companies...

www.globenewswire.com

So, it varies. This last article pointed out that humans produce about 6 tons of CO2 per year (global average) but that Europeans produce about 9 tons, so there is some significant variation around the globe.

That is not what I was saying. I had done a search asking how many trees would compensate for the CO2 produced by a single person. 640 trees was the answer in the first link Google came up with.

Then why didn't you provide the link in the first place? So simple to do and I wouldn't have responded as I did!
Come on you have a BSc (I assume...?) didn't you learn to substantiate in college? Wild guesses, estimates, that's what I didn't learn in college.
That was for the drama departments!

 

[Crick]

I am currently, simultaneously arguing with roughly a dozen different people across 15 or 20 threads. At one and the same time, I have an actual life. This may not be a perfectly objective finding but I think I do better than most folks on this forum as regards substantiation. There are some folks here who make outrageous claims and never provide ANY references or sources. I can't say as I've caught you criticizing Westwall or jc456 or Ding for such things. Why not? What have I done to rate such special treatment?

 

[jc456]

I am currently, simultaneously arguing with roughly a dozen different people across 15 or 20 threads. At one and the same time, I have an actual life. This may not be a perfectly objective finding but I think I do better than most folks on this forum as regards substantiation. There are some folks here who make outrageous claims and never provide ANY references or sources. I can't say as I've caught you criticizing Westwall or jc456 or Ding for such things. Why not? What have I done to rate such special treatment?

It’s called critical thinking. Are you opposed to that?

Go to the 8 minute mark

 

[healthmyths]

I am currently, simultaneously arguing with roughly a dozen different people across 15 or 20 threads. At one and the same time, I have an actual life. This may not be a perfectly objective finding but I think I do better than most folks on this forum as regards substantiation. There are some folks here who make outrageous claims and never provide ANY references or sources. I can't say as I've caught you criticizing Westwall or jc456 or Ding for such things. Why not? What have I done to rate such special treatment?

You are really dumb! I can't believe you ever got a BSc in ocean engineering!
A)... Have you read all of Westwall,Jc456 and Ding's comments regarding MY comments? Really ?
Well if you have then I am questioning your "actual life" time expenditures.
B)... Hmmm... I don't recall responding to any comments of Westwall,Jc456 and Ding's that were as incorrect as yours have been due to NOT providing substantiation.
C) Now if Westwall,Jc456 and Ding's were making negative comments as you did, I might have responded.
D) So consequently I don't believe Westwall,Jc456 and Ding's made sufficient negative comments about my comments as YOU have done to deserve the same responses I've given you. Again, my biggest issue with you
is you making totally unsubstantiated comments... i.e. 640 trees, etc. you did then provide a link but only evidently after my prodding!

 

[Crick]

You are really dumb! I can't believe you ever got a BSc in ocean engineering!

That didn't take long.

A)... Have you read all of Westwall,Jc456 and Ding's comments regarding MY comments? Really ?
Well if you have then I am questioning your "actual life" time expenditures.
B)... Hmmm... I don't recall responding to any comments of Westwall,Jc456 and Ding's that were as incorrect as yours have been due to NOT providing substantiation.
C) Now if Westwall,Jc456 and Ding's were making negative comments as you did, I might have responded.
D) So consequently I don't believe Westwall,Jc456 and Ding's made sufficient negative comments about my comments as YOU have done to deserve the same responses I've given you. Again, my biggest issue with you
is you making totally unsubstantiated comments... i.e. 640 trees, etc. you did then provide a link but only evidently after my prodding!

Substantiantion does not make a contention true or false, only pending.

 

[ding]

We've already seen it but you might not with your head in the sand like that.

That's hilarious. Your head is buried up your ass.

Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider. For instance, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports. In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions. On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural. On the right, only rural stations are used. Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming. On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Here is the link to the full paper.
ShieldSquare Captcha

 

[healthmyths]

That didn't take long.

Substantiantion does not make a contention true or false, only pending.

Substantiating improves a reader's creditability of the author of the statements.
I personally dismiss any statement made such as what you made...
" found 640 trees per person "
But you after my reminding you did provide the source. So why not do it in the first place?
Consequently uninformed readers won't at least think.."another number pulled from Cricket's ass!"
It takes less time to copy the link for your source then what you did i.e. make a comment then after
confronting by me you then provided the source...why not just do it the first time? Saves me time and more importantly improves your believability.

 

[jc456]

That didn't take long.

Substantiantion does not make a contention true or false, only pending.

Still waiting on the names of the climate guys

 

[Crick]

Substantiating improves a reader's creditability of the author of the statements.

That's not what you said. You said " incorrect as yours have been due to NOT providing substantiation".

It takes less time to copy the link for your source then what you did i.e. make a comment then after
confronting by me you then provided the source...why not just do it the first time? Saves me time and more importantly improves your believability.

I should have. But, since the number I used was conservative and if I'd used the estimates from the three other sources it would have made Ding's suggestions even more ridiculous.

 

[jc456]

I should have. But, since the number I used was conservative and if I'd used the estimates from the three other sources it would have

You made it up? Hahaha

 

[bripat9643]

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists say humans are causing climate change.
Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus.

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And REMEMBER... if Wikipedia.org says it's true??? WELL... here is one credentialed EXPERT who disagrees with "settled science".

His works can be seen on his own site RealClimateScience.com and on various other climate change sites.

After all this time, Heller has come to the conclusion that the level of warming the planet is seeing is mild or perhaps nonexistent.

Heller believes the waste from nuclear energy production is a much larger problem than pro-nuclear people make it out to be,
and the answer to satisfying the world’s energy needs is to just keep burning fossil fuels.

Despite the contrarian viewpoint, Heller’s opinions aren’t disregarded in the climate world. His credentials run deep in many scientific fields.
“Google Earth has this great feature where we can look at historical imagery for the Grinnell Glacier. It’s grown quite a bit, actually,” Heller said.
“The Park Service won’t admit it.”

Keep Burning Fossil Fuels, Says Wyoming Climate Change Skeptic

Cheyenne author, geologist, computer scientist, and environmentalist Tony Heller is a contrarian in national climate circles. He believes that carbon dioxide is not producing any meaningful warming and since CO2 is not a problem, he says we should just keep using fossil fuels.

cowboystatedaily.com

And today... from this definitely NOT a weather expert... please someone explain this as "Climate Change"...
OH... here it is..
It may seem counterintuitive, but more snowfall during snowstorms is an expected effect of climate change. That’s because a warmer planet is evaporating more water into the atmosphere. That added moisture means more precipitation in the form of heavy snowfall or downpours.1

During warmer months, this can cause record-breaking floods. But during the winter – when our part of the world is tipped away from the sun – temperatures drop, and instead of downpours we can get massive winter storms.

In a warming world, why so much snow?

Here’s how a warming planet fuels fiercer snowstorms, even as overall snowfall declines and the snow season shrinks.

www.edf.org

The 97% figure is horseshit.

Global warming: the 97% fallacy

 

[healthmyths]

You made it up? Hahaha

Hey... I liked his made up number as it just increased the amount of CO2 absorbed according to him from 3 trillion trees @ 48 lbs or 72 billion tons of Co2 absorbed to
127.632 billion tons of Co2 by 5.1 trillion trees, thus more than enough to cover all the Co2.
So you add up the below and get Net of emitted of 800 gigaton But 788 absorbed, so using Crick's number there are 127 billion tons absorbed...more than enough!

 

[Crick]

The 97% figure is horseshit.

Global warming: the 97% fallacy

You're right. It's over 99%
From Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[149] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[151]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[152] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]

References
2. Powell, James Lawrence (20 November 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 37 (4): 183–184. doi:10.1177/0270467619886266. S2CID 213454806. Retrieved 15 November 2020.
3. ^ Jump up to:a b Lynas, Mark; Houlton, Benjamin Z.; Perry, Simon (19 October 2021). "Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (11): 114005. Bibcode:2021ERL....16k4005L. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966. S2CID 239032360.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b c Myers, Krista F.; Doran, Peter T.; Cook, John; Kotcher, John E.; Myers, Teresa A. (20 October 2021). "Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years later". Environmental Research Letters. 16 (10): 104030. Bibcode:2021ERL....16j4030M. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774. S2CID 239047650.
149. Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
150. ^ Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 14 February 2014.
151. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (1 October 2015). "Climate Scientists Virtually Unanimous Anthropogenic Global Warming Is True". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 35 (5–6): 121–124. doi:10.1177/0270467616634958. ISSN 0270-4676.
152. ^ Powell, James Lawrence (24 May 2017). "The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming Matters". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society. 36 (3): 157–163. doi:10.1177/0270467617707079. S2CID 148618842.
153. ^ Ramanujan, Krishna. "More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change". Cornell Chronicle. Environmental Research Letters. Retrieved 20 October 2021.