Study shows increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is lower than predicted because of plants

forest
Credit: Wikipedia.

A team of researchers in the U.S. claims that climate models used to predict the rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are approximately 17 percent too high because they incorrectly approximate how much CO2 plants pull from the atmosphere. In their paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team describes how they studied the ability of plants to absorb increased amounts of CO2 and discovered that they are capable of pulling more out of the atmosphere than has been previously thought and the difference is approximately equal to the error difference reported by simulation models.

Plants, as most people learn in grade-school, use light as part of the photosynthesis process to convert the suns' energy into energy the plant can use to grow—oxygen is then emitted as a byproduct. What's not really clear is how in general respond to the presence of more CO2 in the air. Prior research has shown that some plants grow bigger, which tends to cause them to take in more CO2.

Recently, it's come to light that have on average been off a little bit in predicting how much CO2 is being added to the by man-made processes. More specifically, over the years, 1901 to 2010, that error rate has been found to be on average 17 percent too high, and scientists have been racing to figure out why.

In this new effort, the researchers took a new look at the photosynthesis process and how it might be altered in the presence of increasingly higher concentrations of CO2. They found that as CO2 levels rose, plants altered the way they processed the gas, saving more of it to use as a fertilizer, which allowed the plants to grow bigger or to become more robust, which in the end meant more CO2 was taken out of the atmosphere. Not coincidently, the researchers note, their research showed that when plants were exposed to the same higher levels of CO2 as actually occurred over the past century, they were able to absorb on average 16 percent more CO2, which very nearly coincides with the 17 percent error difference earth scientists have found with their climate models.

The research team suggests their results indicate that climate models need to be modified to take proper account of the behavior of plants as CO2 levels rise.


Explore further

Arctic sea ice helps remove CO2 from the atmosphere

More information: www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/10/10/1418075111

© 2014 Phys.org

Citation: Study shows increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is lower than predicted because of plants (2014, October 14) retrieved 22 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-10-co2-atmosphere.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
3045 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 14, 2014
Awesome! That means we can pollute 17% more!

Oct 14, 2014
Does that mean we get to build 17% of the Keystone pipeline?

Oct 14, 2014
Trolololol

Awesome! That means we can pollute 17% more!


Actually, as Dyson explains in his most recent interview, easily Googled, a minimum of 15% of plant growth is attributable to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. He suggests increasing atmospheric CO2 to increase food supplies.

He is smarter than all of you, knows more about climate, climate modeling, climate forcing and CO2 than any, or all, of you.

The polar bears will be fine. Stop listening to the Reds dressed in green whose only goal is to control the means of production by scaring the idiots to numbed inaction through their tales of TEOTWAWKI (see John Kerry-Heinz's recent comments about ending the world).

PS3
Oct 14, 2014
Trolololol

Awesome! That means we can pollute 17% more!


Actually, as Dyson explains in his most recent interview, easily Googled, a minimum of 15% of plant growth is attributable to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. He suggests increasing atmospheric CO2 to increase food supplies.

All kinds of growers have done this forever. They jack the ppm up to like 1000 and get 30 percent higher yield.

Oct 14, 2014
I thought the science was settled? Oh wait, the more we learn ..... the more we know how much we don't know..... the more we find out about AGW assumptions is that these assumptions are just assumptions done by Democrats and Progressives to tax more, give more money to their supporters (who by the way give generous kickbacks back to these Progressives and Democrats) and allow them to go in their private jets to exotic locations for vacations (oopps I mean conferences).

A Vote for a democrat is a vote for corruption.

Oct 14, 2014
This article is obviously a red herring to distract from disastrous modeling from certain scientists on climate.

It's beyond incredulous that scientists are "just now measuring" CO2 levels in the atmosphere and discovering errors in the amount there, and just recognizing the amount of CO2 plants take in. Maybe climate scientists need to spend more time with botanists.

More political hacks trying to steer the argument back to global warming. Duh, we made a mistake, now we realize 1+1=2

Oct 14, 2014
This is an obvious observation. My teachers got this across in middle school.The problem is we are extracting and burning and moving C02 from the crust of our earth and using it to deforest almost half the earth. And is some cases (in the Alberta tar sands) we are deforesting on a scale never before seen, beyond natural disasters, to get to the stored carbon.

It has most often been the case, in recent and not so recent history, that the collapse of "civilization"s (which I could argue is just humanisitc cult like behavior on a grandiose scale that coincides with unsustainable population density increase) follows deforestation. Our forests and other extremely biodynamic areas of our world are undoubtedly our best defense in sequestering carbon as well as cleaning our air and water, to be more balanced more closely to that which our bodies and ecologies thrive. We protect our forests we protect ourselves, collectively! Plant and care for trees! Permaculture!

Oct 14, 2014
A Vote for a democrat is a vote for corruption
@free-from-thought
no, a vote for a politician is a vote for corruption
the more we find out about AGW assumptions is that these assumptions are just assumptions done by Democrats and Progressives to tax more, ...(oopps I mean conferences)
Your conspiracy theory is showing
how does this explain the REST of the world scientists?
IT DOESN'T, moron http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
but we DO have a scientific study (not a political one) showing where the big oil/business is trying to corrupt science in order to get rich: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

per your own logic, this is irrefutable proof that you work for the denial effort paid by BIG$$$$

you've shown NO science refuting AGW studies to date

Oct 14, 2014
"than has been previously thought"

For a settled science I've sure seen the phrase and awful lot lately.

Oct 14, 2014
"than has been previously thought"

For a settled science I've sure seen the phrase and awful lot lately.

Obviously, you don't understand what that means.

Oct 14, 2014
"Recently, it's come to light that climate models have on average been off a little"
Who the hell are you trying to BeeEss. That's been off from the beginning.
♫There's nobull like GloBULL♫

Oct 14, 2014
Climate models have been a little off? More like WAY off, this shows that they are beginning to realize that people aren't buying their BS anymore and this is just an attempt to make it more credible. It won't work.

Oct 14, 2014
Capt'n S. many people have given studies to you that are contrary to the religion of AGW. Problem is the only studies you (and any radical AGW'st) will accept are ones that are approved by the AGW propagandists. No amount of proof will dissuade a true AGW believer like yourself....so I suggest you pay more carbon credit alms to Al Profit from AGW Gore.

Oct 14, 2014
For a settled science I've sure seen the phrase and awful lot lately
@nunnenkamp
are you another antiG sock-puppet?
first of all, you don't understand the phrase (as Maggnus points out)
second of all, you don't understand models
lastly, feel free to post some anti-AGW published papers from a reputable peer reviewed source that shows where the AGW models are wrong and that AGW is not occuring
This was even a web-site offering lots of cash recently... which the denier camp failed to prove (using the scientific method) that AGW is false
I am sure your "overwhelming evidence" is good, right? /sarc/
read the following: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
or
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
or
http://phys.org/n...ate.html

Oct 14, 2014
If that's true, then why are we still growing corn to convert into ethanol to run cars. Bear in mind that the corn that we use for food is now grown in Brazil on farmland created by clearcutting the Amazon Jungle.

It seems to me that the quickest way to help the environment is to stop using corn-based ethanol and use more gasoline.

Oct 14, 2014
many people have given studies to you that are contrary to the religion of AGW
@free-from-thought
AGW is SCIENCE, not a religion
your denier belief is a faith, which is the foundation of a religion, so of anything it is deniers of science who practice a religion
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Problem is the only studies you (and any radical AGW'st) will accept are ones that are approved by the AGW propagandists
nope. i want a peer reviewed published paper, which given the WORLD is out there, you should be able ot find something
the world can't agree on culture, let alone clothing or style, so there is no way to have a global conspiracy on science
No amount of proof will dissuade a true AGW believer like yourself
wrong
i believe in emprical data and SCIENCE
which means that the only people who cannot be dissuaded is the deniers of science
science changes my mind
you have nothing

Oct 14, 2014
THE MODEL is wrong?

reputable peer reviewed source

That's always your out isn't stupe?
And that's why the socialists need to control the media and the education system to control their 'facts'.

Oct 14, 2014
Who the hell are you trying to BeeEss. That's been off from the beginning
@TruGhost_OfBo
if you knew anything about science, you would know that models come with error bars and predictions with probabilities
you would also know that the models are currently within those error bars and probabilities
you are demonstrating your lack of scientific acumen
More like WAY off, this shows that they are beginning to realize that people aren't buying their BS anymore and this is just an attempt to make it more credible. It won't work
@dash0riprock
please show me the models that were wrong and explain to me how they were wrong given the error bars contained therein
feel free to post the refute here and then we can send it up to the original authors for review, thanks

Oct 14, 2014
"Capt'n S. many people have given studies to you that are contrary to the religion of AGW."

@freefromthinking has once again shown what an idiot he his.

Oct 14, 2014
I find this issue strange. Greenhouses have added CO2 to their atmospheres for nearly a century. have you ever wondered why the florist flowers are so much deeper in color and last longer thant the best flowers in your garden? The main reason is they typically triple the CO2. They do the same for hothouse vegetables as well. Yet the GW crowd has ignored this practice since the first. You would think this would be an important part of their research, but the fact that ALL the models are off means they are either ignorant as a group or it was intentional. Every major model ignored the CO2 absorption rates changes. Since plants are the agent that absorbs the CO2, that should be a critical issue.

Oct 14, 2014
As long as they keep destroying the rain forests of Brazil the higher the CO2 climbs. As soon as the Brazilians are forced to stop destroying the rain forests, even at the point of a bayonet if needs be, the sooner the CO2 levels will stabilize and even go down. I am amazed that, despite all the multitudinous levels of charge, scream and counter charge, no one ever addresses this most OBVIOUS of environmental issues. No green, no breathe.

Oct 14, 2014
This is what happens when your "science" is based on a dogma of doom and gloom.

Oct 14, 2014
I am glad to see an article that emphasizes the importance of deforestation.
-
I believe the emphasis solely on carbon is misguided at best; at worst it will lead to a tax on breathing (you exhale CO2).
-
The forests are being destroyed at a devastating rate; largely because of mechanization powered by fossil fuels.
-
Human activity is changing ecology and the diversity of life. Carbon is absolutely essential for life as we know it. Plants' ability to produce sugars, and store carbon in the soil is the foundation of all food webs. More carbon will actually lead to more biomass (if the forests are allowed to grow); more biomass means more food, and more potential people.
-
Though fossil fuels are not even close to a long term solution, our modern world depends immensely on inexpensive energy. The fossil fuels are a long term solar savings account (geological timescales). We are blowing through the stash as fast as we can find it (not a sound investment strategy).

Oct 14, 2014
The belief that co2 as 1/2500 of the total atmosphere could be causing havoc is a joke. You couldn't taste urine in your tea at that concentration. Of course we have an impact, we are not alien invaders, but we cannot do without fossil fuels at this time, and slashing co2 would be crippling to our economy and lifestyle.

Oct 14, 2014
Cool. It seem my practice of only exhaling on my ficus plant if paying off.

Oct 14, 2014
Wow, this sort of thing really brings all the crazies out. I'm not sure if any of them can Math at all, but if a model says we're 80% likely to be doomed, with a + or - 17% error margin, and they figure out what the error margin is caused by, that still means we're probably 63% doomed. Yes, obviously everything was wrong and we can go right back to just f'ing up the planet because we need more versions of the iPhone every year. *eyeroll* You people need to take your head out of your arses and keep your knee from jerking every time an article comes out that vaguely changes the story slightly. Science is about following the bouncing dot of evidence, not about taking one point it landed on and claiming victory of some kind. Anyone who even mentions the word "Belief" in their argument has zero credibility. You are some schmuck who works in a store or office cubical and you're wasting your employer's time denying what people who have decades of actual study have found found proof of.

Oct 14, 2014
THE MODEL is wrong?

To all the people grousing about climate models - the authors of this paper used a computer model, a Global Mesophyll Conductance Model. Since you are fair-minded people, I expect you to apply the same criticisms you've leveled at GCMs to this model as well.

Oct 14, 2014
rho is probably unaware of the multitude of cost-effective sources of power available to us now. And he seems to be uneducated in atmospheric dynamics.

The facts are we are killing our climate, disturbing the Stable State and forcing an instability that leads to a different Stable State. It is the way of complex and interacting systems. I suggest many of you look it up, and look into the alternatives we have to the present condition.

We integrated many alternative sources of power into our grid in the West in the late 1970's and throughout the 1980's, when I was with the utility. You can do it, too.

Oct 14, 2014
@ Shootost
"Actually, as Dyson explains in his most recent interview, easily Googled, a minimum of 15% of plant growth is attributable to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. He suggests increasing atmospheric CO2 to increase food supplies.

He is smarter than all of you, knows more about climate, climate modeling, climate forcing and CO2 than any, or all, of you."

Dyson admitted he is not schooled in Climatology.. his research has focused on observations in cosmology, stellar evolution, galactic astronomy, bulges, and stellar formation..

he is a great person and I admire him, but all he is, is a shill for the liberal agenda.. he has made a statement in the past that has came back and bit him in the butt, he was wrong and admitted.

So, he isnt that perfect.

Oct 14, 2014
"Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa"
"Week beginning on October 5, 2014: 395.48 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 393.29 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 374.03 ppm
Last updated: October 14, 2014"
http://www.esrl.n...kly.html

CO2 continues to rise in HI. Global temps do not.

So ...CO2 is NOT the well mixed gas assumed by AGWites?

Oct 14, 2014
I have been saying for many years that the earth is able to mitigate some of the CO2 because as it heats up more land becomes capable of plant growth for longer periods of time. On top of this the warmer it gets the less necessary it is to burn fossil fuel for heat. Seems like common sense.

Oct 14, 2014
My take away is that our ice age atmosphere is anemic in CO2 as evidenced by plants that obviously evolved and flourished in an atmosphere much more rich in CO2. That in itself makes nonsense of the notion that increasing the CO2 level in the atmosphere a few hundred percent will destroy the ecosphere and make the planet uninhabitable.

Oct 14, 2014
The increase of Carbon Dioxide is not necessarily good for most plants. Studies show a decrease in root growth and structure which leads to problems later on in efficacy.

Most of our fossil fuel use is not necessarily for heat, but transportation and electricity.

Tell Rggy to look up the ten hottest years and then tell us how the temperature is not increasing.

Oct 14, 2014
THE MODEL is wrong?

To all the people grousing about climate models - the authors of this paper used a computer model, a Global Mesophyll Conductance Model. Since you are fair-minded people, I expect you to apply the same criticisms you've leveled at GCMs to this model as well.

Ok, its all BS.

"Now, as the global-warming hiatus enters its sixteenth year,...."
http://www.nature...-1.14525

Oct 14, 2014
Did Rygg look up the ten hottest years?

Oct 14, 2014
File this under, duh!

And I bet the feds spent 10s of millions of dollars to figure this out.

Oct 14, 2014
He'll probably just ignore you and talk about 1930 again. Hey ryggy, the hottest years on record are basically all after 2000. Now please stop thinking you are right.

Oct 14, 2014
The ten hottest years are all from within the last 18 years. Hmmmmm. Must be some kind of trend towards a warmer planet, isn't there a term for that?

Oct 14, 2014
Co2 is lower than expected because some people are lying!~

Oct 14, 2014
The ten hottest years are all from within the last 18 years. Hmmmmm. Must be some kind of trend towards a warmer planet, isn't there a term for that?
We are coming out of an ice age so the last 20 years SHOULD be warmer tan the previous...HMMMMMM!

Oct 14, 2014
The ten hottest years are all from within the last 18 years. Hmmmmm. Must be some kind of trend towards a warmer planet, isn't there a term for that?
We are coming out of an ice age so the last 20 years SHOULD be warmer tan the previous...HMMMMMM!


Complete and utter bollocks my friend.....

http://also.kottk...temp.gif

Oct 14, 2014
To qualify my denial of the bollocks uttered by a certain jwbrighton with such stunning ignorance.
The current orbital characteristics of the Earth's orbit is such that the SH receives ~ 8% more solar energy than the NH in their respective summers.
FYI mr brighton, an ice age is initiated when the orbital cycle is such that the solar insolation in the higher latitudes of the NH is low enough to allow snow fields to survive one year to the next and it "comes out" of one when that insolation is again increasing.
The Earth is well past the point of "coming out" of an ice age, around 3000 years in fact.
Another deniers myth so easily debunked.

Oct 14, 2014
The belief that co2 as 1/2500 of the total atmosphere could be causing havoc is a joke. You couldn't taste urine in your tea at that concentration. Of course we have an impact, we are not alien invaders, but we cannot do without fossil fuels at this time, and slashing co2 would be crippling to our economy and lifestyle.


It's no joke sunshine, it's empirical science - and unarguable. Sorry about that.

I would be pleased for you to present your evidence that it does not do what it does in our atmosphere... and you would thereby win a Nobel.

So you think either the worlds experts are scamming the world or that they are incompetent and you know the science better.
And why would you know better?
Precisely.

Oct 14, 2014
@Feyn Man - "Hey ryggy, the hottest years on record are basically all after 2000. Now please stop thinking you are right."

And totally consistent with a planet that has warmed due, overwhelmingly, to natural causes. In addition, these "hottest years ... after 2000" define a flat temp trend that deviates noticeably from the 1975-2000 increasing-CO2-increasing-temp trend, implying that CO2's role in atmospheric warming is NOT well understood by alarmists. Now, please stop thinking you understand how the biosphere actually operates.

Oct 14, 2014
There is little reason for this article to have been published. We all know from high school biology that CO2 is plant food, necessary for photosynthesis. Additionally, we know from decades of measurement that about 50% of the CO2 emissions caused by mankind have not been accounted for. Climate science has not come very far in the last twenty years, and the sainted models have not been able to accurately re-create past temperatures, much less future global average temperatures.

Maybe it's good that somebody is finally taking a good look at the role of CO2 in the atmosphere and biosphere. Too bad they can never get it right.

Oct 14, 2014
CO2 continues to rise in HI. Global temps do not.
So ...CO2 is NOT the well mixed gas assumed by AGWites?

ryggy baby.
Since when has 3% of the climate body - which is what you refer to "global temps" been the sole measure of the Earth's temp?
That's like saying that the heat stored in your house is the just that of the air temp in the lounge even though you have a storage radiator or hot water tank that has sequestered heat away from the air. It is STILL part of the houses energy.
Global heat includes the energy stored by the oceans.That energy came from the Sun.
Now please take the energy that is accumulation in the oceans, convert it to temperature applicable to air and then tell me that "global temps" are not increasing..
The likelihood is also, that 2014 will be the warmest year on record.
Why? because we have come a little way out of the La cool ENSO phase, that has so long taken solar into storage and hidden it from the atmosphere.

Oct 14, 2014
I have been saying for many years that the earth is able to mitigate some of the CO2 because as it heats up more land becomes capable of plant growth for longer periods of time. On top of this the warmer it gets the less necessary it is to burn fossil fuel for heat. Seems like common sense.

No it's not common sense as ~70% of the Earth's surface is ocean, and ocean is therefore by far the greatest sink for CO2.
It just so happens that warmer oceans hold less CO2.
Shame that innit.

Oct 14, 2014
@runrig - "Global heat includes the energy stored by the oceans."

Absolutely true. And which skeptics have been saying all along while alarmists were crying "WOLF!" about atmospheric temp rise. Ocean temp did indeed increase through the 20th century, but bears no significant signature of effect by increasing CO2. And, as just reported by NASA JPL, the deep oceans do not appear to have warmed over the past 10-20 years, meaning that the supposed excess atmospheric heat is NOT being sequestered into the deep oceans as alarmists recently hypothesized.

Alarmists have, for the past 40 years, deluded themselves, via models, that they understood how the biosphere operates. In truth, their understanding is quite primitive and, up to now, almost entirely wrong.

Oct 14, 2014
I find this issue strange. Greenhouses have added CO2 to their atmospheres for nearly a century. have you ever wondered why the florist flowers are so much deeper in color and last longer thant the best flowers in your garden? The main reason is they typically triple the CO2. They do the same for hothouse vegetables as well. Yet the GW crowd has ignored this practice since the first. You would think this would be an important part of their research, but the fact that ALL the models are off means they are either ignorant as a group or it was intentional. Every major model ignored the CO2 absorption rates changes. Since plants are the agent that absorbs the CO2, that should be a critical issue.


Don't forget that climate 'science' is similar to economics, they claim to know everything about the weather (or psychology in case of economics) and mathematics but they have failed to understand even one of the sciences their multidisciplinar study consists of.

Oct 14, 2014
Funny that they're telling us that it's plants that have reduced the predicted amount of CO2 when Brazil has logged off 230,000 sq MILES of rain forest. That is about the size of Arizona or twice the size of Alabama.

But 99.7% of ALL scientists say that it's because of man's use of cars etc.

Oct 14, 2014
@Runrig, FYI most of the Earth's ability to sink CO2 comes from the oceans, correct, it USED to be about 80%. But interestingly, it is mostly from the regions of the ocean closest to the shores. We're killing near the shores, via what must be theatrically named, "Dead Zones," to prevent people from taking them seriously.
http://disc.sci.g...es.shtml

OH, BTW, Maggnus, Captain Stumpy and Thermodynamics are the same person.
Just peruse,
http://phys.org/n...ans.html
and look for the phrase "chimed in" you'll see thermo answering FOR stumpy WITH his account. Enjoy bickering between the three:

Maggnus style: Insulting, questioning.
Captain Stumpy: Cite your references.
Thermo: Pseudo science, completely "brown-nosed" by the two above.

One person who learned three+ accounts lets you cyber-bully very effectively.

Oct 14, 2014
Complete and utter bollocks my friend.....

http://also.kottk...temp.gif

Hey runrig, you just keep pulling this stuff out off where the sun don't shine eh.
Now go look at that gif again, especially the start of the graph.

Oct 14, 2014
You gotta love this one.

It's denier bait.

17% doesn't make "everything wrong" about AGCC. It's within the error bars (which deniers always try to fudge).

That means we'll roast in 2120, not 2110. How nice. An extra ten years.

Incidentally, I think we should all stop talking about AGW, and start talking about Anthropogenic Global Climate Change. That's AGCC for short.

Oct 14, 2014
@runrig - "Global heat includes the energy stored by the oceans."

Absolutely true. And which skeptics have been saying all along while alarmists were crying "WOLF!" about atmospheric temp rise. Ocean temp did indeed increase through the 20th century, but bears no significant signature of effect by increasing CO2. And, as just reported by NASA JPL, the deep oceans do not appear to have warmed over the past 10-20 years...

Are you aware what in deg C would be the temp increase in 10-20 years anyway?
Of the order of 10th's/100th's of a degree my friend. if that doesn't scan than go look up relative SH's and masses.
Also the deep ocean is defined as below 2000m, which would obviously be the last to receive solar energy. How about the top 2000m? 700m?
Exactly.

http://phys.org/n...ted.html

https://c479107.s...7576.jpg


Oct 14, 2014
Complete and utter bollocks my friend.....

http://also.kottk...temp.gif

Hey runrig, you just keep pulling this stuff out off where the sun don't shine eh.
Now go look at that gif again, especially the start of the graph.

Anti baby....
It's called science, of which you are in complete denial.
And don't come back and say I'm in denial.
Science is reality. The way the world works to figure out the world.
You turn that on it's head and call science a "cult".
People above ground know which is the real world.... they are in the majority for one, and don't inform themselves on the "science" via denialist blogs, or suck up to their ideological peer group.
Or who are just plain selfish a bleat about their "tax dollars".
Ah f^^** diddums.

Oct 14, 2014
JPL just reported the ocean temperatures are not rising.
So the heat isn't 'hiding' there.

Oct 14, 2014
Don't forget that climate 'science' is similar to economics, they claim to know everything about the weather (or psychology in case of economics) and mathematics but they have failed to understand even one of the sciences their multidisciplinar study consists of.

No they DO NOT "claim to know) everything about the the weather (sic).
They do not and very probably cannot... it is far to complex.
What they do know is what a given quantity of GHG in our atmosphere does in terms of back-radiated IR and that there is more incoming SW than outgoing LW.
It's a simple sum.
The planet is warming (air and ocean).

Oct 14, 2014
JPL just reported the ocean temperatures are not rising.
So the heat isn't 'hiding' there.
Link and quote or this is bullshit.

Oct 14, 2014
What is obvious in http://also.kottk...temp.gif is the increase in the extremes of weather.

KDK
Oct 14, 2014
Amazing how totally fraudulent models make poor predictions!

Oct 14, 2014
JPL just reported the ocean temperatures are not rising.
So the heat isn't 'hiding' there.
Link and quote or this is bullshit.

I have.
But since you can't figure out how....
http://www.jpl.na...ure=4321

Oct 14, 2014
Runrig, nice to see you around.

This is another denier who doesn't know the difference between climate and weather.

Oct 14, 2014
It only says the temperature in the deep ocean has not yet started warming measurably... and by "deep ocean" they mean a mile or more deep.

Your source doesn't say what you claim it does, again, rggy. Note that the upper ocean *is* warming and it says so in the article you linked.

Quote from the article:
Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.


Typical denier lies.

Oct 14, 2014
Then the heat is not hiding, which AGWites assert.

Warming sea surface should warm land, as it does in Northern Europe and NW USA.

Oct 14, 2014
Global warming alarmists like to throw around the "97% of researchers say global warming is a fact". That is like saying 97% of doctors who belong to the AMA say the ACA is good for America. Less than 20% of ALL practicing physicians in the U.S. belong to the AMA. Take away all taxpayer money funding the global warming hoax and that 97% of a select few researchers who are getting fat off of our dollars will drop to less than 7%. As the rainforests and woodlands of the world are decimated to be replaced by concrete and asphalt shopping and living utopias, which, by the way, HOLD heat, what in the heck does the average citizen think is going to happen? But hey, one thirty year old 10 acre strip mall closes it's doors in bankruptcy only to be replaced by a brand new 20 acre strip mall 3 miles across town. All for the sake of convenience...and concrete.

Oct 14, 2014
JPL just reported the ocean temperatures are not rising.
So the heat isn't 'hiding' there.

That's in regard to deep ocean (below 2km) - and what pray do you expect to *see* as a temp rise in that water, eh,

Go on give it a shot.
Given that ave global temp has risen ~0.8C in ~100 years and so in 10-20 yrs we are looking at ~1/10th to 1/5th of that .... mmmm lets say 0.1C.
Now we need to dived that 0.1 by the SH and mass of the ocean.
so that is 0.1/4000..... which is (would be) 0.000025C.
Now do you really expect that number to be measurable?
OK, very simplistic and the bottom 2k is less mass but it's slowest to warm.
I would NOT expect there to be any measurable diff in temps in that time frame. And the measurement is beyond any likely instrumentation accuracy to boot.

meanwhile....
http://phys.org/n...ted.html
and
https://c479107.s...7576.jpg

Oct 14, 2014
Then the heat is not hiding, which AGWites assert.

Warming sea surface should warm land, as it does in Northern Europe and NW USA.
So you're claiming that the upper sea is not warming, too?

Oct 14, 2014
I am asking why AGWites claim heat is 'hiding' in the oceans and not increasing air temperature as THE MODEL predicted.

That's in regard to deep ocean (below 2km) - and what pray do you expect to *see* as a temp rise in that water, eh,


I don't expect anything. AGWites assert heat is hiding in the oceans and I have been repeatedly asking AGWites how the temperature of the ocean below 4000 meters has been changing. According to JPL, it hasn't changed.

Oct 14, 2014
Why did JPL say this?

"...leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years."

or this:
"One of the most prominent ideas is that the bottom half of the ocean is taking up the slack, but supporting evidence is slim. "
http://www.jpl.na...ure=4321

Oct 14, 2014
I am asking why AGWites claim heat is 'hiding' in the oceans and not increasing air temperature as THE MODEL predicted.
Which "the model?" You mean the old GCMs that only tracked heat in the atmosphere? We have more sophisticated models these days, because we have more instrumentation deployed in the southern oceans.

Meanwhile, account for the discrepancy between your claims and the contents of the article you linked, please.

Oct 14, 2014
Also, account for the fact that the US National Academy of Sciences and the UK Royal Society both say that the claims that warming has "slowed" disappear if the Arctic and Antarctic data are included, if there is a "mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years."

Source: http://www8.natio...ID=18730

Typical denier, ignores all data from after 1989.

Oct 14, 2014
What happens when the increased CO2 captured by the plants (which has caused them to grow larger) gets returned to the ground to rot and then releases more CO2? A lot more of it. Oil etc is an ex creature whose CO2 is so far below the surface of the planet that its CO2 has been taken out of the cycle...until we dig it up and throw it back in. I'm just asking.

Oct 14, 2014
No one cares to address the the issue that CO2 is NOT a well mixed gas?

H2O is a more significant ghg but is difficult to model.
CO2 was claimed to be 'well mixed' so it was easy to model and convenient for the socialist AGWites to attack.
CO2 is not such a convenient gas anymore?

Oct 14, 2014
Link and quote, please. And no more "floaters;" it better say what you claim, and it better not be the Greater Omaha Society Against Global Warming Alarmism, either.

Oct 14, 2014
Link and quote what?
AGWites claimed CO2 is a well mixed gas.
Now, they don't.

"The perturbation to direct climate forcing (also termed "radiative forcing") that has the largest magnitude and the least scientific uncertainty is the forcing related to changes in long-lived, well mixed greenhouse gases, in particular carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and halogenated compounds (mainly CFCs). "
http://www.esrl.n...ggi.html

Oct 14, 2014
Now they don't what?

Are you seriously arguing we don't know the composition of the atmosphere?

Really?

Tell me, have you ever heard of "weather balloons?"

How about "jet aircraft?"

"Rockets?"

Just askin'.

Oct 14, 2014
NASA states CO2 is not 'well mixed':

"The satellite will measure carbon dioxide levels in Earth's atmosphere 24 times every second, revealing in great detail where the gas is being produced and where it is being pulled out of the air — CO2 sources and sinks, in scientists' parlance."
http://www.space....nch.html

Oct 14, 2014
That doesn't say CO₂ isn't well mixed.

You're lying again, rggy. And again about what a source says.

Pretty transparent, dude.

Bad habit.

Oct 14, 2014
Now they don't what?

Are you seriously arguing we don't know the composition of the atmosphere?

Really?

Tell me, have you ever heard of "weather balloons?"

How about "jet aircraft?"

"Rockets?"

Just askin'.

Then why does THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL assume one value for CO2 and does a very poor job of modeling H2O?

Oct 14, 2014
That doesn't say CO₂ isn't well mixed.

You're lying again, rggy. And again about what a source says.

Pretty transparent, dude.

Bad habit.

You claim CO2 IS well mixed?

This article claims CO2 is NOT well mixed and the new satellite was launched to measure sources and sinks of CO2. How can CO2 be well mixed at a source or a sink?

CO2 is NOT well mixed in closed, occupied buildings. CO2 levels can exceed 1000 ppm

Oct 14, 2014
What "THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL?"

There are like hundreds, dude.

On Earth.

Meanwhile, what "poor job of modeling H₂O?" Got a link and quote for that, and this time not about 1980s climate models?

Oh, and what about "not well mixed?" Change the subject when you get pwnt much? Just askin'.

That doesn't say CO₂ isn't well mixed.

You claim CO2 IS well mixed?
No, this is about your claim, for which you have not yet produced a supporting quote. You're changing the subject again.

And last but not least, how much do you think closed buildings contribute to AGCC? All that sunlight in the buildings... oh, wait... derp.

Oct 14, 2014
CO2 is not well mixed in SLC, UT:

http://co2.utah.e...amp;id=1

Oct 14, 2014
The difference between weather and climate again. Your graphs' timescales are days and years, not decades and centuries. You still haven't proven there's no global warming. Also, climate models take CO₂ as an input. So you're actually discussing CO₂ models, not climate models.

AND you still haven't proven CO₂ is not well-mixed.

Changing the subject again.

Oct 14, 2014
NASA states CO2 is not 'well mixed':

"The satellite will measure carbon dioxide levels in Earth's atmosphere 24 times every second, revealing in great detail where the gas is being produced and where it is being pulled out of the air — CO2 sources and sinks, in scientists' parlance."
http://www.space....nch.html


No wonder you have to cut and paste. You have zero reading comprehension skills.

Oct 14, 2014
I particularly enjoyed the part about closed buildings' contributions to global warming (sic).

Deniers are silly.

Oct 14, 2014
"This article claims CO2 is NOT well mixed---"

@ryggy the article says no such thing.

Oct 14, 2014
@ryggy
You obviously don't the difference between atmospheric mixing and the carbon cycle.

Oct 14, 2014
Why am I not surprised. This global warming is good gig. Just think of the all the million of dollars going into the pockets of these charlatans. Its up, it down, its left, its right, its all around. They really don't know squat.

Oct 14, 2014
So, no science, huh wade?

I mean in your background, not your post.

Oct 14, 2014
They needed a study to figure that out?

Oct 14, 2014
To actually quantize it?

Yes. Science is not qualitative; it's quantitative. No numbers, no science. Just "beLIEfs."

You guys have been screaming about this for two decades. Now the study happens and you whine about the results.

Eat it, deniers.

Oct 15, 2014
It's no joke sunshine, it's empirical science - and unarguable. Sorry about that.


The ONLY thing about climate sciences which is a fact, the scientists and models fail miserably at accounting for all the factors.

http://phys.org/n...her.html

Don't quite understand Earth-Sun connection, not on the CO2, or H2O, where, how, why, etc, etc, etc...
But it's "settled"? Rubes!

Oct 15, 2014
It's no joke sunshine, it's empirical science - and unarguable. Sorry about that.


The ONLY thing about climate sciences which is a fact, the scientists and models fail miserably at accounting for all the factors.

http://phys.org/n...her.html

An EU believer calling someone a rube? Priceless.

Don't quite understand Earth-Sun connection, not on the CO2, or H2O, where, how, why, etc, etc, etc...
But it's "settled"? Rubes!


Oct 15, 2014
Never mind; misread a quote...

Oct 15, 2014
No one cares to address the the issue that CO2 is NOT a well mixed gas?

H2O is a more significant ghg but is difficult to model.
CO2 was claimed to be 'well mixed' so it was easy to model and convenient for the socialist AGWites to attack.
CO2 is not such a convenient gas anymore?

Give it up ryggy .... this claim is just plain bizarre.
Another goldfish burp of your's and others on here.

The movement of air in Earth's atmosphere transcends any gases ability to be averse to mix.
It IS a gas and not a solid.

http://disc.sci.g...C2M&

Oct 15, 2014
It's no joke sunshine, it's empirical science - and unarguable. Sorry about that.


The ONLY thing about climate sciences which is a fact, the scientists and models fail miserably at accounting for all the factors.

http://phys.org/n...her.html

Don't quite understand Earth-Sun connection, not on the CO2, or H2O, where, how, why, etc, etc, etc...
But it's "settled"? Rubes!


You missed the point there cant - well done.

What IS settled is the fact that anthro CO2 is casuing GW.
What is NOT settled is where all the bits of Solar energy are being put and moved around the Earth's oceans.
That does not matter as the outcome will be the same because. THE ENERGY IS STILL BEING STORED ON EARTH.
Does that scan or do you retreat to it's not happening argument.
ignore the oceans because they are to complex and the deltaT number is too small and so is irrelevant anyway despite not applying basic thermodynamics.
FFS

Oct 15, 2014
Shootist mutters
Actually, as Dyson explains in his most recent interview, easily Googled, a minimum of 15% of plant growth is attributable to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. He suggests increasing atmospheric CO2 to increase food supplies.
We we should listen to Dyson because he is not a climate scientist or food scientist - really ?

Shootist proves ignorance
..smarter than all of you, knows more about climate, climate modeling, climate forcing and CO2 than any, or all, of you.
Really - prove it ?

When is 'smart' in any way related to knowledge or the combinatorial nexus of knowledge & cognition ?

(Shootist's communist rant snipped)

Shootist hasn't read my posts or knowns biochemistry - neither has Dyson. Higher CO2:-

- Shifts some food plants equilibria to cyanogens (poison)
- If we want same carbs/proteins means more reticulation, as NEEDs H2

Shootist shows its easy to follow a business man its much harder to check data/details.

Oct 15, 2014
PS3 claimed
Actually, as Dyson explains in his most recent interview, easily Googled, a minimum of 15% of plant growth is attributable to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. He suggests increasing atmospheric CO2 to increase food supplies.

All kinds of growers have done this forever. They jack the ppm up to like 1000 and get 30 percent higher yield.
As always "Details matter"...

Which food crops in particular - where ?

I know its done for various specialty feedstock plants in cosmetics, flowers etc But food is a special case as some plants Eg Cassava & Clover for cattle feed shift equilibria to produce more cyanogens...

The Cassava problem in Africa requires one exhaust the HCN gas when cooking, this is ok on a small scale only. There are many who still get HCN poisoning, not enough to kill outright but incrementally causes paralysis which appears similar to polio, it is not so far reversible :-(

Oct 15, 2014
I'm surprised that so far I haven't read that "The polar bears will be fine" in this thread...

http://phys.org/n...due.html

What is Dyson's take on walruses or is it only polar bears that are considered to be the yardstick for arctic climate changes? Yes that was a rhetorical question for the slower readers among us...

Oct 15, 2014
What IS settled is the fact that anthro CO2 is casuing GW.
What is NOT settled is where all the bits of Solar energy are being put and moved around the Earth's oceans.
That does not matter as the outcome will be the same because. THE ENERGY IS STILL BEING STORED ON EARTH.
Does that scan or do you retreat to it's not happening argument.

Wow! No, it doesn't scan and no, I've never claimed the climate doesn't change. AGW is not a fact, it's your religion.
If you cannot account for the various way the Sun influences the Earth and those influences are omitted from the science and models then the sciences and all those models are meaningless mumbo jumbo. It's similar to doing calculus using your fingers.

Oct 15, 2014
Why do Africans grow plants that will kill them?
If Africa had less socialism and more free markets they would be raising crops they could sell and buying food to eat that does not kill them.
But the socialists need to keep Africa poor for some reason.

Oct 15, 2014
This is awful. Zealots on both sides screaming "I'm right, you're wrong (and stupid)." How many on this thread have actually modeled the climate? How many are only reading the summary of the work of someone else? Nobody is actually talking about the article (which is about plants sequestering carbon).
-
I posted a comment that relates directly to the article, has no certainty about who is right or who is wrong. It seems my comment was moderate enough that both AGW believers and deniers both interpreted my words as being on the other side of the fence. The fact is, I am very concerned about anthropogenic effects on ecology; however, I do not believe the problem can be reduced to one atom (carbon). Further, the bigger question is how to sequester that one atom. Pumping CO2 into holes in the ground is NOT a solution. Only someone completely blinded by their one dimensional belief can accept that as a reasonable, long term solution.

Oct 15, 2014
" How many on this thread have actually modeled the climate?
@teeGeeRoo
runrig has, and i would say Thermo likely has as well, given his expertise

That is like saying 97% of doctors who belong to the AMA say the ACA is good for America
@ytrog62
No, it's not
there is no study supporting the AMA conclusions, is there? http://iopscience.../article &
http://blogs.scie...sagrees/ &
http://www.pnas.o...pdf+html
the global warming hoax
read this: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
the rest of your rant is about what, really?

Oct 15, 2014
AGW is not a fact, it's your religion
@cd
i find it rather interesting that you would also choose to deny the existence of AGW with the overwhelming evidence supporting it
this only supports my other assertions that you ignore empirical evidence in your face explaining physics and more
your pseudoscience eu has zero impact or ability to predict weather, climate or astrophysics for that matter, so why are you trying to push it here? : http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
If you cannot account for the various way the Sun influences the Earth
and again you make obvious false assertions with no empirical evidence
that climate science doesn't take the sun into consideration is almost as stupid as astrophysicists not knowing anything about plasma physics

Oct 15, 2014
they claim to know everything about the weather
@freeiam
and of course you can provide empirical proof of this comment?
but they have failed to understand even one of the sciences their multidisciplinar study consists of
[sic]
More personal conjecture based upon stupidity

please refute the following study and show where they have failed to understand the science or multidisciplines in climate science: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

apparently it is YOU who does not understand science:
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

there is an overwhelming about of information supporting AGW and climate science (including the reasons they are focusing so hard on CO2 -that comment directed @TeeGeeRoo )

http://theconsens...ect.com/


Oct 15, 2014
How many on this thread have actually modeled the climate?

No one.
Climate scientists like Curry have not created climate models, but have discussed and debated their validity.
In the real world of computer simulation, the simulation is first verified and then validated prior to being used.
In the fantasy land of climate science no climate model has ever been formally validated yet they are used by climate scientists to predict all sorts of bad things, UNLESS the world implements the AGWite socialist plan.

Einstein's model, E=mc^2, is continues to be formally validated by many. But not THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL.

Oct 15, 2014
This global warming is good gig. Just think of the all the million of dollars going into the pockets of these charlatans. Its up, it down, its left, its right, its all around. They really don't know squat.
@wade_jeffords
if it is such a good gig and there is so much money in it, and so little science, then why are people like the koch bro's (and big oil, big business) so willing to HIDE their money to specifically undermine the science and fight against it? this is NOT speculation, but proven:
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
read more here: http://phys.org/n...ate.html

can't handle the truth? : http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

what i don't understand is how someone can see the overwhelming evidence and then turn around and vote party politics or against the science

now THAT is STUPID, IMHO

Oct 15, 2014
This is the gist:
"Recently, it's come to light that climate models have on average been off a little bit in predicting how much CO2 is being added to the atmosphere by man-made processes. More specifically, over the years, 1901 to 2010, that error rate has been found to be on average 17 percent too high, and scientists have been racing to figure out why."

For decades, the AGWites have been claiming the science is settled.
Studies like this show the science is NOT settled, never was.

Oct 15, 2014
More carbon will actually lead to more biomass (if the forests are allowed to grow); more biomass means more food, and more potential people
&
I believe the emphasis solely on carbon is misguided at best
@TeeGeeRoo
IMHO -likely your comment was downrated because of false assumptions:
there is a focus on Carbon emissions because
1- it is a major player in heating the atmosphere as a GHG
2- it is something that we CAN control, as we've seen due to the effects causing the heating
3- it is necessary
Just because CO2 is good for plants does not necessarily mean that it is good for everything. take the effects on the oceans and fish: http://link.sprin...8-0381-8
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

you also need to consider that carbon is not the ONLY GHG scientists are concentrating on, either

Oct 15, 2014
For decades, the AGWites have been claiming the science is settled.
Studies like this show the science is NOT settled, never was.
@rygtard
again with your reading comprehension problems?
for years people have been saying that there is an overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence proving AGW... and that AGW is settled as being REAL and in your face, as in:
IT EXISTS and WE CAN PROVE IT

SCIENCE keeps going on
deal with it

the numbers only show that you treaded heavily on others beliefs
@no fate
a belief is kinda like a faith...
there doesn't actually have to be any proof supporting a belief...

AGW is science
there is plenty of proof supporting it
so the only "belief" in the thread is the anti-science denial of AGW

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt


Oct 15, 2014
Wow! No, it doesn't scan and no, I've never claimed the climate doesn't change. AGW is not a fact, it's your religion.
If you cannot account for the various way the Sun influences the Earth and those influences are omitted from the science and models then the sciences and all those models are meaningless mumbo jumbo. It's similar to doing calculus using your fingers.


Wow nothing canty: First off I didn't accuse you of saying that climate doesn't change just that to say that because we cant quantify the details of the ocean's heat sink characteristics doesn't make the science wrong and it most certainly isn't a "religion" as religion is believing in something without evidence.
Are suggesting all science is a religion and is based on no evidence or just that climate science is based on no evidence? And are you are saying the world's experts are incompetent or just scamming the world?

cont

Oct 15, 2014
cont

If the former I'd say you were away with the fairies and if the second then you are ideologically blinded.

As I said, the equation is quite simple - what comes in must go out to keep the Earth's climate stable. It isn't and it matters not a jot in the long term that heat is stored in the oceans as it will re-emerge sometime. Try looking at the ENSO cycle and the correlation of the cool phase vs the warm phase. Both are occuring along a rising trend.

BTW: it's called an abacus and worked bloody well even in the hands of a denier (see i can make a similar stupid comment).

http://www.washin...o-ss.jpg


Oct 15, 2014
ryggesogn2 proves yet again immense ignorance
Why do Africans grow plants that will kill them?
Cassava is a traditional crop, its only relatively recently it has become more dangerous - doh !

Clover ?

ryggesogn2
If Africa had less socialism and more free markets they would be raising crops they could sell and buying food to eat that does not kill them.
There are many dictatorships operating under the guise of democracy - doh !

ryggesogn2
But the socialists need to keep Africa poor for some reason.
You first need to address education.

ryggesogn2 your comments are again less consistent with someone who claimed to have a degree in physics ie A trained Scientist - why ?

Virtually all your posts are uneducated barks, no appreciation of combinatorial complexity & many show you don't read posts where many smarter people show you the errors particularly in comprehension.

How much is your integrity worth, how much are you paid to bark ?

Oct 15, 2014
freethinking proves he is free of education barked
I thought the science was settled?
All fundamentals are settled:-

1 statistical mechanics
2 specific heat
3 thermal properties of greenhouse gases etc Proven & so far not refuted !

What is not settled is the massively complex interactions which have chaotic components, this is normal, its part of the asymptotic & probabilistic approach of Science.

You confuse Science with probabilistic interpretations :-(

freethinking
..assumptions done by Democrats and Progressives
None of the above 3 points can be swayed by any political party, why can't u be smart & see even that simple truth !

Why so simplistic freethinking, why so lacking in education & strangely you do it again & again, showing immense ignorance & low intelligence.

Your isolated posts have patterns of obfuscation, easily recognised !

Community college ?

Oct 15, 2014
WE CAN PROVE IT

That's not what real science does.

"But one word is rarely spoken or printed in science and that word is "proof". In fact, science has little to do with "proving" anything."
"In the mathematical sense, despite all the years of researching the way the universe works, science has proved nothing."
http://theconvers...ne-30570

Oct 15, 2014
You first need to address education.

Education of whom, Africans?

Zimbabwe used to feed itself. After the socialists took control, they are starving.

Yes, they need education on the failure of socialism. But then most in Africa have experienced that failure already.

Oct 15, 2014
That's not what real science does.
@rygtard
what part of "i am an investigator" do you not understand?
i can provide empirical evidence that would definitively prove, per the requirements of the US and international court systems, that AGW is a literal and scientific fact which is supported by copious amounts of published papers and scientific data

this means that, should you wish to argue the point in a court of law, i would be able to PROVE that AGW is real and that there is evidence supporting the scientific facts

per the arguments set forth here: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

we can thus make a statement that is supported that you are defined by conspiracy and not mentally stable enough to argue on your own behalf in court, making you not able to be a legitimate witness to anything other than what is clearly visible to the court (is the light on?)

get it now?

Oct 15, 2014
This is the gist:
"Recently, it's come to light that climate models have on average been off a little bit in predicting how much CO2 is being added to the atmosphere by man-made processes. More specifically, over the years, 1901 to 2010, that error rate has been found to be on average 17 percent too high, and scientists have been racing to figure out why."

For decades, the AGWites have been claiming the science is settled.
Studies like this show the science is NOT settled, never was.
Reading comprehension fail: "a little bit."

Oct 15, 2014
WE CAN PROVE IT

That's not what real science does.

"But one word is rarely spoken or printed in science and that word is "proof". In fact, science has little to do with "proving" anything."
Observed facts can be proven.

It's an observed fact that the temperature is increasing (at least if you're honest and include all the data).

It's an observed fact that CO₂ is increasing.

It's an observed fact that CO₂ has a strong absorption line in the middle of a gap in absorption by H₂O.

These are facts, not theories. What they add up to is, more CO₂, more warming; and THAT is a theory. It's a theory because 1) it was a conjecture and they came up with a way to test it, making it 2) a hypothesis, which they tested against reality, and it passed, making it 3) a theory, supported by 4) facts.

For someone who claims to know how science works, you seem remarkably uninformed about the real process.

Oct 15, 2014
It's an observed fact that the temperature is increasing

What temperatures?
observed fact that CO₂ is increasing.

Where?
strong absorption line in the middle of a gap

Middle of a gap? So?
How much heat does this 'middle gap' absorb and what happens to that energy after it is absorbed?

Oct 15, 2014
should you wish to argue the point in a court of law,

Science is not a court of law.
Mark Steyn welcomes a court of law that will force Mann to reveal ALL his data and emails regarding his hokey schtick.
AGWites need the force of law to impose their AGW faith upon the world.

Oct 15, 2014
It's an observed fact that the temperature is increasing
What temperatures?
Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades
Source: http://news.natio...ing.html

observed fact that CO₂ is increasing.
Where?
Source: http://www.esrl.n.../trends/ where it's all well mixed.

strong absorption line in the middle of a gap
Middle of a gap? So?
So, it absorbs where nothing else is absorbing. Increasing it increases absorption no matter how small, and that increases heat year by year.

How much heat does this 'middle gap' absorb and what happens to that energy after it is absorbed?
It's held in the ground and atmosphere. How much heat? It's close to the peak of the energy Earth emits by Wien's Law. Answer: a lot.

On Earth.

Oct 15, 2014
should you wish to argue the point in a court of law,

Science is not a court of law.
Mark Steyn welcomes a court of law that will force Mann to reveal ALL his data and emails regarding his hokey schtick.
AGWites need the force of law to impose their AGW faith upon the world.
Actually, the deniers tried to exclude evidence in the trial. And are making motions to avoid it before they have to undergo discovery. Typical legal moves, showing to anyone who's paying attention that they believe they will lose before an honest jury.

Source: http://www.climat...t3-2014/

Oct 15, 2014
The most important part of Dr. Mann's submission to the court:
Defendants also argue that they really did not intend to accuse Dr. Mann of fraud. They now claim that they were just engaging in hyperbole; and that, in any event, their readers (or at least their reasonable readers) did not construe their statements to be factual assertions of fraud, but rather to be legitimate criticism of Dr. Mann's scientific conclusions. These arguments are not only factually unsupported, they are flatly contradicted by the evidence. Defendants' own subsequent statements make it clear that they intended to—and did—accuse Dr. Mann of fraud.
So basically the deniers are denying they denied.

Nice try, assholes.

Oct 15, 2014
Oh, and BTW, the deniers just admitted they're wrong, by trying to avoid discovery. It's like taking the Fifth; now everyone knows you're guilty.

Oct 15, 2014
Cold weather in Siberia is nothing but weather to AGW religionists
http://www.bloomb...all.html
Great lakes are 3 degrees colder than normal, but this nothing but local accoring to AGW religionists.
http://wattsupwit...-normal/

Deep sea not warming, that's nothing according to AGW religionists.
Ice at record levels in antarctic and coming back to normal levels in artic, thats noting according to AGW religionists.

AGW religionists want proof the world is not warming, but the only proof they will accept must come from hypocritical profits of AGW like Al Gore. Even as those Profits of AGW are getting rich from pedaling AGW we are assured they can be trusted to be unbiased.

Yup, only idiots and democrats believe Al Gore anymore.

Oct 15, 2014
"BRIEF
AMICI CURIAE
OF THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
AND
26
OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT
S
AND
URGING
REVERSAL "
"Against that ba
ckdrop, the
challenged statements

that Mann manipulated data to serve a political agenda and that
governmental bodies improperly endorsed his views

are, as numerous other courts have
recognized, protected opinions about both scientific research and pub
lic policy based on it.
While Mann essentially claims that he can silence critics because he is "right," the judicial
system should not be the arbiter of either scientific truth or correct public policy.
"
http://www.steyno...6515.pdf

Since AGWites can't sell their faith, like ISIS, they must use force.

Oct 15, 2014
"Since AGWites can't sell their faith, like ISIS, they must use force."

Only in your warped mind is suing for defamation the use of force.

Equating climate scientists with ISIS shows how sick you are.

Oct 15, 2014
Equating climate scientists with ISIS shows how sick you are.

Force is force.
Mann, like all AGWites, only know force to sell their faith. Some AGWites have advocated death for the un-faithful. " Professor Calls for Death Penalty for Climate Change 'Deniers'"
http://www.americ...ers.html
BTW, VV, any more comments about how that virus is spreading?

"Enterovirus D68, a respiratory illness, has been making its way across the country since August, and has been diagnosed in nearly 600 people, in 43 states and the District of Columbia. Nearly all the confirmed cases this year of EV-D68 infection have been in children, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."
http://www.market...s-paraly

Oct 15, 2014
"In Latin America as in other regions, HRVs and HEVs account for a substantial proportion of respiratory viruses identified in young people with ILI, a finding that provides additional support for the development of pharmaceuticals and vaccines targeting these pathogens. "
http://www.virolo...10/1/305

" as of 2013, one year prior to the Obama administration encouraging and facilitating an influx of children from Latin America (primarily Central America) across the border, the U.S. government was well aware that when these children arrived they would be carrying with them a pathogen that accounts for a "substantial proportion of respiratory viruses identified in young people" living in Latin America, as well as a whole host of other viral maladies."
http://www.americ...ren.html

Oct 15, 2014
Errr, weren't we talking about climate change?

So, change the subject much, rggy?

Oct 15, 2014
Great lakes are 3 degrees colder than normal, but this nothing but local accoring to AGW religionists
@freefromthought
only an idiot would think that some random blog, website or idiot belief system trumps hard scientific evidence like this: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
your continued reliance on extremist fringe sites only reinforces your delusional conspiratorial leanings: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
your entire post is aimed at politicisig the already proven science, which indicates that you are a paid idiot: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
There is science, and there is your faith/belief
you keep your delusional faith, I will stick with the science

@Schneib
ryg often does that when he is losing the argument to solid logic and evidence

Oct 16, 2014
freethinking admits he cant tell weather from climate & cannot understand logic with
Cold weather in Siberia is nothing but weather to AGW religionists
http://www.bloomb...all.html
Yes, its weather AND its pretty obvious outcome as we KNOW there is higher water vapour so obviously more will precipitate out (& locally) - doh !

freethinking
Deep sea not warming, that's nothing according to AGW religionists.
Its not a religion as its based on evidence, fortunately confirms we still have some buffer remaining.

freethinking should not be dishonest
Ice at record levels in antarctic and coming back to normal levels in artic..
Be clear do you mean 'extent' or mass ?

U should know they are (very) different !

freethinking
AGW religionists want proof the world is not warming,
Evidence is key therefore it Cannot be religion !

Show proof thermodynamics is wrong re heat ?

Education ?

Oct 16, 2014
"Since AGWites can't sell their faith, like ISIS, they must use force."

Only in your warped mind is suing for defamation the use of force.

Equating climate scientists with ISIS shows how sick you are.


Viet.....
This is the story from Mann's point of view:
https://www.youtu...MguoHphY

Oct 16, 2014
@Schneib
ryg often does that when he is losing the argument to solid logic and evidence


Which he can't assimilate.

Oct 16, 2014
Great lakes are 3 degrees colder than normal, but this nothing but local accoring to AGW religionists.
http://wattsupwit...-normal/


So??:
The E siberian Seas are 5C warmer than normal (and are a tad bigger).

You are aware of the principle of cause and effect?
You know that the ice cover from last winter caused the colder water this summer?
And that while (parts of) the US had a hard winter, most parts of the NH had a milder than normal one including Alaska, Europe as far E as Moscow, much of the Arctic and Siberia.
Do you think the lakes in Siberia are "3 dgerees colder than normal"?

FFS: learn something about weather and the cause/effect knock-on of anomalies.

http://data.giss....;pol=rob

http://www.ospo.n...2014.gif

BTW WUWT is trash

Oct 16, 2014
Errr, weren't we talking about climate change?

So, change the subject much, rggy?

Just reminding VV for calling me racist for connecting the dots.

And AGWites are morally equivalent to ISIS. If AGWites had the power, they would be imposing their faith on all. And people would die living under an AGW imposed faith.

Oct 16, 2014
Regarding the enterovirus D68, like Ebola, it applies to AGW regarding trust.
The US govt dumped thousands of illegal aliens all over the US with TB, probably D68. The US govt said there is no need to restrict flights from West Africa to prevent Ebola from entering the US, yet that is exactly how two US nurses contracted the disease, with potentially more exposed, and still no flight restrictions or quarantine.
The EPA is using AGWites to write its policy papers and implementing AGW law by executive fiat.
This article is essentially published by the US govt.

Why should anyone trust the US govt on any issue of science. Especially when this science directly impacts health and safety?

Oct 16, 2014
Just a curious observation about Physorg, not much about ebola..... and nothing about how the CDC is mishandling the whole episode...

I wonder how much physorg is getting paid by the Democrats or the Government, not to post anything negative about this.

Before anyone thinks I'm being overly paranoid...... Democrats and the Government have been caught paying other websites to promote Obama care and the DNC talking points..... and physorg does seem to parrot the DNC talking points (ever see a negative Obamacare, negative government (under democrat control) article.... sure saw a lot of negative articles about Bush and about the government when Bush was in power...)

Just think.... anyone who loves corruption and incompetence can vote democrat this next election and get it.

Oct 16, 2014
So, the 17% is the difference between the measured CO2 increase and the measured/calculated man-made CO2 increase? It sounds like our friends the plants are buying us some time to upgrade our civilization from fossil fuel to renewables. Isn't this the 21st Century? Isn't it time we stopped burning dinosaur goo and oxygen to fuel industry and everything else?

Oct 16, 2014
@Captain Stumpy: While I appreciate the response, I don't think you have really addressed the issue. You have clearly shown that you are an article scavenger. Unless you are performing meta-analysis on other reports, you are simply believing what you read. That is different from science (even if they are scientific articles). I have been aware of ocean acidification. This once again brings up the issue of sequestering carbon. What do you propose is the solution? I'm sure you enjoy powering your computer, climate control, transportation, and the food on your table as much as the rest of us. How do you propose we have those things in the modern world without fossil fuels? (Don't get me wrong, I don't believe fossil fuels are a long term solution of any sort.) Or have you already gone off-grid, ride your bicycle everywhere, and grow all your own food?

Oct 16, 2014
rygg, you are a racist if you don't follow the DNC and Progressive talking points.

Even if you think blacks are inferior, call them the N word, discriminate against them, if you are a democrat you are not a racists.

Rygg, I also know you hate women because you don't follow the DNC and Progressive talking points.

Even if you think women are inferior, call them the B word, discriminate against them, sexually assault them, attack their character if they report the sexual assault, you are for them if you are a democrat.

Rygg, I know you hate children because you don't follow the DNC and the Progressive talking point.

Even if you hate children, make it so that baby killing organizations don't have to report child rape, enact policies and encourage behaviors that leave children in poverty, defend the molestation of children, if you are a democrat, you are known love children.

Oct 16, 2014
Just a curious observation about Physorg, not much about ebola..... and nothing about how the CDC is mishandling the whole episode...

I wonder how much physorg is getting paid by the Democrats or the Government, not to post anything negative about this.

Before anyone thinks I'm being overly paranoid...... Democrats and the Government have been caught paying other websites to promote Obama care and the DNC talking points..... and physorg does seem to parrot the DNC talking points (ever see a negative Obamacare, negative government (under democrat control) article.... sure saw a lot of negative articles about Bush and about the government when Bush was in power...)

Just think.... anyone who loves corruption and incompetence can vote democrat this next election and get it.


Err Free....
US centrism again

Phys.org is a UK company run by a Brit.....
http://en.wikiped...Phys.org

So the US gov can manipulate Phys.org??


Oct 16, 2014
Ebola is a threat to the world. British Air has restricted flights to West Africa.
Has physorg mentioned anything about Ebola and the failure of the world's medical community to contain it?

The owners of physorg are fellow, 'progressive' travelers.

Oct 16, 2014
"Science" is asking questions:

http://news.scien...ola-case

Oct 16, 2014
Errr, weren't we talking about climate change?

So, change the subject much, rggy?

Just reminding VV for calling me racist for connecting the dots.

And AGWites are morally equivalent to ISIS. If AGWites had the power, they would be imposing their faith on all. And people would die living under an AGW imposed faith.
From what? Embarrassment?

Oct 16, 2014
@Captain Stumpy: While I appreciate the response, I don't think you have really addressed the issue. You have clearly shown that you are an article scavenger. Unless you are performing meta-analysis on other reports, you are simply believing what you read. That is different from science (even if they are scientific articles).
Actually he's taking courses in physics.

On Earth.

I have been aware of ocean acidification. This once again brings up the issue of sequestering carbon.
Why? Do you not get that China and India are about to start building mass numbers of coal-fired power plants? How about Africa? What's going to happen when they get to the stage China and India are at now? Catastrophe, that's what.

That's the big problem, and instead of thinking about it you're chiding people for using energy in the US and Europe. Or claiming they're going to fix it in the US and Europe; it's already being fixed there.

contd

Oct 16, 2014
The free market will take care of it in the US and Europe, if greedy people like the Kochs will GTFO of the way. They don't care about anything but making more money from oil. Fact of the matter is, if they'd think about it, they'd realize that they'd get way more for their oil later. But they're greedy, and foolish, and want it all now. Now now now.

Who cares about a bunch of yellow and brown people, anyway? It's no biggie, right? Disgusting, and stupid. Especially since they have three billion people and nuclear weapons.

They must be *persuaded*. They cannot be forced. And if they're not, then the REAL trouble starts in about fifty years. Then we really WILL have to take draconian steps. It would have been easy to start in the 80s. It would still be fairly easy today. But in 50 years? They'll be hanging people from light posts for driving cars. Do you intend to just wait around until it happens?

Oct 16, 2014
"Science" is asking questions:
So? They should be. It's unconscionable. But it's not climate.

Oct 16, 2014
Why do Africans grow plants that will kill them?
If Africa had less socialism and more free markets they would be raising crops they could sell and buying food to eat that does not kill them.
But the socialists need to keep Africa poor for some reason. -soggyring2

Typical two-faced conservative. They'll scream and rant and rave when someone taxes their cigarettes or when Bloomberg and de Blasio try to take away their oversized sodas with known deleterious health consequences, but when brown people in some other country exhibit similar dietary predilections, they blame socialism. Mind your own business, fool.

Oct 16, 2014
Worse yet, barakn, they make up lies like "Africa is socialist." It's not. It's a bunch of right-wing dictators murdering people for money and religion. There is only one socialist country in Africa, Tanzania, and it's not Marxist-Leninist. http://en.wikiped...t_states

The remaining Marxist-Leninist states are all in Asia.

Oct 16, 2014
It's a bunch of right-wing dictators murdering people for money and religion.

Just another form of socialism => state control of property.

but when brown people in some other country exhibit similar dietary predilections, they blame socialism.


I just wonder why Africans don't have modern farming techniques and if they really like to eat cassava they are certainly free to do so. Or are they eating this because of their primitive farming techniques?

Oct 16, 2014
I don't think you have really addressed the issue
@TeeGeeRoo
The issue is that you are willing to ignore the preponderance of evidence supporting AGW, and i gave you a likely cause as to why you were downrated (which ties together with you ignoring the preponderance of evidence out there)
not that i didn't bother to do more than a cursory search supporting any argument
If you didn't like the articles that I posted that supported my conjectures about your downrating, you should have linked evidence supporting your false assumptions
OH, WAIT... there is none! that is why it is a false assumption!
oops, sorry for pointing that out
is there any evidence at all refuting what i said?
refuting the possible reasons that I gave?
post it here

and it is not about believing everything i read
try opening some of the linked studies to the articles
and again, until you bring evidence to the table, you are simply shouting "conspiracy" and ignoring empirical evidence
cont'd

Oct 16, 2014
I'm sure you enjoy powering your computer, climate control, transportation, and the food on your table as much as the rest of us
@TeeGeeRoo
almost entirely solar with wind backup and bicycle-powered generator for emergency
natural gas refrigeration
climate control is all natural (shade/water)
fuel efficient transportation with an average 38MPG in the mountains, 44 best mileage ever to date
i hunt my own fresh meat and we grow most of our veggies (mostly)
communicate almost entirely with cell, although i use a SW transmitter rigged for CB to log into a "missionary" uplink that allows for dialup speed internet (unless i travel, as i sometimes have to) which is why any tracking of my IP will usually land you miles from my actual location, the closest being over 30 miles away (ask anyone who knows me and has admin rights on a page, like Sapo's Joint)
I am poor and live on a fixed income from my military retirement and raising/rehabilitating wolves so unless i win the lotto-

Oct 16, 2014
How do you propose we have those things in the modern world without fossil fuels?
@TeeGeeRoo
like i pointed out above... i am off grid and self sufficient
There are a number of options that are available now to start fixing the problem, from solar and wind to self-powered generation or even certain methods of collecting farm/other material for generating your own fuel or supplementing fuels (making a bio-fuel at home)

I understand the reliance on fossil fuels, and that is something that needs to be addressed
not everyone will be willing to make huge changes in their lives like I was
some of my choices were because of not a lot of options but most choices were because of my concern for the environment

until people wake up and realise that the political BS they are hearing against AGW is simply a load of crap being funded by people with a vested interest in fighting SCIENCE then there will be NO change
Read Schneibs responses!

Oct 16, 2014
It's a bunch of right-wing dictators murdering people for money and religion.
Just another form of socialism => state control of property.
No, socialism is not state control of property. That's totalitarianism, and it's just as bad under right wingers as left. And in Africa, it's a right wing phenomenon. You're lying again, rggy sonny.

but when brown people in some other country exhibit similar dietary predilections, they blame socialism.
I just wonder why Africans don't have modern farming techniques and if they really like to eat cassava they are certainly free to do so. Or are they eating this because of their primitive farming techniques?
No, they're eating it because it used to be safe before it started making cyanide because of the higher CO₂ levels. And it grows well there.

Oct 16, 2014
You have clearly shown that you are an article scavenger.
@TeeGeeRoo
i'll stop beating this dead horse after this post
You should read Da Schneib's posts, because he brings up a lot of good points
i gave you three stars because it "appears" you are trying to understand and figure out something sensible

like i said above, i did a cursory search. that is it
but again, there is a preponderance of information out there supporting the reasons why CO2 is being concentrated on... try Google Scholar and find some out for yourself
OR
start here: http://theconsens...ect.com/
start reading up on the science and reasons, or use this site: http://www.skepti...nced.htm
as they use a lot of references you can fact check yourself by reading the linked studies
another great site for learning the basics: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

sorry about getting irritable
it's been a rough week
Use those links above and start learning

Oct 16, 2014
My plan, Cap'n, is to get the most efficient appliances I can, and to use them as efficiently as possible. For example, my furnace is a condensing furnace that burns natural gas and has to have a drain for the water generated in its burning, and that allows that water to mostly condense because it sucks 97% of the heat out and puts it into my house. For example, my fridge is super-efficient and has an alarm if the door gets left open too long (irritating when you're putting groceries away, but not when you forget to close it all the way!) and has extra-wide gaskets and the freezer at the bottom, where it can be kept colder for cheaper (the refrigerator compartment is more efficient at getting rid of heat than any freezer can be). For example, my dryer is gas and super-efficient, and I have a flash water heater that uses less gas because it doesn't have to stay hot all the time, only when I need hot water, and pumps that bring it to the tap without wasting any.

contd

Oct 16, 2014
Since democrats and Obama are Progressives, the progressives in UK will cover for them.

And no mention of how Obama and the Democrats failed to listen to advise years ago..... http://www.washin...-obama-/

Ok... does anyone actually believe that if there was a conservative president right now, who handled the ebola mess like the democrats and Obama have that Physorg would not be slamming and blaming him?

Honesty, Integrity are not Hallmarks of Progressives. We will most likely find out how bad Ebola is, and really find out how bad Obama and the Democrats mishandled it, AFTER the election. Just like we will find out how many more thousands of dollars healthcare will cost us, and how bad the economy really is....

A vote for Democrat is a vote for corruption.

Oct 16, 2014
No, socialism is not state control of property. That's totalitarianism, and it's just as bad under right wingers as left. And in Africa, it's a right wing phenomenon. You're lying again, rggy sonny.
@Da Schneib
rygg is getting it miked up with communism, which is state run socialism and extremist in their tactics
he assumes that ALL forms of socialism are state run and owned, etc, even though i (and numerous others) have linked the definitions to him repeatedly showing the differences between socialism, communism and the various other forms ( totalitarian ) of control out there

he will ignore you and keep on trolling/spamming
just downvote etc

sounds like a GREAT plan (my fridge has that alarm too... annoying but great! LOL)
I used to actually live in a quonset hut (tent) but it was not efficient or insulated
use sustainable harvested wood for heat, but we like it cold
don't use heat unless temps drop below 40deg F

Oct 16, 2014
For example, I have a DC dishwasher that uses less than half the power, less than half the water, and less than half the detergent of a standard dishwasher, and I run the pump to get hot water to the tap so it doesn't have to heat the water as much for extra savings.

For example, I am investigating wind and solar and intend to invest in them when the technology is a bit more advanced. For example, my wife wants to buy a hybrid, and we probably will shortly for local trips to the grocery store and so forth. That's where hybrids save the most.

For example, I'm re-building my computer cluster with lower-powered systems, not only to save additional energy, but to save energy on cooling in the Summer (I have to keep an air conditioner to avoid burning their CPUs, hard drives, and graphics boards up, and less dissipation means less air conditioning for double savings).

contd

Oct 16, 2014
It's not just a matter of having efficient stuff, it's also a matter of using it efficiently. For example, I'll charge my hybrid before selling energy back to the grid operators/power companies; it's lower resistance and less of the power ultimately gets wasted making heat and more gets used on useful work. It's simply the nature of the game.

As a result my utility bills are low, and I get tax breaks and tax credits for buying efficient stuff. I'll get yet more when I solarize and start selling power to the grid. Basically I expect to only pay for gas, and not much of that; and if I sell enough electricity to offset the gas costs, I'll save yet more. Maybe even make a little bit for the vacation fund. And, I have efficient stuff that works great! <- Bonus

I don't get why Libertardian idiots don't want to save all this money. Pretty dumb if you ask me.

Oct 16, 2014
Since democrats and Obama are Progressives, the progressives in UK will cover for them.

And no mention of how Obama and the Democrats failed to listen to advise years ago..... http://www.washin...-obama-/

Ok... does anyone actually believe that if there was a conservative president right now, who handled the ebola mess like the democrats and Obama have that Physorg would not be slamming and blaming him?

Honesty, Integrity are not Hallmarks of Progressives. We will most likely find out how bad Ebola is, and really find out how bad Obama and the Democrats mishandled it, AFTER the election. Just like we will find out how many more thousands of dollars healthcare will cost us, and how bad the economy really is....

A vote for Democrat is a vote for corruption.
So it's not corrupt to use propaganda against science?

Riiiiiiiight. Whatever, dude.

Oct 16, 2014
Oh, BTW, my medical insurance costs have been cut in half. And I have heart disease, so this is a major deal for me in terms of real financial savings.

And the economy is booming.

On Earth.

It will get even better if the Libertardians quit trying to trash it to get rid of the... ummm, black dude... in the White House. And as far as ebola, Congress holds the purse and thought getting rid of said... black dude... was more important than ebola, more important than everyone getting good medical care for a fair price, more important than the economy, and more important than protecting us against terrorism. All of this just to discredit the... black dude... because they're scared of... black dudes.

Looks pretty corrupt to me. The needs of the people aren't being met because of a bunch of racists.

Oct 16, 2014
No, socialism is not state control of property.

Yes, it is.

The experts, von Mises who wrote the book "Socialism" so states and his student, Hayek, concurs.

It's the practicing socialist who keeps wanting to parse out various forms of socialism so they won't be lumped in with Mao, Pot Pot, Mugabe, Hitler, Stalin, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, ...or AGWites.

Another example of socialism:
As a result my utility bills are low, and I get tax breaks and tax credits for buying efficient stuff.


The state plunders the wealth of others to subsidize you.

Oct 16, 2014
No, socialism is not state control of property.

Yes, it is.
No, it's not.

Socialism can include a stock market, which is public ownership. Own any stocks? Then you're a socialist!

Oct 16, 2014
my medical insurance costs have been cut in half.

Another example of state control of property.
Has the service improved and who is now picking up the tab for your health care?

And the economy is booming.

What economy? The US one with millions unemployed and on food stamps?

Oct 16, 2014
No, socialism is not state control of property.

Yes, it is.
No, it's not.

Socialism can include a stock market, which is public ownership. Own any stocks? Then you're a socialist!

Stocks are a form of capitalism. People buy ownership shares of a company.

The key part of the definiton of socialism is STATE control.
Now, because of the socialism in the US, many companies are attempting to become private companies so they won't have to follow the onerous, socialist state regulations that control their business.

Oct 16, 2014
LOL, no, it's actually the marketplace acting as it should have been allowed to do long ago. If doctors and insurance companies have to compete for profit, you get better service AND lower costs. In fact, it's a boondoggle what they're charging and the free lunch at everyone else's expense is now over.

AFA millions unemployed, actually the current unemployment rate is 5.9% and the current GDP growth rate is 1.9%, and new applications for unemployment insurance claims dropped to the lowest level since 2001.

On Earth.

Here's some of the data: http://www.reuter...20141016

The rest you can google for yourself.

Now stop lying.

Oct 16, 2014
No, socialism is not state control of property.

Yes, it is.
No, it's not.

Socialism can include a stock market, which is public ownership. Own any stocks? Then you're a socialist!
Stocks are a form of capitalism. People buy ownership shares of a company.
And thus the public owns the company. Looks like socialism to me.

The key part of the definiton of socialism is STATE control.
No, it's not. It's SOCIETAL control. That's why they call it SOCIALism.

Now, because of the socialism in the US, many companies
BS. Name them.

Oct 16, 2014
Da_S Typical Progressive lies. I know no one who's medical expenses has gone down.

Over the last couple of years BECAUSE of the Democrats and OBAMACARE, medical costs have gone up by over $3000-5000.00 per family. Fewer people can now get proper health care because DEMOCRATS and Obama have made it too expensive. Indeed the next rise in insurance rates won't be published (and it is expected to be an increase in double digits) till after the election. (who would guess that)

I call your bluff, tell me which state and insurance plan you were on, and now tell me which state and insurance plan you are now on.... Lets see if what you say is true.

Progressives and Democrats like you say one thing and leave out the important things that put what they say into context......

BTW other things to come out after the election. State of the economy, how Ebola crises was mishandled, other scandals that the media won't report on. A Vote Democrat is a vote for corruption and incompetence.

Oct 16, 2014
Da_S Typical Progressive lies. I know no one who's medical expenses has gone down.
The rate of growth of healthcare spending between the passage of the ACA in 2010 and 2013 is the lowest in the history of the recordkeeping, since 1965.

Gee, looks like ACA actually worked; they're now projecting that Medicare will last into the 2030s instead of running out of money in 2017. That's thirteen extra years due to ACA. http://www.busine...4-2014-7

Now stop lying.


Oct 16, 2014
it's actually the marketplace acting as it should have been allowed to do long ago

What marketplace?
Ever since Obamacare/Medicare/Medicaid there is no free market in health care in the US.

the public

'The public' is not the state. Private individuals own the stock.
State is not society.

" Blackberry is just one of the many companies that discover that being publicly owned comes with great benefits but also great responsibilities to regulators and shareholders. Transparency is hard work. A pain in the you know what."
"The list of privately-held giants includes H.J. Heinz Co, Mars Inc, Toys 'R' Us and Fidelity Investments."
http://www.forbes...private/
Koch Industries is private.

Oct 16, 2014
"Recently, it's come to light that climate models have on average been off a little bit in predicting how much CO2 is being added to the atmosphere by man-made processes."

No it hasn't, because that's not what climate models are about. As the article clearly says, it's about carbon cycle models. Climate models concern (among much else) the effects of levels of carbon dioxide, not what those levels would be,

Oct 16, 2014
"where do I find room for another $308/month??? I've been off my parents insurance for 8 years. I've been to the doctor less than 5 times in those years, for a total cost of under $500. It's hard for me to justify spending almost $3800 a year on a bronze plan when that's more than 7 times what I've paid over the last 8 years! And even spending that much, I've still got a large deductible to cover."
http://townhall.c...n1780865

Oct 16, 2014
it's actually the marketplace acting as it should have been allowed to do long ago

What marketplace?
This one: https://www.healthcare.gov/

Ever since Obamacare/Medicare/Medicaid there is no free market in health care in the US.
Stop lying. There it is. Now go save money. Or perhaps you prefer NOT to save money and to have Medicare fail in 2017 instead of lasting at least until 2030.

the public
'The public' is not the state.
Really? And here I thought we lived in a democracy. Where, you know, we get to vote on who runs things.

Apparently you don't think so. Typical Libertardian, wants the rich people to run everything without anybody voting. Pretty totalitarian there, Libertardian.

Oct 16, 2014
What is it about Koch and Fox.

Progressives have Bill Gates, George Soros, (and I don't have time to find them) countless other billionaires, unions, green peace, Radical Muslims etc. etc. all on their side

Progressives have MSN, CNN, ABC, Twitter (which won't allow tweets protesting how a democrat Mayor is subpenaing emails, sermons of pastors in order to silence their criticism of gay activism.), facebook, time magazine, etc. etc... all on their side.

Yet they bring up fox and Koch.......

Yup..... Democrats and Progressives hate anyone thinking for themselves....

Democrats must suppress and malign the truth and anyone that dares speak it or seek it out.

Anyone wonder why you don't hear much of the Islamic State anymore? I think it's Like health care cost increase, economic issues, Ebola handling failures. We'll only hear about it after the election.

Remember a vote for a democrat is a vote for corruption and incompetence. .


Oct 16, 2014
No it hasn't, because that's not what climate models are about. As the article clearly says, it's about carbon cycle models. Climate models concern (among much else) the effects of levels of carbon dioxide, not what those levels would be,
Nick Gotts it.

Sorry, I had to. It was irresistible. :D

Oct 16, 2014
DA_S what state and what plan did you have, what state and plan do you currently have?

With these two facts, which don't identify you, we can tell if you are telling the truth and that your medical costs have gone down, or if you are a typical Paid Progressive Government Troll working for the Democrats.

Oct 16, 2014
What is it about Koch and Fox.
Scare-tactic propaganda. It's disgusting. As bad as anything the Soviets or Chinese ever did.

"Radical Muslims" are right wingnuts just like you. They think Mo did everything; you think it was Jebus. Not to mention, scare tactic much? You are a case in point, spreading propaganda to try to stop people from thinking by scaring them.

DA_S what state and what plan did you have, what state and plan do you currently have?
None of your f'in bidness, nosey. Besides, it's just anecdote; I already provided the links to hard data, so this is just you trying to change the subject. More lying.

Typical Lying Libertardian.

Oct 16, 2014
"where do I find room for another $308/month??? I've been off my parents insurance for 8 years. I've been to the doctor less than 5 times in those years, for a total cost of under $500. It's hard for me to justify spending almost $3800 a year on a bronze plan when that's more than 7 times what I've paid over the last 8 years! And even spending that much, I've still got a large deductible to cover."
http://townhall.c...n1780865
This person will be ripping us all off by declaring bankruptcy after their first major accident or illness. Time for everyone to start pulling their weight, instead of depending on the rest of us to take care of them. If they wanted free healthcare, how come they didn't make their congresscritters vote for it? And if they don't, then let's stop letting people under 50 declare bankruptcy over medical expenses; they have to pay it off instead.

Oct 17, 2014
OK, I've reread the article carefully after reading the comments and have just one question...WTF does health insurance costs in the United States have to do with the article??????

Oct 17, 2014
OK, I've reread the article carefully after reading the comments and have just one question...WTF does health insurance costs in the United States have to do with the article??????

It speaks to the moronic comments of some socialist AGWites here.

Oct 17, 2014
Prior research has shown that some plants grow bigger, which tends to cause them to take in more CO2.


I saw an article a few years ago describing a Canadian energy project which used the exhaust from it's power plants to saturate the CO2 concentration in the air in their greenhouses for growing tomatoes. It made the tomatoes grow much more, with bigger fruit.

I've also seen some articles, here and elsewhere, which show it might not be so simple though. In order to process more CO2, the plant ultimately needs more Water, phosphorous, nitrogen, and sulfer. (CHONPS) most common life elements. Increase the carbon count, you need to increase the other things, especially hydrogen(from water) and nitrogen in this case.

Short version:
It takes more water to process more CO2. This is fine in climates with excess/increased rainfall, but useless in arid or semi-arid climates.

Oct 17, 2014
OK, I've reread the article carefully after reading the comments and have just one question...WTF does health insurance costs in the United States have to do with the article??????


Insurance companies make money be evaluating risk. If medium and long-term pollution levels are projected to be lower, then health risks and property risks are lower. This means they could theoretically charge lower premiums and still make the same money.

Let's say a 17% change in CO2 makes a 2% change in cancer and a 1% change in heart attacks (just making something up as an example), then they can charge a couple percent less, and still make the same money per customer. It also means more customers can afford coverage, which means they actually make more money in total.

Oct 17, 2014
@DaSchnieb "Actually he's taking courses in physics. On Earth."
So, what does that have to do with posting a bunch of articles he didn't publish (did he reanalyze the data and confirm the results, or statistically compile results through meta-analysis)? I suppose that is a question for him to answer.
-
"On earth" (you seem to use it a lot): is that a thinly veiled argumentum ad hominem?(rhetorical question)

Oct 17, 2014
@Da Schneib:"Why? Do you not get that China and India are about to start building mass numbers of coal-fired power plants? How about Africa? What's going to happen when they get to the stage China and India are at (sic) now?"

Exactly. What is to be done about those countries? You can't force them to do otherwise. How will their carbon (since that's all you worry about) return to the carbon cycle in living organisms and stay out of the air (and water)?

Oct 17, 2014
@Da Schneib:"That's the big problem, and instead of thinking about it you're chiding people for using energy in the US and Europe."

You assume far too much. I do think about it. When did I specify any countries/continents? How did I chide? I simply asked.

You don't seem to understand that I already accept that we have problems. Atmospheric and oceanic carbon dioxide are just a couple of items on a long list. I, however, am more concerned with solutions than proselytizing.

Oct 17, 2014
@Captain Stumpy: "you are willing to ignore the preponderance of evidence supporting AGW"

No, I am not. I just consider the demonization of carbon dioxide alone as inappropriate. When I state that you have not addressed the issue, I am not requesting more articles supporting AGW due to atmospheric carbon dioxide (you don't seem to understand that I see it as a problem, just not THE problem). I am asking that you propose (or link to articles proposing) solutions to your stated problem.

Oct 17, 2014
@Captain Stumpy: "you should have linked evidence supporting your false assumptions
OH, WAIT... there is none! that is why it is a false assumption!"

To what "false assumptions" are you referring? I didn't state any fundamental concepts that would require much more than a sixth grade education to understand.

Oct 17, 2014
@Captain Stumpy: "i am off grid and self sufficient"

I applaud you for having taken these steps. However, Do you really think everybody else is willing (or able) to live the way you do? It requires a lot of knowledge and a lot of space, both of which most people don't have.

"almost entirely solar with wind backup" and "I am poor and live on a fixed income"
Apparently not too poor. You can afford solar and wind. What's your payback time frame, compared to grid power? And you have enough land to "hunt my own fresh meat and we grow most of our veggies." Sounds like you have it better than most people.

So aside from everyone becoming self-sufficient, what solution to AGW do you propose?



Oct 17, 2014
When someone starts by denying their own words, I generally don't bother responding. You asked, I answered. Sorry you don't like the answer. Get over it.

Oct 17, 2014
So aside from everyone becoming self-sufficient, what solution to AGW do you propose?
Everything. Solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, ALL of it. Anything is better than coal (or even natural gas). We should be furiously building all of these things and tearing down (or re-purposing) coal plants (we can get to the natural gas plants later, they only make half the carbon). Electric cars and trucks and tractors, and electricity from all these sources to run them. Cement and steel manufacturing that doesn't make so much carbon, and/or sequesters it (easier to do than for a coal electricity plant). Stopping deforestation and planting more trees.

Maybe we'll get to the more complex ideas, various ways of sucking carbon out of the atmosphere and sequestering it and so forth, but for now, we should be doing everything we can. Instead a bunch of greedy rich people who own coal and oil stocks are trying to stop us from doing anything with propaganda.

Oct 17, 2014
So, what can we learn from this?
Perhaps first, plants, like humans, will "eat" more if it is presented to them.
And, seeing as we are in a CO2 dry spell, they are feasting!
This, coupled with NASA satellite surveys indicating a near 10% increase in the planet's bio-cover should make the greens happy.
But, it won't.
Because it's not about Gorebull warming, climate change, CO2, ocean levels or ocean acidification.
It's about population control and power.
That's all it's ever been about.
Thanks for the fish...errr...money, suckers.

Oct 17, 2014
Only, it seems they can't "eat" more if they don't have other things.

Ever see someone burn their lawn by putting on too much fertilizer?

You can fix it by watering the heck out of it, if you're quick.

Just like that.

Oct 18, 2014
@ Duh:

"Over 22,000 Coloradoans have had their health insurance canceled by Obamacare in the past month — and 200,000 are slated to be shut down in 2015, the state insurance department announced Friday."
http://dailycalle...olorado/

Oct 18, 2014
@vv:
"But we suspect that the jump in cases from 26 in 36 years to nearly 700 in one year coming at the same time as the open-border influx of improperly screened illegal aliens is more than just a coincidence."
http://news.inves...kids.htm
Trust CDC or NAS?

Oct 18, 2014
Perhaps first, plants, like humans, will "eat" more if it is presented to them.
Only, it seems they can't "eat" more if they don't have other things.

Ever see someone burn their lawn by putting on too much fertilizer?

You can fix it by watering the heck out of it, if you're quick.

Just like that.


Where is the bottle neck which limits tree growth? Since trees are made out of air, for the most part, which is to say that some 90%+ of its mass comes from CO2, and that CO2 is relatively rare in the atmosphere (~4%), it would seem to me that CO2 would be that bottle neck (?).

Of course, trees eventually die and release the CO2 back into the atmosphere long term, however if there is more vegetation it would act as 'carbon sink' now.

"Stopping deforestation and planting more trees." - DaSchneib

Oct 18, 2014
We should be furiously building all of these things and tearing down (or re-purposing) coal plants


The reason the Adults are in fact NOT "tearing down coal plants" "furiously" is because doing so would tank economies, the very thing that is expected to pay for the transition off of carbon based energy.

we should be doing everything we can. Instead a bunch of greedy rich people who own coal and oil stocks are trying to stop us from doing anything with propaganda.


Adorable. The oil and coal industry are merely responding to economic demand created by greedy and selfish hypocrites like you.

Furthermore, those same "greedy rich people" would just assume invest their money in monkey farts, had that been a viable energy alternative with a promising return on investment.

The only way a return on an investment can happen is by demand. That is what we want, an energy source that is demanded on account of its efficiency, so it is guaranteed to scale up.

Oct 18, 2014
AGW is a technological issue, not a government social engineering or central planning issue. As anyone can see government policy wrt AGW has failed. When will the far left finally admit this dismal failure?

I have called for gov funding of a "Manhattan'esque Project ©" for fusion or safe nuclear research for years at phys.org. The markets will then scale the technology.

The bottom line is that there are enough AGW enthusiasts who do not drive electric cars nor reduce their standard of living, to have made a difference and to make blaming deniers and the oil industry superfluous.

Oct 18, 2014
"Since AGWites can't sell their faith, like ISIS, they must use force."

Only in your warped mind is suing for defamation the use of force.

Equating climate scientists with ISIS shows how sick you are.


The far left AGW-Alarmists already knows no bounds with their spoon fed propaganda,..... "When we fail to get the facts right about greenhouse gas emissions, we may unwittingly enable ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab and other extremist groups to flourish."

Oct 18, 2014
Lower than predicted because the models are wrong.

The same people who are bringing Ebola to America are funding the AGW cultists.

Beware politicians bearing money.

"The polar bears will be fine" (unless they catch Ebola) - Freeman Dyson

Oct 18, 2014
Perhaps first, plants, like humans, will "eat" more if it is presented to them.
Only, it seems they can't "eat" more if they don't have other things.
Where is the bottle neck which limits tree growth?
Water, for starters. Plants in a high CO₂ environment need more water to process the extra CO₂.

Oct 18, 2014
Interestingly enough the one metric that is never provided by AGW supporters is how much % increase of atmospheric CO2 will increase world wide climate Temps by 1 degree F Eg it should go from .04% to.041% to increase 1 Deg F.
If you don't have the answer to that then you absolutely have no proof that you know what you're talking about.
By the way it's not up to the skeptic to prove you're wrong. It's up to you to prove you're right.

Oct 18, 2014
@Itssnick
"should go from .04% to.041% to increase 1 Deg F."

You made the claim, it's up to you to prove it.

Oct 18, 2014
Interestingly enough the one metric that is never provided by AGW supporters is how much % increase of atmospheric CO2 will increase world wide climate Temps by 1 degree F Eg it should go from .04% to.041% to increase 1 Deg F.
If you don't have the answer to that then you absolutely have no proof that you know what you're talking about.
By the way it's not up to the skeptic to prove you're wrong. It's up to you to prove you're right.
Ever heard of "climate sensitivity?"

Maybe if you actually read the IPCC report instead of a bunch of propaganda about it you would have.

Oct 18, 2014
Is the niece of MLK racist?

"Martin Luther King, Jr. Niece: 'Moral Bankruptcy' Ruling Washington D.C. Under Obama"
http://www.breitb...er-Obama