Global warming: Are trees going on strike?

Global warming: Are trees going on strike?
Variation in leaf out timing of European beech between individuals growing at the same location in a mixed forest at the foothill of the Jura Mountains near Basel, Switzerland. Photographed in April 2013 in Hofstetten, near Basel, Switzerland. Credit: Yann Vitasse
Trees, crucial absorbers of climate-harming carbon dioxide gas, may finally be balking at an ever-earlier spring season brought on by global warming, researchers said Wednesday.

Over the past several decades, across central Europe have been steadily sprouting their spring leaves earlier in response to warmer temperatures, they said.

As a result, forests absorbed more in a longer growing season—a boon that has been worked into projections.

But a study published in the science journal Nature said trees have slowed their pace of seasonal advance—raising fears it may stop altogether.

The slowdown "suggests a current and possible future weakening of forests' carbon uptake due to the declining temperature sensitivity of (trees)," lead author Yongshuo Fu of Peking University in Beijing told AFP.

Forests play an important role in stemming global warming by absorbing carbon dioxide—the most abundant greenhouse gas—from the atmosphere.

For the study, an international team crunched decades of data drawn from seven common types of trees like beech, silver birch and horse chestnut at 1,245 sites in the wild ranging from Denmark to Bosnia.

The authors said previous studies had relied on saplings or twigs tested in laboratory settings and not exposed to real-world changes.

In real life, they found, leaf-sprouting happened steadily earlier over two study periods: 1980-1994 and 1999-2013—about 13 days overall over the past three decades.

But when the scientists compared the two terms, they noticed the advance of earlier sprouting had slowed by 40 percent in 1999-2013.

"We found the response (to earlier spring) has declined over the past three decades, and strong winter warming may further reduce it," said Yongshuo.

The planet's average temperature has already risen 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since the Industrial Revolution. The UN goal is to limit global warming to two C overall.

The authors believe the trees may be trying to protect themselves against extreme weather.

Many types of trees need a period of cold temperatures before they are ready to sprout spring leaves—a hardwired mechanism to ensure winter has truly passed before they push out buds.

Weather conditions have become increasingly unpredictable and the trees' slower advance "would thus reduce the risk of late frost damage," the study said.


Explore further

Tropical trees may not be the carbon sink planet scientists have been hoping for

More information: Nature, nature.com/articles/doi:10.1038/nature15402
Journal information: Nature

© 2015 AFP

Citation: Global warming: Are trees going on strike? (2015, September 23) retrieved 21 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-09-global-trees.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.
408 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 23, 2015
As a result, forests absorbed more carbon dioxide in a longer growing season—a boon that has been worked into global warming projections.

Which projection is that?

While a neat study, and certainly done with highest regard for ethical science, presenting this paper as another way to rile up the AGWs (the trees aren't using C02 anymore!) is another disservice to people trying to understand climate change and the effect is has on the world.

Sep 23, 2015
I wish the people who write this twaddle would go on strike!

Sep 23, 2015
But when the scientists compared the two terms, they noticed the advance of earlier sprouting had slowed by 40 percent in 1999-2013.

Hmm... this could not have anything to do with the globe actually cooling during this period.

Sep 23, 2015
But when the scientists compared the two terms, they noticed the advance of earlier sprouting had slowed by 40 percent in 1999-2013.

Hmm... this could not have anything to do with the globe actually cooling during this period.


I think it's due to the invasion of the invisible pink dragons myself

Sep 23, 2015
I thought water was the most abundant GHG?

Sep 23, 2015
abe
[H2O] It is.
Water is 50x more common and about 40x more effective. It is much more common in the tropics where the effect should be strongest. And yet, it is not.
CO2 is most effective in the upper atmosphere, where there is no water, and where coincidentally, it works to prevent the Suns overwhelming amount of spectrum energy from reaching Earth. As opposed to say, keep the Earth minuscule amount of energy in that band in.

There you have it, the myth is over.

Sep 23, 2015
Water vapour is the most abundant greenhouse gas. But it also works as a positive feedback on other greenhouse gases like CO2, increasing their impact. So as well as being a greenhouse gas itself, the impact of the warming caused by increasing CO2 is amplified by water vapour.

Basically, most of what Water_Prophet just said was gobbledygook.

Sep 23, 2015
...they noticed the advance of earlier sprouting had slowed by 40 percent in 1999-2013...

Which is exactly consistent with the fact that "global" warming has stopped since 1998 as noted by all the major temperature records. For example:

HadCRUT4 (weather station measurements):
http://www.metoff...ics.html

UAH satellite:
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

It's surprising the number of people who don't know that the earth has gone through both warming and cooling phases over the last century.

Sep 23, 2015

...they noticed the advance of earlier sprouting had slowed by 40 percent in 1999-2013...

Which is exactly consistent with the fact that "global" warming has stopped since 1998 as noted by all the major temperature records. For example:

HadCRUT4 (weather station measurements):
http://www.metoff...ics.html

It's surprising the number of people who don't know that the earth has gone through both warming and cooling phases over the last century.


Except for the last thirty years when we've gone for a significant and unprecedented warming phase.

Sep 23, 2015
Climate Change -- It's all about frightening the plebes.

Sep 23, 2015
Shouldn't crap like this be banned? Oh wait. There's another phony gathering in Paris this December.

Sep 23, 2015
Which is exactly consistent with the fact that "global" warming has stopped since 1998 as noted by all the major temperature records...
You're spouting "seepage" — see §6.1.2 Standard scientific practice and the "pause" (with Figures 1 and 2) of this article: http://www.scienc...15000515

Sep 23, 2015
The BOZO DENIER GOON SQUAD (BDGS) is at it again! Let me quote the one and wimpy @Shootlist who says, with his big red clown nose;
Climate Change -- It's all about frightening the plebes.
Ha ha huh huh. Seriously, Frightening plebes? That is *so* stupid, I'm at a loss for a come back. You deniers from the climate denier goon squad are the ones who are frightening. Frighteningly stupid! If you lie about climate change, what else are you going to lie about? And to whom? Your wife, kid, boss, Pastor, the Pope?


Sep 23, 2015
Which is exactly consistent with the fact that "global" warming has stopped since 1998 as noted by all the major temperature records...
You're spouting "seepage" — see §6.1.2 Standard scientific practice and the "pause" (with Figures 1 and 2) of this article: http://www.scienc...15000515

Yep, and check out the author of that seepage. http://wattsupwit...gations/

Sep 23, 2015
The BOZO DENIER GOON SQUAD (BDGS) is at it again! ..with his big red clown nose;... *so* stupid, I'm at a loss for a come back. ....deniers from the climate denier goon squad .....

Hey..hey.. it's HowShat with his big BROWN nose. Hey HowShat did your mancrush, Al, give you a snort this morning of that steak he had for dinner.

Sep 23, 2015
But when the scientists compared the two terms, they noticed the advance of earlier sprouting had slowed by 40 percent in 1999-2013.

Hmm... this could not have anything to do with the globe actually cooling during this period.


I think it's due to the invasion of the invisible pink dragons myself

Actually....
It's caused by a reduction of pink donations to the dream dragons...:-)
(Thanks, Frank Z., for that one...:-))

Sep 23, 2015
The BOZO DENIER GOON SQUAD (BDGS) is at it again! ..with his big red clown nose;... *so* stupid, I'm at a loss for a come back. ....deniers from the climate denier goon squad .....

Hey..hey.. it's HowShat with his big BROWN nose. Hey HowShat did your mancrush, Al, give you a snort this morning of that steak he had for dinner.

A LOT OF BIG WORDS coming from a climate denier.

Sep 23, 2015
I thought water was the most abundant GHG?

Water vapor, being a short lived GHG, can't drive the climate. It can only serve as a feedback to another driver that causes the warming.

Sep 23, 2015
Basically, most of what Water_Prophet just said was gobbledygook.

I think the people at PhysOrg would do everyone a big favor if they would just automatically add that line after every one of Water_Prophet's comments. ;)

Sep 24, 2015
"The authors believe the trees may be trying to protect themselves against extreme weather"

Cognitive trees that are aware of climate change and are "Preparing for the Worst to come"

LOL

PS: The number of daylight hours per day or rainfall have nothing to do with spring buds, I'm sure. /sarc

PPS: These guys have their heads so far up their arses they fart and chant "Global Warming" every 15 minutes.

Sep 24, 2015
@BloodyO



PS: The number of daylight hours per day or rainfall have nothing to do with spring buds, I'm sure. /sarc

If you hadn't added the "sarc" you would have been correct.

Temperature and duration is all important to deciduous trees. Ask anyone with experience growing stone fruit trees.

http://www.purdue...uit.html

Sep 24, 2015
@VietVet

Are you seriously trying to tell me there is no correlation between temperature and daylight hours ??

The truth is Global Warming hype is a doomsday cult that gets traction from people who are trying to find more meaning in their empty lives.

If I was to tell everyone that the global temperature is going to drop by 2 degrees celcius over the next 10 years I'd be laughed out of the room, but the correlations between the G experiments and global temperature are actually pointing to this.

And 0.8 degrees of warming falls well with statistical variation.

And is C02 is a thermal insulator it would decrease the suns effect by the same amount as it traps , which is a zero sum equation end of story.

Sep 24, 2015
36 years ago scientists said they were going to use Global Warming as a marketing campaign to reduce industrial pollution, you are living their misdirection today. It's not science, the numbers a being fudged to justify their 36 years of lies and misdirection.

Sep 24, 2015
@BloodyO

How much more daylight is there in 13 day span?

You should check your facts before you comment. It will save you embarrassment.

Sep 24, 2015

And is C02 is a thermal insulator it would decrease the suns effect by the same amount as it traps , which is a zero sum equation end of story.


You are embarrassing yourself again.

Sep 24, 2015
U R a pack of sycophantic idiots, doomsday repeaters that can't accept simple logic.

I don't care about upvotes, and sorry I hurt your feeling about your empty life.

Sep 24, 2015
And is C02 is a thermal insulator it would decrease the suns effect by the same amount as it traps , which is a zero sum equation end of story.


It does make you (read science literate readers here) wonder what planet these people (read Trolls) are from.
It seems the AGW crisis has revealed that there has indeed been an Alien invasion.

Our job Jim, should we choose to accept it .... is to stop the take over.

Sep 24, 2015
They can't even accept that spring is caused by our relative position to the sun, let alone believe and no doubt will repeat religiously that trees are now intelligent climate aware creatures who have begun to prepare for the inevitable human caused climate catastrophe.

Sep 24, 2015
36 years ago scientists said they were going to use Global Warming as a marketing campaign to reduce industrial pollution, you are living their misdirection today. It's not science, the numbers a being fudged to justify their 36 years of lies and misdirection.

You have a source for that? Who, when and where said it?


Sep 24, 2015
And is C02 is a thermal insulator it would decrease the suns effect by the same amount as it traps , which is a zero sum equation end of story.


It does make you (read science literate readers here) wonder what planet these people (read Trolls) are from.
It seems the AGW crisis has revealed that there has indeed been an Alien invasion.

Our job Jim, should we choose to accept it .... is to stop the take over.

Dammit, Jim - I'm a layman, not a climatologist! So I definitely can't change the laws of physics...

Sep 24, 2015
They can't even accept that spring is caused by our relative position to the sun,

True, but increased temperatures can mess with a tree's "biological clock"...
let alone believe and no doubt will repeat religiously that trees are now intelligent climate aware creatures who have begun to prepare for the inevitable human caused climate catastrophe.

Not "intelligent" as in having the ability to read, write 'n' cypher. But, make no mistake, they've been around a lot longer than us and have developed a pretty acute sense (awareness) of their environment...

Sep 24, 2015
Now. Let's see if we can clear up what seems to be a misconception about CO2...
It doesn't reflect heat. It absorbs solar radiation, heats up and radiates that heat (ask me about the finer details, if you need to...) . Unfortunately, it's "dewpoint" is much too high to condense at a temperature conducive to life.
Entropic mechanics tells us that it's easier to change a smaller difference in temperature (earth side) than a larger one (space side), so... the Earth being what it is (a pretty big lump of carbon and other solid matter all mixed together), it absorbs and retains that heat, re-radiating back into the atmosphere which already has a heat radiating component - CO2...
and so on..
That's the simple explanation. I could do a docile and expand to 3 or 4 or 5 posts, but I'm betting most will get where I'm headed with just this one...

Sep 24, 2015
By the way, the PLANET receives the same amount of solar radiation (daylight) every day. That will not change in the foreseeable future.
The fact that we spin on an angled axis is what makes it "appear" to change...

Sep 24, 2015
There is a 5 million km difference in our orbit, and the inverse square law definitely applies...
https://en.wikipe...'s_orbit

Trees change mode in spring because of temperature increase not the actual temperature.

If CO2 absorbs the suns radiation and releases it, all it's doing is delaying the actual energy we would have normally have had from the sun. Again this is a zero sum equation. Even if your take on entropic radiation were true, which it isn't.

acute sense (awareness) of their environment..

What a load of drivel, of course trees react to their environment, to imply they are preparing themselves for human induced global warning is laughable, considering our impact is less than 200 years (give or take) and they have evolved from natural earth conditions for millions of years.

And finally no I have no proof, do you really think they'd publish their intentions to mislead the entire planet ?, you my friend are an idjyit.

Sep 24, 2015

If CO2 absorbs the suns radiation and releases it, all it's doing is delaying the actual energy we would have normally have had from the sun. Again this is a zero sum equation...

CO2 ONLY absorbs IR radiation my friend - that emitted by the Earth.
I think you will find that the Sun is a tad warmer - and so the frequency of Solar is in the SW..... which passes through the atmosphere. Err, that's why it's call the Greenhouse effect.
What a load of drivel, of course trees react to their environment, to imply they are preparing themselves for human induced global warning is laughable, ......

This article simply says that warmer winters lead to an earlier spring. Fine - makes sense. BUT when too warm a natural mechanism in deciduous trees responds by slowing it's "spring" - because a cold enough spell did not occur that winter.
And finally no I have no proof, do you really think they'd publish their intentions to mislead the entire planet ?...

Conspiracy!

Sep 24, 2015
It absorbs solar radiation

This isn't quite true. It does absorb some solar radiation, but as runrig points out, the spectrum emitted from the earth is quite different from that of the sun and it's the earth's radiation that is mostly absorbed. But the real effect of greenhouse gases is to extend the height of the troposphere to higher and colder altitudes. And, as everyone should know, colder things emit less radiation, so the troposphere (and the surface) warms (http://www.skepti...one.html ). This is why Mr. Orphan's talk about an "insulator" is just so much nonsense. As for his claims of trees and timing of spring, if he knows anything about trees, he knows that some (most? All?) look for temperature to decide when to come out of hibernation.

That he believes that thousands of scientists and engineers are in a conspiracy together and none of them has spilled the beans speaks volumes about his inability to think clearly and logically.

Sep 24, 2015
CO2 ONLY absorbs IR radiation my friend - that emitted by the Earth.
I think you will find that the Sun is a tad warmer - and so the frequency of Solar is in the SW..... which passes through the atmosphere. Err, that's why it's call the Greenhouse effect.

Thanks, Runrig (and ZZ). I stand corrected on that fact.
What a load of drivel, of course trees react to their environment, to imply they are preparing themselves for human induced global warning is laughable, ......

The article simply says that warmer winters lead to an earlier spring. Fine - makes sense. BUT when too warm a natural mechanism in deciduous trees responds by slowing it's "spring" - because a cold enough spell did not occur that winter.

Actually, I think the authors are saying, the RATE at which they are able to respond to warmer winters is slowing... (tipping point on the horizon...)
Personally, I talk to each my trees once a week...
Takes a couple of hours cuz there's a lot of them...:-

Sep 24, 2015
Climate Change -- It's all about frightening the plebes.


Said the Coward

Sep 24, 2015
Thanks, Runrig (and ZZ). I stand corrected on that fact.
@Whyde
some reading you can go thru
http://pubs.giss....al_1.pdf

this will help you understand more about CO2 and it's relationship with H2O

i can dig up more, but you can also follow the references and simply do a google scholar search (or regular google/duck search for simpler terminology)


Sep 24, 2015
There is a 5 million km difference in our orbit, and the inverse square law definitely applies...
https://en.wikipe...'s_orbit

We're gonna pretty much receive the same amount of radiation at 91m miles as we do at 95m. It doesn't dissipate enough in that little bit of space to create any significant change. If I'm wrong, please direct me to the proper info source.
I'm not getting how the inverse square law is applied in this situation...


Sep 24, 2015
see http://www.sott.n...s-a-scam

"Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned this week from his post at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He admitted global warming climate change was nothing but a scam in his resignation letter. "

Sep 24, 2015
Wah Wah Wah, the tilt of the earth causes our seasons yet the distance from the sun has no effect.

You cats are just scrabbling for purchase on a failed doomsday cult paradigm that makes you feel alive.

What a bunch of plonkers.

Sep 25, 2015
Wah Wah Wah, the tilt of the earth causes our seasons yet the distance from the sun has no effect.

You cats are just scrabbling for purchase on a failed doomsday cult paradigm that makes you feel alive.

What a bunch of plonkers.


My friend, the seasons are a hemispheric effect balanced by the opposite half of the Earth.
You confuse total planetary energy balance with regional. It is the solar angle that is at play there and not the inverse square law.
Now would you like to make an intelligent comment?

Sep 25, 2015
Nature's 100 million year old thermometers are screaming that the earth has been cooling since 1999, yet the AGW Cult remain blinded by their dogma.
Seeing all those contradictions in their conclusions, was like reading their bible.

Sep 25, 2015
Yeah I've heard this before, yet according to you lot, all that energy is still being absorbed by the atmosphere, so the total energy absorbed is still the same.

Yet again a zero sum equation.

And no I'll keep doing this till all the witches are dealt with, this board is riddled with them.

Enjoy your headaches people 8-)


Sep 25, 2015
Yeah I've heard this before, yet according to you lot, all that energy is still being absorbed by the atmosphere, so the total energy absorbed is still the same.

Yet again a zero sum equation.

And no I'll keep doing this till all the witches are dealt with, this board is riddled with them.

Enjoy your headaches people 8-)


Be our guest, and join the ranks of posters on here who wail at those who merely discuss and understand climate related physics.
There is nothing in the slightest arguable about solar and terrestrial energy absorption/emission to/from space. It's just basic empirical physics.
Shouting loudly and throwing your dummy out of your pram does not change the way the world works my friend.... it does provide some hilarity however.

Sep 25, 2015
Nature's 100 million year old thermometers are screaming that the earth has been cooling since 1999, yet the AGW Cult remain blinded by their dogma.
Seeing all those contradictions in their conclusions, was like reading their bible.


Yeah global ice extent is at record lows because the ice was bored. The permafrost is thawing because it's just in a bad mood right now. Australia's climatic zones have shifted 350km south because they like to travel. And sea levels have risen 20cm because they're feeling playful #headdesk


Sep 25, 2015
I will never ever understand the capacity of somebody to wade through acres of science to find a cherry pick they believe supports their pre-conceived ideas. How many reports about the loss of global sea and land ice did you have to get through to get to those graphs ? (that don't say what you think they say, by the way).

Just ignoring for a fact that all of them relate solely to Arctic sea ice and NOT global sea ice extent, Arctic summer sea ice extent has declined 11-13% percent per decade since the 1970s.

http://nsidc.org/...-minimum
http://climate.na...sea-ice/

Again, I don't understand how you can devote so much time and energy to *not* learning about a subject. It's mind boggling.

Sep 25, 2015
Leeteneant, your first link says that the current melt is the 4th lowest extent. If there were a pattern of catastrophic loss, it would be 1st.

Your 2nd link says the same thing.

How many reports about the loss of global sea and land ice did you have to get through to get to those graphs ?

None.

declined 11-13% percent per decade since the 1970s

Yes, ice extent goes up, and it goes down. Would you say this is the most ice retreat ever known in the history of the earth?

NOT global sea ice extent

Let's take a look:
It goes up and down, but check out the average line:
http://www.climat...Area.gif

We are well within climatic variable change:
http://arctic.atm...obal.png

It's mind boggling.

Not really.

Sep 25, 2015
And that, denglish is known as cherry picking. And now, if it's fourth and the first is 2012 and the third is 2011 then yes, that's catastrophic ice loss. Take a look at the decadal loss - that's what important. You are utterly incapable of analysing data. It's truly extraordinary. Stop using short-term variation to justify denial. It's dogmatic, it's blinkered and it makes you, frankly, wrong.

Sep 25, 2015
So why do you all argue then ? ..... Its an emotional response to anything that does not agree with your doomsday philosophy , unarguably

Sep 25, 2015
http://thechive.c...e-video/

This is what you lot are , and I mean the d**k head on the ground who was beating on a blind kid, to enhance your own ego's and tout your own superiority.

Sep 25, 2015
http://thechive.c...e-video/

This is what you lot are , and I mean the d**k head on the ground who was beating on a blind kid, to enhance your own ego's and tout your own superiority.

No. It's not about that at all. Your video was a jerk move BTW bro. No what we demand is that you deniers just shut the f -- up and quit being the pricks you are. If your a denier, you don't know f?cking sh?t. You need a re-education on CO2 and climate change (wikipedia is neutral and realistic, go there). Seriously if your that much in denial of climate change or global warming, your listening to the wrong people.
There are Mother Fing people that get paid 100k+/year (republican funding BTW) to host web sites like Wattsupwithat and about 50 others. In other words, if you site 'wattsupwith' then you have been played, you are the fool of the GOP! Sorry to be political, but truth speaks.


Sep 25, 2015
Lot's of emotions flowing through here...
Take a deep breath and relax.....

Sep 25, 2015
My good friend @Whydening Gyre
Lot's of emotions flowing through here... Take a deep breath and relax.....

Ok, and yet from the article;
The planet's average temperature has already risen 0.8 degrees Celsius (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since the Industrial Revolution.
And yet we have people denying that fact and pretty much calling the article bunk! We are taking trees man. Trees that won't grow from the excess heat of current global warming phase, and probably more so in the future. Deniers are a bunch of nuts with a suicide mission. (Your republican party today BTW).


Sep 25, 2015
It's the conclusions that are dubious not the facts, to categorically say it's CO2 is taking it a step to far.

The conclusion that increased CO2 is the only factor in our rising global temperature is a dubious conclusion.

If you want to combat pollution then talk about pollution, to try and play on peoples emotions in such a blatant way is not going to help anyone in the long run.

It's politically motivated, not science.

Some scientists call it climate change for a reason, it's definitely a worthy study, but the scientists that have categorically stated it's because of CO2 are not considering all the other factors which must be part of the overall equation.

Sep 25, 2015

Some scientists call it climate change for a reason, it's definitely a worthy study, but the scientists that have categorically stated it's because of CO2 are not considering all the other factors which must be part of the overall equation.


All the other factors HAVE been taken into consideration.

Sep 26, 2015
So the extra energy from our depleted ozone layer has nothing to do with it ?

The ozone hole has decreased by 40% in the same time frame, a very coincidental number based on these findings.

Sep 26, 2015
I will never ever understand the capacity of somebody to wade through acres of science to find a cherry pick they believe supports their pre-conceived ideas
@Leetennant
it is called religious fanaticism. if you consider the conspiracy ideation of the poster, you will understand her epic failures to actually comprehend the science. it is not about reality: it is about protecting their delusion

take the following also into consideration: when deniers are faced with reality & science
...circle the wagons, hyper-vigilant against attacks, challenges, feedback or questions. We get prickly and rigid, insistent that we're on top of things, precisely because we're not. To those around us it can look like the height of arrogance but it's actually vulnerability. We don't think more of ourselves, but less and are grasping for the self-certainty we've lost

https://www.psych...ttle-ego

Sep 26, 2015
So the extra energy from our depleted ozone layer has nothing to do with it ?

The ozone hole has decreased by 40% in the same time frame, a very coincidental number based on these findings.

O3 is a GHG my friend.
The lack of it means that the Earth LOOSES more energy than it would do otherwise.
(one reason why Antarctica is reluctant to warm)
You don't know much about science do you?
Yet you seem so sure than the experts have it wrong and you have it right.
I'd love to know how the f*** that works.
Maybe I should have gone to a Uni where ignorants from the streets were dragged in to give lectures to us.
FFS.

Sep 26, 2015
My sunburnt arms 10-20 years ago makes your statement about ozone a complete and utter load of bullshit.

You are back to the personal attacks, good on you all, another attack on the "Blind Man" .... I'm so stupid and uneducated , but you all are Freakin Geniuses, Geniuses that repeat other peoples work and twist it to meet you own bullshit conclusions.

In previous studies it was concluded the extra UV because of the ozone layer was causing plant cycles to change.

To warm up the planet by the amounts they are talking about takes a lot more energy than we can produce full stop.

Keep on the emotional train wreck bandwagon, it obviously makes you all feel more worthy of your pathetic lives.

Sep 26, 2015
Here you go I'll make your next bullshit statement for you ...

"The frequency of UV doesn't equate to heat , yes you may have been sunburned but that's not heat, much the same as IR from the sun changes frequency when re-emitted from the earth which is why CO2 traps it after it's gone straight past the CO2 layer on the way down to earth"

Blah Blah Blah , you are stupid and uneducated a DENIER of the nth degree that doesn't care about the Earth that we all live on.

Sep 26, 2015
So the extra energy from our depleted ozone layer has nothing to do with it ?

The ozone hole has decreased by 40% in the same time frame, a very coincidental number based on these findings.


Where are you getting "the ozone hole has decreased by 40%"?

This is the most complete and up to date info I could find.

http://www.theozo...tory.htm

Sep 26, 2015
[q
Here you go I'll make your next bullshit statement for you ...
.......
Blah Blah Blah , you are stupid and uneducated a DENIER of the nth degree that doesn't care about the Earth that we all live on.


Calm down my friend.

My sunburnt arms 10-20 years ago makes your statement about ozone a complete and utter load of bullshit


The fact that UV causes sunburn is irrelevant - UV is less than 1% of Solar absorbed on Earth.

"This part of the spectrum accounts for less than one percent of the total solar energy reaching our atmosphere. Stratospheric ozone is important because it prevent dangerous ultraviolet rays from harming plants and animals on Earth's surface, but reductions in the amount of radiation absorbed does not have a measurable impact on temperatures below."

http://www.ucsusa...h1MtViko

Sep 26, 2015
Further:
"Stratospheric Ozone

The TAR reported that ozone depletion in the stratosphere had caused a negative RF of –0.15 W m–2 as a best estimate over the period since 1750. A number of recent reports have assessed changes in stratospheric ozone and the research into its causes, including Chapters 3 and 4 of the 2002 Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion (WMO, 2003) and Chapter 1 of IPCC/TEAP (2005). This section summarises the material from these reports and updates the key results using more recent research."
From:
https://www.ipcc....3-6.html

ie Stratospheric O3 lose is causing a (v v slight) cooling globally.

Sep 26, 2015
Ozone depth over Switzerland...
http://www.iac.et...zon.html

Sep 26, 2015
http://tes.jpl.na...imateO3/
Ozone is both a major absorber of incoming UV in the stratosphere (leading to stratospheric heating) and a strong emitter in the thermal infrared.


So the heat that would have been absorbed by the ozone layer now hits the earth, although some of it will eventually radiate away as per the IPCC report. Trees will still cop the extra UV though.

https://en.wikipe...raviolet
However, at ground level sunlight is 44% visible light, 3% ultraviolet (with the Sun at its zenith), and the remainder infrared


0.8 degrees is 5% of a 16 Degree earth average daytime temperature. Now 1-3% isn't enough to account for the total difference of 0.8 but to disregard it completely strikes me a blinkered approach.

Sep 26, 2015
ie - Stratospheric O3 lose is causing a (v v slight) cooling globally.

Wouldn't that indicate it to be an insulating component of the atmosphere?

Sep 26, 2015
ie - Stratospheric O3 lose is causing a (v v slight) cooling globally.

Wouldn't that indicate it to be an insulating component of the atmosphere?

A GHG, yes.

Sep 26, 2015
Global warming: Are trees going on strike? No, global warming hasn't been occurring for almost two decades now. It's not too surprising that the trees have stopped sprouting leaves earlier and earlier. One can understand why the global warming enthusiasts would deny that the warming has stopped, unfortunately some apparently deny it has even paused. It will be interesting to see how long the deniers can stick to it when it starts cooling as it is expected to do over the next 30 years or so beginning when the current El Nino dissipates.

Sep 26, 2015
One can understand why the global warming enthusiasts would deny that the warming has stopped, unfortunately some apparently deny it has even paused.

Do you have any evidence for this claim of yours? According to the temperature, the earth has experienced statistically significant warming since 1999. Given the noise of the climate + weather, it would be very surprising to see a shorter period show statistically significant warming. In addition, sea level rise has continued unabated and the melting of the glaciers has continued to accelerate. This all seems to indicate an error on your part and makes me wonder just who is in denial.
It will be interesting to see how long the deniers can stick to it when it starts cooling as it is expected to do over the next 30 years or so beginning when the current El Nino dissipates.

Do you have a link to this expected cooling? The science indicates that there will be no cooling even for another Maunder minimum.

Sep 27, 2015
Wah Wah Wah, the tilt of the earth causes our seasons yet the distance from the sun has no effect.


You know that the Earth is closest to the Sun in January, right? In my neck of the woods, we call that time "Winter". You know where it's hot in January? The side of the Earth with more exposure to the sun during that period of the Earth's orbit. You know why one side of the Earth has more exposure to the Sun at certain times of the year than during the other? Hint: It doesn't have to do with proximity to the sun.

Sep 27, 2015
so on average during the northern hemisphere winter the Earth receives 6% more solar radiation than in the summer


http://www.ccfg.o...gess.pdf

Sep 27, 2015
Its entirely understandable that trees would put the brakes on seasonal adaption.
Because if they went too far (in anticipation of ever warmer springs) their buds and growing layer (just under the bark) would be wiped out by a hard late frost as nature cyclically swung back again.
Evolution hasn't equipped them for perpetual global warming. It would take thousands of years to make that kind of permanent adaption to climate change.

However nature does have a quicker solution to perpetual warming: Tropical species migrate to temperate zones to fill the gap left as cold loving species recede.

Sep 27, 2015
For years there is thought to be a global warming "hiatus" of almost two decades which suddenly disappears when new data adjustments are made. How can people be so certain
about the science held up as proof of global warming when new information is still being created?

Sep 27, 2015
For years there is thought to be a global warming "hiatus" of almost two decades which suddenly disappears when new data adjustments are made. How can people be so certain
about the science held up as proof of global warming when new information is still being created?

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me the big thing was that, throughout the so-called "hiatus", there was never any evidence that there was a "hiatus". Global temperatures continued to increase, the sea level continued to rise, ocean temperatures continued to rise, the accelerating loss of glaciers continued. The "hiatus" was mostly a product of the anti-science groups. As for new information being "created", due to the poor representation of the areas of the earth experiencing the most warming, it was pretty well known that the surface temperature datasets were under representing the warming. And satellite sets have worse problems, so they're not much help.

Sep 27, 2015
Maybe that's a question we should be asking those of you who oppose science: Almost two decades of a so-called "hiatus" and the anti-science groups still can't find any evidence of a "hiatus". Why do you unquestioningly accept the existence of a "hiatus"?

Sep 27, 2015
Wow!!
So, after decades of taking advantage of the increasing CO2 and temperatures, the trees have suddenly decided to join the ignorant AGW Chicken Littles in believing the sky is falling. Then again, 100s of millions of years, being out in the cold, may just have made them better aware of the fact that the globe has been cooling since 1999.

Sep 27, 2015
so on average during the northern hemisphere winter the Earth receives 6% more solar radiation than in the summer


http://www.ccfg.o...gess.pdf

Thanks for that bo ... nice paper.
I actually thought that it was 8%.

Sep 27, 2015
I don't believe we have records of world wide temperatures with a resolution of better than 1f.

....or do we?

Sep 28, 2015
is known as cherry picking

What got cherry picked?

And now, if it's fourth and the first is 2012 and the third is 2011 then yes, that's catastrophic ice loss

Ice levels wax and wane, yes?

decadal loss

http://www.climat...Area.gif
Sorry, don't see anything to flap my wings about.

Stop using short-term variation to justify denial.

OK
http://www.facult...50Ka.png

You are utterly incapable of analysing data.

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback.

It's dogmatic, it's blinkered and it makes you, frankly, wrong.

Interestin

Sep 28, 2015
They can't even accept that spring is caused by our relative position to the sun, let alone believe and no doubt will repeat religiously that trees are now intelligent climate aware creatures who have begun to prepare for the inevitable human caused climate catastrophe.


Uhh, what? Spring is caused by the tilt of our axis.
Not sure if you are aware of this, but when it is summer in the northern hemisphere, it is winter in the southern hemisphere and vice versa

Sep 28, 2015
Wow!!
So, after decades of taking advantage of the increasing CO2 and temperatures, the trees have suddenly decided to join the ignorant AGW Chicken Littles in believing the sky is falling. Then again, 100s of millions of years, being out in the cold, may just have made them better aware of the fact that the globe has been cooling since 1999.


Yes antigoracle, it's a conspiracy so insidious even the trees are in on it. And the Arctic. I never trusted it with all its "melting ice" nonsense.

Sep 29, 2015
Wow!!
So, after decades of taking advantage of the increasing CO2 and temperatures, the trees have suddenly decided to join the ignorant AGW Chicken Littles in believing the sky is falling. Then again, 100s of millions of years, being out in the cold, may just have made them better aware of the fact that the globe has been cooling since 1999.


Yes antigoracle, it's a conspiracy so insidious even the trees are in on it. And the Arctic. I never trusted it with all its "melting ice" nonsense.

http://wattsupwit...-thrive/

Sep 29, 2015
And the Arctic. I never trusted it with all its "melting ice" nonsense.

You should. The ice melts in the summer.

But, as we can see, there is nothing out of the ordinary going on:
http://nsidc.org/...ries.png

Here it is in a longer time frame:
http://www.facult...50Ka.png

Ice trends with the climate, trees trend with the climate, everything trends with the climate. Heck, we're now learning that even Mars has a dynamic climate that effects running water.


Sep 29, 2015
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/videos/old-ice-arctic-vanishingly-rare

While perennial ice increased between 2013 and 2014, the long-term trend continues to be downward,

Looks like we need more data. Its interesting to wonder if perennial ice increase is catching up with the warming pause.

Sep 29, 2015
As usual - denglish and goracle demonstrate total ignorance of the fundamentals.

Stopped there. Your probationary un-banning is reversed.

In the future, if you are looking for honest dialogue, you should not engage in insult as a preliminary statement. It is well known that insult is the last refuge of an exhausted intellect.

Sep 29, 2015
This email notice thing is annoying. I think something worth reading has been posted, and all I get is this lousy "Comment posted by a person you have ignored".

Sep 29, 2015
Maybe that's a question we should be asking those of you who oppose science: Almost two decades of a so-called "hiatus" and the anti-science groups still can't find any evidence of a "hiatus". Why do you unquestioningly accept the existence of a "hiatus"?

Because that's what the measurement systems say:

RSS:
http://woodfortre.../to:2015

HADCRUT3:
http://woodfortre.../to:2015

No unquestioning about it.

Sep 29, 2015
This email notice thing is annoying. I think something worth reading has been posted, and all I get is this lousy "Comment posted by a person you have ignored".


Sep 29, 2015
Considering cherry-picking the "hiatus" from ~1997 using RSS (skeptics fav).

You can draw a trend through the whole series (purple). The sensible option
Or you can cherry-pick out the "hiatus" trend (blue).
Mind if you do that then you really aught to cherry-pick the period prior in isolation as well.
And what happens?
Take a look....
http://woodfortre...ss/trend

Now extrapolate the red-line.... err, it doesn't cross the "hiatus" trend until AFTER 2020!

In other words on RSS the "hiatus" was no such thing - it was an incremental step UP in temp.

Sep 29, 2015
In other words on RSS the "hiatus" was no such thing - it was an incremental step UP in temp.

runrig, ya lost me. The time period in question is 1997-2015. Your example shows what is well known, but seems to side-step the time period in question by using dates that fall outside of the time period where the point is made.

Your example does show warming from 1978. There is no argument there. It is known we are in a warming epoch. The argument lies in the last ~ 18 years not matching the predictions (which the policy makers are using), and that the cooling trend/warming hiatus indicated by RSS was confirmed by HADCRUT3 and other unaltered data sets.

There have been a ton of papers on the hiatus, and it was even addressed by the IPCC. The amount of non-attention it gets, for being a non-entity, is odd.

Sep 29, 2015
I'll also point out that the separation between the two time periods (1978 to 1997 vs 1997 to 2015) is also an El Nino event, which is known to cause warming, giving the period from 1997-2015 a very good chance at showing a cooling trend, and the the 1978-1997 period a very good chance at showing a warming trend.

It should also be noted that a La Nina event occurred in 1975-76, allowing more warming trend to happen from 1978 to an arbitrary future point.

Sep 29, 2015
@Deglish,
It should also be noted that a La Nina event occurred in 1975-76, allowing more warming trend to happen from 1978 to an arbitrary future point.
BS. Nothing even close to that occurred in 75, 76 or 78. When and where? How was it measured, and what are the specifics. What happened globally? CO2 is global pollution and will float in the air for 1000s of years being a Green house gas. And your plan to fight global warming is what?

Your full of it dude. A typical climate change denier that is as clueless about science as you are about washing your own underwear. (which probably doesn't happen often enough!). So answer the issue seriously about what you will do about climate change?

Sep 30, 2015
Re the RSS "hiatus" cherry-pick.

I gave the woodfortrees graph analysis merely to point out the absurdity of saying, as may deniers do, that "there has been no warming" for x,y years.

There has been a slow-down in AIR temp rise. But those that know climate science appreciate that the atmosphere is by far the smallest reservoir of climate energy. The Pacific rules there. The long run of -ve PDO/ENSo state has slowed heat transfer (oceans heat the air largely NOT land). The energy budget imbalance has seen the excess stored in the ocean.
However there is the recent realisation that a cooling bias was inveigled it's way into global temp calc (buoys now predominating) and the lack of Arctic metrics.

Sep 30, 2015
@Deglish,
It should also be noted that a La Nina event occurred in 1975-76, allowing more warming trend to happen from 1978 to an arbitrary future point.
BS. Nothing even close to that occurred in 75, 76 or 78.

Denglish is correct that there was a La Niña event in '75-'76 so he would have a point, if the trend was started in those years, but the trend was started in '78 which started with an El Niño (http://meteora.uc...ory.html ). ENSO is a cycle and the temperature effects from it lag ~3 months, so you wouldn't expect any lingering effects from the '76 El Niño to be found in '78. And starting the trend in '78 means that it isn't affected by the '75-'76 La Niña.

It is nice, however, to hear denglish admit that starting a trend in '97-'98 is cherry picking. So I'm sure we'll see him now admit that there is no evidence for a hiatus. ;)

Sep 30, 2015
So answer the issue seriously about what you will do about climate change?

There is nothing I can do about what the earth does. I am not god, despite my anthropocentric greed. I do drive a Prius though.

There has been a slow-down in AIR temp rise.

Also in Land-Sea before the Karl paper and the statistical change.

starting a trend in '97-'98 is cherry picking

Not cherrypicking. It is a calculation. The significance in it is that it does not match the predictions, thus bring the predictions, and the societal wing-flapping, into doubt.

So I'm sure we'll see him now admit that there is no evidence for a hiatus.

For there not being a hiatus, it sure got a lot of attention. the IPCC admitted it in AR4, there were countless papers trying to explain it, and there was altering data to remove it. So, there are *alot* of people (a consensus, if you will) that think there is and/or was a hiatus.

Sep 30, 2015
@denglish
There is nothing I can do about what the earth does. I am not god, despite my anthropocentric greed. I do drive a Prius though.
Is your choice to drive a Prius strictly economic?

Sep 30, 2015
@denglish
There is nothing I can do about what the earth does. I am not god, despite my anthropocentric greed. I do drive a Prius though.
Is your choice to drive a Prius strictly economic?

I'd say 75/25 economic. I don't mind thinking I'm doing something for a cleaner planet too.

Sep 30, 2015
@denglish
There is nothing I can do about what the earth does. I am not god, despite my anthropocentric greed. I do drive a Prius though.
Is your choice to drive a Prius strictly economic?

At home, did you move to LED lighting?

Sep 30, 2015
@denglish
There is nothing I can do about what the earth does. I am not god, despite my anthropocentric greed. I do drive a Prius though.
Is your choice to drive a Prius strictly economic?

At home, did you move to LED lighting?

Whaddaya doin' writin' a book? :-)

No.

Sep 30, 2015
"At home, did you move to LED lighting?"
---------------------------------

Yes, . . and skylights, . . and improved insulation and a condensing furnace with variable speed blower and low-power air cleaner to go with the new efficient washing system and instantaneous water heater.

Sep 30, 2015
"There has been a slow-down in AIR temp rise."
Also in Land-Sea before the Karl paper and the statistical change.

Nope not the sea.
NB: this is energy in Jx10^22
http://www3.epa.g...eat.html

"starting a trend in '97-'98 is cherry picking"
Not cherrypicking. It is a calculation.

An invalid one. Because it does not go long enough to eliminate a natural cycle - PDO/ENSO (been in mainly negative phase).

The significance in it is that it does not match the predictions, thus bring the predictions, and the societal wing-flapping, into doubt.


GCM's use states of among other things aerosol and PDO/ENSO (inherently unpredictable) - take out those things and the models are spot on.
You have to understand what models can/cannot do. They are not deterministic, rather indicative. You have to analyse them. That's why there are error bars.
Foster & Rahmstorf 2011
http://www.skepti..._All.gif

Sep 30, 2015
As I've been studying and learning more about the climate and its cycles, the ENSO event expected this winter will be an interesting watch for me.

Typically, global temperatures go up after an El Nino event, but sometimes they don't. Sometimes they peak at the year of the El Nino. What will it be this time? There seems to be some belief that The Blob in the Pacific Ocean will influence what happens (making temperatures go up), but The Blob may go away too.

Good times.


Sep 30, 2015
Nope not the sea.

Depends on whether you ask HADSST2 or HADSST3
http://woodfortre...15/trend

An invalid one. Because it does not go long enough to eliminate a natural cycle

Agreed. However, it is significant because it disproves the models being used to make policy.

take out those things and the models are spot on.

IOW, take out natural climatic actors, and the models are spot-on.

You have to analyse them.

That would never fly in business. It is or it isn't. Fudging is a no-no.

Sep 30, 2015
"At home, did you move to LED lighting?"
---------------------------------

Yes, . . and skylights, . . and improved insulation and a condensing furnace with variable speed blower and low-power air cleaner to go with the new efficient washing system and instantaneous water heater.
But no PV panels... You lied about that one didnt you? What are the chances that you are lying about the these things as well?

Sep 30, 2015
"At home, did you move to LED lighting?"
---------------------------------

Yes, . . and skylights, . . and improved insulation and a condensing furnace with variable speed blower and low-power air cleaner to go with the new efficient washing system and instantaneous water heater.


Skippy you don't realize you have the BIG PROBLEM?

You seem to want to use the question to somebody else as an excuse to chime in and write a postum all about you. Are you that desperate because nobody ever asks you anything? As if all your postums begging somebody to ask you something were not sad enough.

Sep 30, 2015
"take out those things and the models are spot on.You have to analyse them."

IOW, take out natural climatic actors, and the models are spot-on.

Look it's quite simple, those things were NOT present in the model algorithm when the GCM's were run.
Like I said, you need to understand what they can/cant do.
They cant forecast things that are not forcastable.

That would never fly in business. It is or it isn't. Fudging is a no-no.

Exactly .... but It's NOT business - this is science - forcecasting the future science. That's the point.
You expect to narrow down the probs unreasonably far.
Models are tools' here they show the underlying science is sound.
That's all they can do.
What's the odds that a prolonged +ve PDO/ENSO phase will boost global AT to the top end of IPCC predictions?

Sep 30, 2015
They cant forecast things that are not forcastable.

Exactly. This is my main beef. The science is far from settled (because these things aren't forecast-able), and potentially ruinous societal policies are being pushed because of these models.

Models are tools' here they show the underlying science is sound.

Not sound if there are actors that aren't included.

What's the odds that a prolonged +ve PDO/ENSO phase will boost global AT to the top end of IPCC predictions?

Food for thought! Who knows, if The Blob hinders El Nino (if I understand correctly), temperatures could stand to go up. If it does happen, and it can be linked to to PDO/ENSO, then CMIP5 (using predominantly C02 for the predictions) would need to be questioned even more.

Sep 30, 2015
Ira, do you have anything brilliant to say regarding this topic, or am I your only topic?

You already advertised your game of "The Uncle Ira Show", as you call it, to the delight of your family. Yup, them-there cute comments are a real joke.

As for the PV's, I have had several quotations and analyses, and even more options for paying for them. It takes time. It gets even more complex when adding in the electric car options and potential energy storage.

Perhaps you folk think we just go down to Wal*Mart and ask for the California Savings Package, but everything is site-specific, and has to be integrated into the facility and the usage patterns.

How about you folk?

Sep 30, 2015
Notice that both lines slope up... denglish cannot even read a graph...


"There has been a slow-down in AIR temp rise."

Also in Land-Sea before the Karl paper and the statistical change.


greenonions cannot even read a thread.

That's what I get for looking. Back to the mute locker for you.


Sep 30, 2015
Ira, do you have anything brilliant to say regarding this topic, or am I your only topic?

Jeepers, this person does nothing *but* talk about themselves. Get in the mute bin with your kin.

Don't feed the trolls.

Sep 30, 2015
@denglish
There is nothing I can do about what the earth does. I am not god, despite my anthropocentric greed. I do drive a Prius though.
Is your choice to drive a Prius strictly economic?

At home, did you move to LED lighting?

Whaddaya doin' writin' a book? :-)

No.

Nature in general is a model of energy efficiency. Do you think that, economically speaking, it is a good think to progress towards more efficient technologies?

Sep 30, 2015
Nature in general is a model of energy efficiency. Do you think that, economically speaking, it is a good think to progress towards more efficient technologies?

Absolutely!

The problem is, we are not yet at a point that we can use cleaner fuels without significantly impacting the prosperity of humanity. The link between harnessing fossil fuels and the improvement of the human condition cannot be denied.

Cut the use of fossil fuel without a suitable substitute, and we're back into the Malthusian trap, with a *real* danger to nature for desert. Check this out:

http://object.cat...a715.pdf

Sep 30, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored


show comment

No thanks.

Sep 30, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored


show comment

No thanks.

Sep 30, 2015
You already advertised your game of "The Uncle Ira Show", as you call it, to the delight of your family. Yup, them-there cute comments are a real joke
His family are the ones who exposed your slimy lie about having an MS in environmental management.

They made you look like a real joke, which is what you are.

Oct 01, 2015
I'd say 75/25 economic.
RE: Prius / Green vehicles
this is ONLY if you have a prius and you are in a climate that does not have long term cold snaps, BTW!

when i was looking for a car, i researched the Prius and others. the Prius doesn't get great mileage in the colder winters but during the summers would excel... it was far more economical (cheaper as well as less emissions) to purchase a Kia Rio and get a constant 44Mpg and never have the recycle problem of the batteries every 2-5 years or 30,000 miles (plus costs incurred for said swap)

so... Do not get into the mode of thinking that a "green vehicle" is always more green than another vehicle!
Do the homework!
sometimes (especially when you live in cold climates etc) you need to be open to all options and examine your lifestyle to make a good informed decision...

a Prius in MY area would have been far more polluting overall than the Rio

Oct 01, 2015
Stumpy, will you straighten out otto about you contacting USF to verify my MS in Environmental Management?

Maybe one by one we will take away his fantasies, and his excuses to abuse others.

Thanks.

Oct 02, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ... show comment

No thanks.

Oct 02, 2015
@ Captain Stumpy - the Prius has an 8-year/100,000-mile warranty on its battery.
I prefer an Outback for bad weather though, the Prius has the ground clearance of a hamster.

Oct 02, 2015
Nature in general is a model of energy efficiency
@Techno
hey, check out this link and tell me who it sounds like: https://www.clima...=general

yep! it's dung in a NUTshell (intentional emphasis on Nut)
his tactics mirror that link...it is almost as though he went to a school to intentionally lie:
Three Ways Climate Deniers Cherry-Pick Facts about Climate Change
1. Misrepresenting Data
2. Cherry-Picking Facts
3. Dwelling on the Weather


.

Stumpy, will you straighten out otto
@Gkam
leave me out of it
I can only state you gave a document that says
Masters of Science (MS) at
the College of Professional Studies
1- this is irrelevant in the discussion
2- argument from authority is not a valid argument
3- i can't argue anything except that the college validated it as issued by them

Oct 02, 2015
@ Captain Stumpy - the Prius has an 8-year/100,000-mile warranty on its battery.
I prefer an Outback for bad weather though, the Prius has the ground clearance of a hamster.
@Estevan57
Yeah, finding a "green" vehicle for off-road is not easy... and the outback is fine except for the more challenging terrain. there is plenty of choices for remote living, but there are no real "green" choices when you need larger vehicles that are also off-road capable... Jeep makes a good straight 6 that is fair on fuel and big on power, but....

this is one of the problems with the future WRT fuel consumption and necessities, IMHO... some people actually require off-road capabilities, and rural living often necessitates larger trucks with towing, etc... whereas Toyota makes a good fuel efficient V-8, and other straight 6 are great in this regard, there is a lot of "green" left out of it all

Oct 02, 2015
Oh?

It is not irrelevant to the game being played in several discussions. Since you are a long-term member of the tribe who frequent these fora, I was hoping you would help clean it up. I guess not.

This is argument from experience, not some remote authority. You want to challenge that? Call me a LIAR, like your buddy, otto?

I will get this forum cleaned up.

Oct 02, 2015
"I will get this forum cleaned up". - gkam
No, you won't . you have no power or authority to do anything here but strut and whine about others. And it is not a forum, it is a comments section. They are different.

gkam, you are the fossil fuel of this comments section. A stinking lump of coal.

Oct 02, 2015
Why have you vandals taken this forum down to the level of a junior high-school playground, with your silly trading of insults?

Please grow up or go somewhere else.

Oct 02, 2015
"You want to challenge that? Call me a LIAR, like your buddy, otto?" - gkam

Childish like this? Dumbass.

Oct 02, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ... show comment

x4
No thanks.

Oct 02, 2015
Thanks for reinforcing my point of those who scream nasties at others, bereft of either ideas or meaningful content.

Can we get back to the issues of the thread?

Oct 02, 2015
Can we get back to the issues of the thread?
which ones?
the trees? the discussion re:fuel economy and environmental impact of vehicles (which i perceive as relevant)?
or your arguments about you?
Since you are a long-term member ... hoping you would help clean it up
actually, i am a relative newcomer compared to some, and these are comment sections, not a forum (there is a difference)

also, i would like to clean up the trolling, etc, but that would also include arguments from authority and unsubstantiated posts etc...

there are only two ways to fix the problem:
Moderation (the site will not do this, nor adhere to their own posting rules - probably because they charge advertising and the more posters, the merrier... even if it is trolling/baiting.argument from authority, or against their own posting rules, etc)

remove comments entirely (then it becomes an issue to prove popularity and they lose $$)

2Bcont'd

Oct 02, 2015
Stumpy, will you straighten out otto about you contacting USF to verify my MS in Environmental Management?
Getting people to jump through hoops for them gives psychopaths a thrill.

"Psychopaths make their way by conning people into doing things for them... even standing up for them when others try to expose them. But that is their claim to fame. That's what they do... What's more, the job is very easy because most people are gullible with an unshakable belief in the inherent goodness of man."

-If you had such a degree you would have provided evidence here
http://phys.org/n...ack.html

-Youve had months to provide evidence of your degree. Instead, you gave ira evidence which suggested that you were lying all along.

Who but an imbecile or a sicko would do this?

"Psychopaths are notorious for not answering the questions asked them. They will answer something else, or in such a way that the direct question is never addressed."

Oct 02, 2015
@gkam cont'd
You want to challenge that? Call me a LIAR, like your buddy, otto?
really george?
lets talk arguments for a moment: how is the argument
You want to challenge that?
or the argument
Stumpy, will you straighten out otto
in any way argument from experience?
where is the experience that demonstrates that your post is correct?
where is the evidence that supports your conclusions?
where is the link that validates your claims?

try offering evidence that is substantiated or validated in other areas than your personal opinion... and quit trying to make it all about your personal life

RULE 37
remember that one G?
RULE 37 - there are NO [insert profession/claim/gender/etc here] on the internet!

argument from authority is just as trolling/baiting as argument from pseudoscience or religion

so, you can either substantiate your posts or continue to get mad about people who debunk you

respect is earned, not demanded
perhaps you should seek help?

Oct 02, 2015
Thanks for reinforcing my point of those who scream nasties at others
Oh you pooooor baby.

"Normal people HURT when treated cruelly and insensitively. Psychopaths only feign being hurt because they perceive hurt as not getting what they wanted, and tried to get by manipulation!"
bereft of either ideas or meaningful content
Exposing your true nature (IMO) is very meaningful. And informative. And worthwhile.

Psychopathy is an epidemic which affects us all.

Is george kamburoff one such rodent? Evidence seems to suggest it but I am no expert like his shrinks down at the VA.

Thanks for providing a mundane and untalented example with which to prod and poke. IMO of course. I could be wrong.
Can we get back to the issues of the thread?
The issue is never you. This is clear to everybody here but you.

Oct 02, 2015
there are only two ways to fix the problem:
Moderation
Mods used to be very active here. Ryggy/marjon got banned a few times. Posts used to be routinely deleted if they were the brainless one-liners and floods that gkam normally posts. Antialias used to complain about this.

Poor otto1923 was banned when he told dick wolf to go fuck himself. And of course zephyr, the king of the banhammer, could never be gotten rid of. Same with returners/lurker/etcetc.

There were the epic gangrating wars, the toot/lite/etc downrating efforts (hes back I see)... and there was a bizarre series of flooding inanity from pussycat_eyes in several iterations who finally died or something. By that time the mods had given up continuous participation, banning and deleting only mega-abusers like zephyr.
cont>

Oct 02, 2015
But traffic is how this site makes money. These wars and conflicts keep people coming back. And who knows? Physorg may tolerate religionists and deniers and psychopaths in part because people here have effective counter-arguments which really should be heard in a public forum.

We have at the moment what is most likely a bonafide psychopath to fiddle with.

"At the present time, there is a veritable explosion of reports from our readers about their experiences with individuals they have encountered in the "alternative research" fields, as well as in general interactions of their lives. What is so shocking is the number of such individuals that must exist, based on these reports. This is not just an occasional event, it seems to be almost a pandemic!"

-It behooves us all to become familiar with their ways and means, and to be able to recognize them in our families, the workplace, and wherever else we may encounter them.

This website is a pretty good place for this to happen.

Oct 02, 2015
"Poor otto1923 was banned"

It's you gamers who ruin everything. Not having done anything in your own lives, you deprecate the efforts and achievements of others. Hiding behind not just a pseudonym, your "otto" also hides behind a Coward's Portal, to make sure nobody finds out who he/she is, so he/she does not face responsibility for his/her actions.

BTW, real experience is not appeal to authority, or however you want to dismiss it. Mine is and still is verifiable, but your kind will always come up with another little game to deny or ridicule it, won't you? Do any of you have any decency?

Stumpy, these are your fellows, and you are welcome to them.

Oct 02, 2015
It's you gamers who ruin everything
Ive never said anything about playing games and youve never produced an instance where I did.

But in this thread
http://phys.org/n...ble.html

-you admitted that you are here to play people like cheap kazoos.
Not having done anything in your own lives
-But youve lied about what youve done many times, to yourself as well as the community here.

This is well-documented. You can deny it to yourself but to the people here, its just another lie.
BTW, real experience
-does not tell you that fallout is the main cause of lung cancer. THAT only comes from a demented mind.

Yours.

Oct 02, 2015
Mine is and still is verifiable
Lie. Winning 'airman of the month' and a free dinner along with hundreds of others does not qualify as experience.

Lying about your MS only verifies that youre a very sick old man who cant be trusted with anything he says..

Oct 02, 2015
Stumpy, these are your fellows, and you are welcome to them
@gkam
quit taking everything so personal: i warned you time and again (shall i repeat those PM's?) that you would encounter NOT ONLY flack for not presenting evidence, but that Otto would specifically target you because you didn't support your claims
real experience is not appeal to authority
and neither is it a valid argument for anything other than "this worked at this time for this person"

Until you can substantiate your "experience" with evidence (links/proof) then it is no different than personal conjecture or anecdotal evidence. experience doesn't give insight or validate evidence or situations in ANY way
it will, however, give insight to the person owning the experience, but that is different than validation, isn't it?

BTW- it IS appeal to authority to argue your cred's instead of posting evidence to support a claim
and i told you THAT quite a few times already too

Oct 02, 2015
What do you want? I proved I was at Edwards AFB, I proved I was in Igloo White, I proved I earned a Master of Science, I proved my thesis.

Who the hell are any of you to question me?


Oct 03, 2015
Comment posted by a person you have ignored ... show comment

Hat Trick.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more