Disappearing rice fields threaten more global warming

rice fields
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

All over China, a huge change has been taking place without any of us noticing. Rice paddies have been (and are being) converted at an astonishing rate into aquaculture ponds to produce more protein for the worlds growing populations. This change risks creating an unexpected impact on global warming.

International researchers, including Prof Chris Freeman from Bangor University, have found conversion of paddy fields to aquaculture is releasing massive amounts of the greenhouse gas methane into the atmosphere.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have warned the planet will reach the crucial threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030, precipitating the risk of extreme drought, wildfires, floods and for hundreds of millions of people. Freeman commented "Another source of methane is the last thing we need".

It was always assumed that because are already a huge source of atmospheric methane, nothing could happen to make a difficult situation worse.

When describing their work which appears in Nature Climate Change, Prof Chris Freeman commented: "We were amazed to discover that methane production from the converted rice paddies was massively higher than before ."

Prof Freeman of the University's School of Natural Sciences explains:

"Paddy fields produce huge quantities of methane when decaying is broken down by microbes called methanogens in the oxygen-free waterlogged paddy soils. But in the aquaculture ponds that are replacing the paddy fields, vast quantities of food are added to feed the crabs and fish that are being grown in them, and that massively increases the amount of rotting material for the methanogens to produce even more methane."

Prof Freeman added: "We have known for some time that rice paddies were bad for global warming. But the realisation that there's a "hidden" new source of problems is taking these threats to whole new level."

There is also hope revealed in their studies though. Their research shows that if modifications were made to aerate the aquaculture ponds, much of the harmful could be eliminated before it reached the atmosphere. The IPCC warn global net emissions of carbon dioxide would need to fall by 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 and reach "net zero" around 2050 in order to keep the warming around 1.5 degrees C. The race is now on to ensure these changes are introduced before the current increasing rate of land use change exacerbates the situation further.


Explore further

Greenhouse gases from rice paddies may be 2x higher than thought

More information: Junji Yuan et al. Rapid growth in greenhouse gas emissions from the adoption of industrial-scale aquaculture, Nature Climate Change (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41558-019-0425-9
Journal information: Nature Climate Change

Provided by Bangor University
Citation: Disappearing rice fields threaten more global warming (2019, March 5) retrieved 19 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-03-rice-fields-threaten-global.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.
664 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Mar 05, 2019
I don't think the professors are going to get much love for their blaming of warming on rice and crab farts.

More importantly, there are absolutely ZERO numbers in this article explaining tonnage or percent of annual methane contribution. Searching for it isn't the answer... Bangor didn't put it in the article pushing the argument.

Mar 05, 2019
The Vegan push against animal protein is never ending. These scientists better start doing some useful work and stop leaching off of the working class.

Mar 05, 2019
I don't think the professors are going to get much love for their blaming of warming on rice and crab farts.

More importantly, there are absolutely ZERO numbers in this article explaining tonnage or percent of annual methane contribution. Searching for it isn't the answer... Bangor didn't put it in the article pushing the argument.


@AnotherCommenter: Click on the DOI link at the bottom of the article. There you will find the actual paper that was published. The actual paper contains plenty of numbers.

Mar 05, 2019
Yes it doesn't take much to show that trolls like AnotherCommenter and MR166 who show up on any mention of climate change are just that - trolls.

Mar 05, 2019
marcush the world has been ending for 30 years now and as each prediction fails a new one based on current weather patterns is created.

Mar 05, 2019
https://www.clima...decades/

Where are all of the dying polar bears? All of these climate frauds will eventually be exposed.

Mar 05, 2019
@mr166 They are invading towns because they have no food source. They are an apex predator so they aren't likely to just lay down and die. https://www.accuw...70007456

Mar 05, 2019
The world has been getting worse for 100 years, and every single time one of you science trolls pokes up your head from below the sand you move the bar. Oh, it's not warming AS MUCH as they said it would, oh the sea level isn't raising QUITE AS MUCH as they said it might if we didn't change things (some of which we changed), oh that cluster of tornadoes isn't happening QUITE AS OFTEN as they predicted that it might if we went unchecked (we went slightly checked).

Wake the fuck up morons. This is the world you're making us all live in by acting dumb.

https://www.nytim...ths.html

https://www.ucsus...nge.html

https://climate.n...a-level/

In the future it will be a crime to be so stupid I feel.

Mar 05, 2019
The Vegan push against animal protein is never ending. These scientists better start doing some useful work and stop leaching off of the working class.


Like you do anything useful. Wax that floor good. Clean up after those rich people. Maybe they will give you a pat on the head. If you had 3 brain cells in your head instead of a jerky knee you'd read the part where they didn't like the rice patties either. But reading takes work, and mental work is foreign to you. Probably like hygiene and human decency.

Mar 05, 2019
Heh. Somebody's stupid enough to think I'm anti-climate. I'm just anti-"bad university pr department," and this one caught me before my coffee.

No mention of relevant numbers in the writeup, no mention of mitigation practices described in the abstract... Bangor's PR team is even sadder than the one I had to deal with.

Mar 05, 2019
Yes it doesn't take much to show that trolls like AnotherCommenter and MR166 who show up on any mention of climate change are just that - trolls.


One wonders how much they are being paid to post their continual stream of lies here, and who is paying them.

Mar 05, 2019
"One wonders how much they are being paid to post their continual stream of lies here, and who is paying them."

Well I know who is paying them.......government grants.

Mar 05, 2019
Not just paddy, agriculture in general is one of the biggest contributors of GHG even today. Various crops consume a large amount of water; and it also started also around the same time when humans discovered the fire. Fossil fuels came much later.

Mar 05, 2019
@AnotherCommenter
No mention of relevant numbers in the writeup
I've not had a problem viewing the entire study: https://www.natur...9-0425-9

or are you complaining about the PO article?
no mention of mitigation practices described in the abstract
not sure where you're going with that one
from what I can tell, they were effectively quantifying the greenhouse gas implications of the expansion by
measure[-ing] year-round methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from paddy fields and new, extensively managed crab aquaculture ponds
then they produce their findings and conclude
the conversion of paddy fields to extensive crab aquaculture ponds sharply increased the GWP, primarily through a drastic increase in CH4 release. Our findings emphasize the need to assess the climatic impacts of land-use shifts towards industrial-scale aquaculture
...

there is more, mind

Mar 05, 2019
"One wonders how much they are being paid to post their continual stream of lies here, and who is paying them."

Well I know who is paying them.......government grants.


You infowars kids really need to take your meds. That went "deep state" really quickly.

Mar 05, 2019
or are you complaining about the PO article?

Yes, this article. University PR departments are, from experience, staffed by communications students who are more interested in planning their next bar hop than doing their paid job while on the clock. They completely ignore provided drafts and wireframes. The sloppy work, especially on something like this, is extremely damaging to original intent and does nothing but provide ammo for bad actors in the general media.

not sure where you're going with that one

The mitigation by aeration bit was originally not included in this writeup. That's an industry no-brainer to prevent peat. There's even a few giant probiotic pills made for ponds just for this type of thing, so that aquaculture systems don't die out from poisoning themselves.

In short, the presentation sucks. A more neutral & accurate title would have been, "Low Adoption of Methane Countermeasures in Aquaculture Presents Global Warming Challenge."

Mar 06, 2019
Chinese are sick of being 5ft 5 inches on average. 2nd generation Chinese in North America are almost 5 inches taller on average than the people back home. Global warmists want to deny them protein or feed them INFERIOR plant protein.

Mar 06, 2019
Oh dear, the rate of sea level rise is not accelerating. Hummmm is this another climate hoax meeting its well deserved death?

https://wattsupwi...-claims/

Mar 06, 2019
" Global warmists want to deny them protein or feed them INFERIOR plant protein."

TB they want to feed EVERYONE inferior plant protein. Perhaps short people are more eco friendly.

Mar 06, 2019
Besides the huge economic waste and resultant poverty that these climate hoaxes create, the true harm is in the fact that peoples attention and resources are being diverted from the real problems facing mankind and the earth.

Mar 06, 2019
@mr
that these climate hoaxes create
is this another climate hoax
funny you keep linking wattsupwiththat when we're talking about science

if you had any evidence or could refute any of the science you would be linking studies and their subsequent validation

this is the epic failing of your denial idiocy, mind

it really is simple
- PROTIP: if you can't refute the science with equivalent science then you're delusional in your refusal to accept validated science

you can make all the irrational conspiracist claims all you want - it doesn't change the facts

Mar 06, 2019
Capt just look at the NYC tide gauge chart which is one of the oldest in the nation and tell me where the so called acceleration is!

Mar 06, 2019
funny you keep linking wattsupwiththat when we're talking about science

if you had any evidence or could refute any of the science you would be linking studies and their subsequent validation

this is the epic failing of your denial idiocy, mind

it really is simple ...HAWW...HEE...HAWW...HEE... it doesn't change the facts

Cap'n StumPid, aka..Da Schitts, brays again.
Of course, the StumPid believes he's providing facts, when he links to skepticalScience; a blog which NEVER reference, even the Cult's pal reviewed "studies".
LMAO.

Mar 06, 2019
@mr
Capt just look at the NYC tide gauge chart...
I'll see your single chart and raise you About 269,000 results (0.11 sec) on google scholar

also note:

1- *global* acceleration

2-
"The tide gauge measurements are essential for determining the uncertainty in the global mean sea level acceleration estimate," said co-author Gary Mitchum, University of South Florida College of Marine Science. "They provide the only assessments of the satellite instruments from the ground." Others have used tide gauge data to measure sea level acceleration, but scientists have struggled to pull out other important details from tide-gauge data, such as changes in the last couple of decades due to more active ice sheet melt.
https://climate.n...erating/

3- https://www.scien...3513.htm

4- https://scholar.g...mp;btnG=

Mar 06, 2019
Heh. Somebody's stupid enough to think I'm anti-climate. I'm just anti-"bad university pr department," and this one caught me before my coffee.

No mention of relevant numbers in the writeup, no mention of mitigation practices described in the abstract... Bangor's PR team is even sadder than the one I had to deal with.

I have to say it is pretty bad. And it seems to be pretty commonplace.

There was one posted here recently about the effects of low- or null-gravity conditions on the human sense of time, and they started it out by talking about relativistic time dilation. SMH

Mar 06, 2019
@idiot illiterate antiG
when he links to skepticalScience; a blog which NEVER reference
really?
lets check that with a link: https://skeptical...nced.htm

wow! 5 studies linked by the second paragraph

makes you look kinda stupid, eh?

moreover, if you actually *read* those studies referenced in that blog post, you will see that the post represents a far more comprehensive explanation put together for a clear picture than anything you've typed in any post, anywhere, for the past 10 years


Mar 06, 2019
Snow depth, days with snow, etc., all decreasing across Canada. https://ici.radio...-en.html

Mar 06, 2019
Too bad those pesky land based tide gauges do not back up the satellite data. True numbers beat human "adjusted" data every time.

Mar 06, 2019
@mr
Too bad those pesky land based tide gauges do not back up the satellite data
so, what you're saying is that you're willing to *literally* ignore the tide guages data because you really, really want to believe in the wattsup bullsh*t?

and you don't see a problem with that?

that is literally your personal denial of facts that *you, personally* brought up in this discussion because you read a wattsup idiot article and didn't check the facts!

from link #3 above
These web-based charts -- available online at https://www.vims....ndex.php -- project sea level out to the year 2050 based on an ongoing analysis of tide-gauge records for 32 localities along the U.S. coastline from Maine to Alaska
those "true numbers" beat your delusional bullsh*t made up data every time

as for your "adjusted" comment - you can't read tide guage data that I linked but somehow you're an expert on the data?

really?

Really????

LMFAO

Mar 06, 2019
@mr cont'd
just look at the NYC tide gauge chart which is one of the oldest in the nation and tell me where the so called acceleration is!
ok, so lets actually look at that chart and look at what the numbers actually say: https://www.vims....ndex.php

from the gauge site:
many stations—particularly along the U.S. East Coast—show evidence of a non-linear change or acceleration beginning in 1987, at the center of a 36-year sliding window beginning in 1969—thus setting the start date for our sea-level report cards. In short, we use post-1969 data because the linear sea-level trends of earlier decades do not accurately predict the sea-level changes that are most likely to occur given more recently observed acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise
read that last sentence again, just in case you missed it

per your own request - NYC looked at
it proves you and the wattsup site wrong

what will you cherry pick next?

Mar 06, 2019
@mr
Capt just look at the NYC tide gauge chart...
I'll see your single chart and raise you About 269,000 results (0.11 sec) on google scholar

mr166's post about the tide gauge is based on an erroneous analysis. The battery tide gauge shows that sea level rise there over the last 30 years is 4.55 +/- 1.58 mm/yr (https://tamino.wo...el-lies/ ), which is higher than the average over 170 years (2.85 mm/yr). This means the tide gauge data shows recent acceleration in the sea level rise. It's nice to see that the tide gauge data agrees that sea level rise is accelerating.

Mar 07, 2019
I don't think the professors are going to get much love for their blaming of warming on rice and crab farts.

More importantly, there are absolutely ZERO numbers in this article explaining tonnage or percent of annual methane contribution. Searching for it isn't the answer... Bangor didn't put it in the article pushing the argument.
says AnotherC

That reminds me - the new Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortex wants to eliminate cows to stop their producing Methane. But the dummy doesn't understand that it's not only Methane from cow farts - but ALL life forms that have a digestive tract also produce Methane - including humans are Methane producers. Will she also insist on getting rid of elephants, moose and deer, etc ? She could start by eliminating the whole farting Democrat Party.
:)

Mar 07, 2019
That reminds me - she wants to eliminate cows to stop their producing Methane. But the dummy doesn't understand that it's not only Methane from cow farts - but ALL life forms that have a digestive tract also produce Methane - including humans are Methane producers. Will she also insist on getting rid of elephants, moose and deer, etc?

For the sake of sharing the knowledge, it's cow burps, not farts. They have four stomachs, the first of which is the rumen and is the source of the word rumination. They constantly throw up in their mouths to chew a little more and tend to burp a lot. Oddly enough, the industrial farming CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding ops) that get railed against feed them corn which immensely cuts down on methane production. I still prefer pasture grass fed.
Moose & deer are pretty good at varying their diets. Elephants suck worse than cows. Their poop looks like hay bales.

Mar 07, 2019
The world has been getting worse for 100 years


Things are better than ever before in human history. You're an alarmist fool.

Mar 07, 2019
eee

Mar 07, 2019
Capt. go to https://tidesandc...=8518750

and download the cvs file. You tell me where the numbers point to an increasing rate!

Mar 08, 2019
@mr
Capt. go to https://tidesandc...=8518750

and download the cvs file. You tell me where the numbers point to an increasing rate!
from your link:
here is is: https://tidesandc...rend.png

keywords:
a 95% confidence
interval of +/- 0.09 mm/yr
Hmm... and that data looks so familiar...

also note: your entire argument comes from wattsup and has no validation anywhere except with opinion from non-scientific sources as well as political idiots

tell you what, mr - the challenge isn't for me to give you numbers. the numbers are there

what you should be doing is, if the numbers are wrong, presenting the refute in a peer-reviewed journal paper which should be subsequently validated rather quickly if the data and numbers are wrong

until then you're arguing political belief against factual, measured data

Mar 09, 2019
Capt using the NOAA NY data from 1962 to 1990 I calculated the change in sea level. Then I calculated the change from 1990 to 2018. There was no significant difference between the two. I think that you are getting your information from sources that are using the satellite data for the later years.

Mar 09, 2019
@mr
using the NOAA NY data from 1962 to 1990 I calculated the change in sea level
lets see:
using the NOAA link you specifically provided, we see
based on monthly mean sea level data from
1856 to 2018
then
The long-term linear trend is also shown, including its 95% confidence interval
so what did my link state?
In short, we use post-1969 data because the linear sea-level trends of earlier decades do not accurately predict the sea-level changes that are most likely to occur given more recently observed acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise
so, why do you choose 1962?

let's ignore that for a moment - you then say
I think that you are getting your information from sources that are using the satellite data for the later years
wrong: I got my data specifically from the tidal gauges
I used your link, then I used the source data *from the gauges*
The Battery, New York - Station ID: 8518750
I even state that above

2Bcont'd

Mar 09, 2019
@mr cont'd

I remember uba and the others - at this point, I ask you the following:

Why can't curry or the others at wuwt meet the exacting requirements of the peer-review system and publish a refutation, using the data they claim is "evidence" on their blog, which should be validated quickly?

we're talking a convoluted argument using detailed analysis which you claim is factual because it's on a blog... so why isn't this in a study?

this doesn't strike you as odd because you *want* to believe it's true, so you accept the logic without actually knowing WTF is actually happening because you don't want to know what the studies contain

so, why is your data so different than the linked graphs I sent you from your own link or mine which directly contradicts you?

why are you so willing to accept wuwt over the science?

is it because of your fear of the implications?

Mar 09, 2019

what you should be doing is, if the numbers are wrong, presenting the refute in a peer-reviewed journal paper which should be subsequently validated rather quickly if the data and numbers are wrong

Cap'n StumPid brays again.
Uh huh, peer-reviewed, like this one.
https://phys.org/...ong.html

LMAO.

Mar 09, 2019
Capt one of your posts stated that the rate of rise started to change in 1990. That is 28 years from 2018 so I went back 28 years from 1990 and started at 1962 in order to compare similar time periods.

Capt are you disputing the validity of the NOAA tide gauge data set and saying that the satellite data has been proven to be more accurate?

Mar 09, 2019
@idiot delusional antig
peer-reviewed, like this one
just one of the things you missed in that article:
But scientists rallied round the authors, pointing out that the process surrounding the Nature paper's publication and correction was, really, how scientific research is supposed to work
so, when science corrects itself, it's proof (for you) that all the science is wrong? LMFAO

so when science proves you're an idiot with your denier rhetoric, repeatedly, demonstrating that your argument is false, then it's proof that science is wrong too?

that science was corrected

you've never once corrected any mistake you've made when subsequently proven wrong by reams of evidence


Mar 09, 2019
@mr
Capt are you disputing the validity of the NOAA tide gauge data set and saying that the satellite data has been proven to be more accurate?
before you go any further, you should research a little about what either does and why both are used in conjunction with each other

since I know you won't look, I'll provide some links for you to peruse and misunderstand
https://eos.org/o...uge-data

https://journals....0.CO%3B2

http://adsabs.har...15.3291C

or, you could have learned about the data you're working with from the link you provided because that is where I found it on NOAA
https://beta.tide...how.html

Mar 09, 2019
Actually, reducing methane emission from cattle is pretty easy.

Feed them seaweed. It's plentiful, it's already harvested right now today to get emulsifiers for ice cream and many other human food products, and if we do it right it shouldn't have much environmental impact, simply because there aren't enough dairy cattle to eat very much of it.

It would help if there weren't politicians trying to double down on lies and convincing dairy farmers to do nothing.

And the whole narrative is skewed anyway; most methane emissions come from dairy cattle, not beef cattle. Another liar denier lie bites the dust.

One point worth mentioning: there isn't much seaweed in the Pacific Northwest. This is because sea urchins eat it; this phenomenon is called an "urchin barrens." These wouldn't exist if the Russians hadn't killed off all the apex predators of sea urchins, sea otters, in the 19th century. BC has plenty of kelp; so does California. And they both have sea otters.

Mar 09, 2019
And use of seaweed in cattle feed was documented here on this site in August of last year:

https://phys.org/...ons.html

"I was extremely surprised when I saw the results," said Ermias Kebreab, the UC Davis animal scientist who led the study. "I wasn't expecting it to be that dramatic with a small amount of seaweed."


Pay attention people.

Mar 09, 2019
Actually, reducing methane emission from cattle is pretty easy.

Feed them seaweed. It's plentiful, it's already harvested right now today to get emulsifiers for ice cream and many other human food products, and if we do it right it shouldn't have much environmental impact, simply because there aren't enough dairy cattle to eat very much of it.

It's even easier than that. Just mix in corn or soak the hay in corn oil. Both seaweed and corn hit about the 70% reduction mark and the corn lobby can be a useful friend of opportunity. Start small, think big and all of that.

I'm not sure how it might affect taste, though. Blind taste test research for all three would be an interesting followup.

Mar 09, 2019
As for this article, it seems that methane production isn't "crab farts" or "rice." It's the presence of methanogenic microbes. This can be suppressed by injection of air which has oxygen which the methanogens die when exposed to- and this doesn't hurt the rice, and actually encourages the aquaculture.

So the liar deniers are lying again.

Twice in one thread.

Mar 09, 2019
Actually, reducing methane emission from cattle is pretty easy.

Feed them seaweed. It's plentiful, it's already harvested right now today to get emulsifiers for ice cream and many other human food products, and if we do it right it shouldn't have much environmental impact, simply because there aren't enough dairy cattle to eat very much of it.

It's even easier than that. Just mix in corn or soak the hay in corn oil. Both seaweed and corn hit about the 70% reduction mark and the corn lobby can be a useful friend of opportunity. Start small, think big and all of that.
Be interesting to see if they're additive. You seem to be assuming not. I don't think you have the data to do that.

I'm not sure how it might affect taste, though. Blind taste test research for all three would be an interesting followup.
All four: nothing, corn, seaweed, and seaweed+corn. If ya gonna do it do it right.

Mar 09, 2019
And the amusing thing here is that these folks are trying to run aquariums without aerators.

Stoopit. Typical of the Chinese government. Just like short-sighted accountants trying to run a tech company in the US; I have seen many of these in action and they're all the same kind of stoopit.

We'd have companies mining the Moon right now except for these fucking idiots.

Mar 09, 2019
Be interesting to see if they're additive. You seem to be assuming not. I don't think you have the data to do that.

Considering that such an experiment has not been run, no. I can't fund research grants.

However, the base theory behind each is that the addition of easily processed nutrients spurs additional digestion. The addition of anything "soft" that cows are willing to eat helps, be it seaweed, corn or anything else for that matter. There's going to be a hard ceiling of additives and at that point, research into ruminants with lower indigestible fiber content may be the answer. Even adding beano may be the answer since that's a human solution for indigestible fiber.

All four: nothing, corn, seaweed, and seaweed+corn. If ya gonna do it do it right.

Varieties, too. Hay type makes a big difference.

Mar 09, 2019
the base theory behind each is that the addition of easily processed nutrients spurs additional digestion
Fine, then prove it. You have no theory to suggest that corn and seaweed suppress the same process; if they don't then they will be additive.

Only testing can establish this unless you have precise data on what metabolic pathways each suppresses.

Now, got a response for the stoopits who are running aquariums without aerators?

Mar 09, 2019
Capt using the NOAA NY data from 1962 to 1990 I calculated the change in sea level. Then I calculated the change from 1990 to 2018. There was no significant difference between the two. I think that you are getting your information from sources that are using the satellite data for the later years.


I went to the scientific literature, and it seems your analysis is too simplistic;

Relative sea-level trends in New York City during the past 1500 years
https://journals....16683263

A similar analysis of global tide-gauge records (Church and White, 2011; Jevrejeva et al., 2008) also showed acceleration throughout the 20th century (Cahill et al., 2015a; Figure 8a). Contrary to simple analysis of tide-gauge records, we conclude that the significant acceleration necessary for RSL in NYC to reach the heights projected for 2100 CE and beyond is already underway.



Mar 09, 2019
@Castro, septic tanks are flooding in Florida.

I am on record predicting sewage rope gangs hanging liar deniers by their heels over their septic tanks and waiting for the tide to come in. I sure as hell would if these assholes told me everything was OK and then the tide came in and flooded my front yard with sewage. Let them drown in it.

Mar 09, 2019
Fine, then prove it. You have no theory to suggest that corn and seaweed suppress the same process; if they don't then they will be additive.
Only testing can establish this unless you have precise data on what metabolic pathways each suppresses.

Only testing can prove that combining them will work, either. I guess everyone will have to wait.

Now, got a response for the stoopits who are running aquariums without aerators?

I already did.
The mitigation by aeration bit was originally not included in this writeup. That's an industry no-brainer to prevent peat.

Short story: anyone running without aerators is not going to be running for very long. Anaerobic dead zones are a great way to kill stock.

Side story: You have got to chill and back off your bitter stance. You want to talk? I'll talk. Obviously I see a problem with emissions, too. Snapping at everyone you see and espousing paranoia is not the way to go about it, though.

Mar 09, 2019
@Another, you just look like another one of the liar deniers. And you can see I have the chops to cut them.

If you wanna talk, I'm willing, but I'm not gonna put up with trolling for a second.

My stance is not bitter; it is realistic. I'm watching a bunch of Chinese accountants destroy the Earth of, not my descendents, because I don't have any, but the human race in their short-sighted idiocy. In fact, I don't really care; apres moi le deluge. I am just making nasty comments about the deluge.

And they may run long enough to really fuck us good.

Maybe next time you won't post bullshit about crab farts.

Mar 09, 2019
But scientists rallied round the authors, pointing out that the process surrounding the Nature paper's publication and correction was, really, how scientific research is supposed to work
so, when science corrects itself, it's proof (for you) that all the science is wrong?
LMAO.
Cap'n StumPid brays again.
Hey StumPid, you keep preaching about peer-review, which that AGW Cult's paper passed. It had to take a heretic, a few minutes, to show just how biaASSed and corrupt the Cult's peer...er...excuse..pal review is.

Mar 09, 2019
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
https://www.nasa....n-losses

Where is that accelerated sea rise coming from?

Mar 09, 2019
Oh, neat, teh @algoracle gets pwnt again and whines again.

Makes an anti-gay comment again and gets pwnt again.

Claims there's a "scientis cunspirasy" again and gets pwnt again.

Claims peer review is a "scientis cunspirasy" run by "heretics" again and gets pwnt again.

Were you born an idiot or did you have to practice?

Mar 09, 2019
@Another this is your posse.

If you're not brain dead you can see why I look on you as a poser.

I will judge you based on whether you disown them or not.

Mar 09, 2019
"I went to the scientific literature, and it seems your analysis is too simplistic;"

Castro how is it simplistic? The claim was that since 1990 the rate of sea level rise has increaed from about 2,8mm/year to 4mm/year. Where does the tide gauge data data show that!!!!!

You like Capt are claiming that the data presented is false despite the inclusion of error bands. Yes newer methods can decrease the error bands but not enough to justify the claimed increase. Now if you were to tell me that the NYC land is rising at a faster rate during the last 28 years and creating errors in the measurement then I will listen.

Mar 09, 2019
If your arguments are good you don't need a posse.

This is an essential point.

Bring it.

Mar 09, 2019
@MR hasn't figured out that its own nick indicates that it is a Mental Retard.

Mar 09, 2019
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses
https://www.nasa....n-losses

Where is that accelerated sea rise coming from?


Kind of contradicted by this;

https://www.nasa....-century

Mar 09, 2019
"I went to the scientific literature, and it seems your analysis is too simplistic;"

Castro how is it simplistic? The claim was that since 1990 the rate of sea level rise has increaed from about 2,8mm/year to 4mm/year. Where does the tide gauge data data show that!!!!!

You like Capt are claiming that the data presented is false despite the inclusion of error bands. Yes newer methods can decrease the error bands but not enough to justify the claimed increase. Now if you were to tell me that the NYC land is rising at a faster rate during the last 28 years and creating errors in the measurement then I will listen.


I don't really care what you believe. I pointed you to the scientific literature. Go complain to the authors. Or write a rebuttal to their paper. Whining on here won't do any good.

Mar 09, 2019
This sea level fraud goes hand in hand with the altering of historical temperature records in order to prove warming. The science is corrupted by government grants and an agenda driven academia. When 11 out of 12 professors are progressive actual teaching and debate are missing. Indoctrination replaces actual learning and original thought.

Mar 09, 2019
This sea level fraud goes hand in hand with the altering of historical temperature records in order to prove warming. The science is corrupted by government grants and an agenda driven academia. When 11 out of 12 professors are progressive actual teaching and debate are missing. Indoctrination replaces actual learning and original thought.


Typical unscientific, conspiracist crap. Grow up.

Mar 09, 2019
https://realclima...ratures/

Reality does not matter. It is the final goal that counts.

Mar 09, 2019
This sea level fraud goes hand in hand with the altering of historical temperature records in order to prove warming. The science is corrupted by government grants and an agenda driven academia. When 11 out of 12 professors are progressive actual teaching and debate are missing. Indoctrination replaces actual learning and original thought.


Typical unscientific, conspiracist crap. Grow up.
Also cherry picking; take the old study from the '90s and never mind the fifteen that have come out since.

You gotta watch the liar deniers every second. They're sly.

Not very smart. Just sly.

Mar 09, 2019
https://realclimatescience.com/2019/03/noaa-corruption-of-new-york-temperatures/

Reality does not matter. It is the final goal that counts.


An article written by Tony Heller, aka Steve Goddard. Worthless. Not relevantly qualified, and a known confabulator;

http://gregladen....science/


Mar 09, 2019
@mr[qYou like Capt are claiming that the data presented is false... no

I'm claiming that wuwt (denier blogs, etc) is (are) false, that your argument is false, and that your belief about what the data says is false

as noted: if you have a problem with the data, it behooves you to contact the authors of the paper and learn
Now if you were to tell me that the NYC land is rising at a faster rate during the last 28 years and creating errors in the measurement then I will listen
sorry - calling BS based on your own comments above

so long as any statement made ruffles your conspiracist ideation, you will not listen
it's no different than explaining to cd that magnetic reconnection exists despite his claims

case in point: the data in your own NOAA link to me doesn't say what you want so it's "This sea level fraud" and "The science is corrupted by government grants and an agenda driven academia"

that is religious in nature, not scientific

Mar 10, 2019
here for stump, another anomalous paper from WUWT , who ya gonna believe ?

https://wattsupwi...PBHqWxHI

Mar 10, 2019
The battle against global warming:an absurd,costly and pointless crusade

White Paper
drawn up by the
SociétédeCalculMathématiqueSA

file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/French%20Society%20of%20Mathematics.pdf


Mar 10, 2019
@snooze
here for stump, another anomalous paper from WUWT
I don't think you quite comprehend what this whole "science" thing is all about

it doesn't matter how many people you can state say [x], or how many blogs you can link to that support your belief in [x]

what matters is if you can falsify and if you can get it validated

and I've never seen any wuwt bullsh*t validated
who ya gonna believe ?
the validated science

not a blog
not a self-proclaimed authority
not a denier site that makes political statements as though they're factual
not a site that can't get a peer-reviewed paper, let alone said paper validated

if there is a choice, I will follow the evidence

and the one thing wuwt doesn't have is evidence

they have opinion
http://www.auburn...ion.html

Mar 10, 2019
@snooze
The battle against global warming:an absurd,costly and pointless crusade
do you say the same thing about pollution?
what about water treatment? or food safety? or vaccines?

what about vehicle safety, medicine or air travel?

I'm just wondering how far your denial delusion goes...

Mar 10, 2019
''what matters is if you can falsify and if you can get it validated

and I've never seen any wuwt bullsh*t validated''

r u trying to be stupid ? u know thats like asking CNN to praise trump , its just not their job

''not an alarmist site that makes political statements as though they're factual ''

Mar 10, 2019
There are plenty of verified occurrences when temperature data is changed and or adjusted by various government entities in order to "prove" that warming is occurring. A smart person would have to ask themselves why the agencies are doing this. M. Mann's hockey stick is a prime example of agenda driven science.

Historical data should never be "adjusted" and then spliced on to current data when trying to prove a long term trend.

Mar 10, 2019
do you say the same thing about pollution?
''what about water treatment? or food safety? or vaccines?

what about vehicle safety, medicine or air travel?

I'm just wondering how far your denial delusion goes,, ''''

food science has been corrupt


Mar 10, 2019
@Mental Retard can only cite 20-year-old data.

This should be a warning flag to anyone who claims to believe it.

Mar 10, 2019
So how come @Mental Retard and @snooseluser are all upset about using aerators in aquariums?

This is like being against seat belts.

I mean, just askin'.

Mar 10, 2019
Also with the 100s of billions spent on climate science a Smart person would wonder why there are not 10,000 new land based weather stations in remote locations all over the globe. Why is that? Well heat islands are the climate scientists friend and there is no money in proving cooling.

Mar 10, 2019
Has nothing to do with whatever you're lying about "climate science," @Mental Retard.

This is just methane emission.

The study is done. The data are published. Why do you want to spend more money to study it instead of doing something about it-- like aerating in aquariums?

Mar 10, 2019
Da natural methane emissions make man's emissions meaningless. But you have a great idea. Let's drain all of those dangerous swamp lands and coastal wet lands.

Mar 10, 2019
Dumbass doesn't want to aerate aquariums.

Claims it's "draining swamplands."

@Mental Retards can't figure out how aeration works.

Mar 11, 2019
@snooze
r u trying to be stupid ?
if I were "trying" to be stupid, I would link wuwt and claim it's science, like you did
its just not their job
so, you finally admit wuwt has no science validating their claims - thanks

that was my point exactly as well, mind

.

.

@mr
There are plenty of verified occurrences when temperature data is changed and or adjusted by various government entities in order to "prove" that warming is occurring
1- bullsh*t: show me one study that has been proven false and then retracted because it's a "verified occurrence when temperature data is changed" just to show warming

2- than you for validating my point above: you don't want to know facts - you want to proselytize your political agenda because you're fearful of the potential change


Mar 11, 2019
@mr
Also with the 100s of billions spent on climate science a Smart person would wonder... Why is that?
erm... a smart person would look at the rising costs of living and inflation, then examine what it takes to research science and validate a claim, and they would understand that research, experimentation and science is not cheap even though it always, always pays in the long run, and they would wonder why we aren't spending more to perhaps help with the current situation

oh wait, maybe no one is getting funding for science research because some idiots are promoting political ideology over science - it's almost like a return to the dark ages!

what is next?

Since you don't accept validated climate science, which is based on repeatedly validated physics (and much more), then will yall be denying all of it?
will you be arguing that we don't need those pesky physics, or maths, or thermodynamics, or chemistries, or medicines, or geologies (etc)????

Mar 11, 2019
''Since you don't accept validated climate science, which is based on repeatedly validated physics (and much more), '''

U mean like this ?

https://phys.org/...ter.html

all that rain @ -30 in ' winter '

here is what winter in greenland looks like
https://www.windy...pressure


Mar 11, 2019
"Since you don't accept validated climate science, which is based on repeatedly validated physics (and much more), then will yall be denying all of it?"

The physics of CO2s absorption of certain wavelengths of light is settled!!!!!

How this affects the temperature of the earth is FAAAARRRR from settled!!!!

Mar 11, 2019
@snooze
U mean like this ?
for starters, you linked a news article from PO that was originally put out by Columbia University, so it appears you still are having problems figuring out what *science* is

if you wanted to reference the science, you should have linked this: https://www.the-c...15/2019/

for two, you didn't read the article as it noted
part of the meltwater runs off, but the rest refreezes in place, morphing normally fluffy, reflective snow on or near the surface into darker, denser masses of ice. This ice absorbs solar radiation more easily than snow, so when the sun comes out, it melts more easily, producing more liquid water, which feeds more melting, in a vicious feedback loop
nice knowing you won't change your delusional beliefs

Mar 11, 2019
@mr
How this affects the temperature of the earth is FAAAARRRR from settled!!!!
and again - calling bullsh*t

we have considerable *validated* evidence that you've been repeatedly ignoring for years:
Evans 2006, Harries 2001, Lacis et. al 2010, Tyndall (longwave radiation), Puckrin 2004, Myhre 1998, Hansen 2005, and Meehl 2004 just to name a small few that are directly related to the reasons we know CO2 is the problem

Oh, but that is only validated science, so you'll not deal with it at all, as proven by your historically ignoring every one of these studies that I've linked in the past

and therein lies the actual problem: you refuse to accept validated science that disagrees with your beliefs

this is no different than a religion, really

so you are *literally* in the ranks of anti-vaxxers, fanatical x-tians/muslims etc and the flat earth societies

and that isn't hyperbole, just in case you missed the "*literally*"

Mar 11, 2019
How this affects the temperature of the earth is FAAAARRRR from settled!!!!
Yes, because jebus magically eats heat.

Mar 11, 2019
or you can select from that pile of goobleygook ,

''Using a regional climate model, we estimated that the melting associated with melt events more than doubled in summer and more than tripled in winter, amounting to ∼28 % of the overall melt. Thus, we conclude that, despite the involved mass gain, year-round precipitation events are contributing to the ice sheet's decline. ''

so its gaining and loseing ?

a clearer picture here

http://sciencenor...red-2018

Mar 12, 2019
The battle against global warming:an absurd,costly and pointless crusade

White Paper
drawn up by the
SociétédeCalculMathématiqueSA

file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/French%20Society%20of%20Mathematics.pdf -Snoosebaum


The genius provides a link to a paper on his own computer.


Mar 12, 2019
How this affects the temperature of the earth is FAAAARRRR from settled!!!!
Yes, because jebus magically eats heat.

Nope. It's because Da Schitts eats his boyfriends' "meat".
LMAO.

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