1 of 2
1
Breitbart/Delingpole: 400 science papers just DEBUNKED global warming.  Potholer54 takes a closer look.
Posted: 01 November 2017 10:46 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2286
Joined  2016-12-24

Here’s a closer look at an example of the sort of deliberate and certainly malicious fraud in action that too many accept.
Breitbart who has successfully seduced tens of thousands of people with rage and descent into an fantasy alt-reality where everyone is their enemy,
brings us Delingpole who concocted this story,
which Peter Hadfield has dutifully deconstructed for us.
I’ve added some notes.

Have 400 papers just DEBUNKED global warming?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyMaRx7gIGY
YouTube’s potholer54

Peter Hadfield responds to a recent meme running through the blogosphere.

Delingpole: “Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 Say “Global Warming Myth”

0:30 -  Dateline: Breitbart
0:40 - Delingspole admits to being both disinterested and ignorant regarding climate science. 

1:10 -  MacExpert - Kenneth Richard - “NoTrickZone”

1:50 -  Li et al.,2017 (ancient history, irrelevant)
Yndestad and Solheim, 2017 (also ancient history, irrelevant)
Tejedor et al.,2017 (later)
etc.

2:55 -  Carbon dioxide concentrations over the holocene (12,000 years)

3:10 -  Considering sun and CO2 as heaters

3:30 -  Short term variability

5:40 -  Conroy et al.,2017 (precipitation variability - Tibet)
Verdon-Kidd et al.,2017 (variability of rainfall - Australia)

5:45 -  Belohpetsky et al.,2017 (El Nino, La Nina cycles - nothing new)
Park et al.,2017 (AMO - nothing new)
Lim et al.,2017

6:45 -  Tejedor et al.,2017
“… making the study area a potentially vulnerable region to anthropogenic climate changes by anthropogenic forces, i.e.,
increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (Lionello et al.,2006a)

7:20 -  Abrantes et al.,2017
“… Today’s climate goes through a warming shift caused by the increased release of human-generated greenhouse gases, such as CO2…
Williams et al.,2017
“… increasing anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere characterize the period with the best data coverage,
and global temperatures during this period are exceeding the estimates of natural variability(Bindoff et al.,2013). 
Therefore, anthropogenic climate change may be influencing our current understanding of the drivers …”

8:20 -  Gray et al.,2017
“Clearly, the global mean surface warming in response to the SC is modest compared to effects of other external forcings. 
It is certainly much smaller than the radiative forcing associated with anthropogenic increases in GHG concentration.”

8:30 -  Zawiska et al.,2017
“However, the anthropogenic impact on the climate is regarded as most important driver of the climate warming in 20th century. 
It is caused the increased emission of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.  Since the 18th century the carbon dioxide concentrations increased 31%. 
This is mainly due to industrial activity and the burning of fossil fuels.”

8:40 -  Wang et al.,2017
“… As for the most important long periodic signals of 1000 years, a reasonable speculation is that they represent the impacts of
greenhouse gases on the climate system.  … Thus, it should be considered that this millennial signal may be an impact of GHGs.”

8:45 -  Summary

The question of the century is, what is it that makes so many people refuse to want to learn anything? 

Or more importantly why aren’t there masses of students and others dedicated to pitching in a little -
How about a bit of Intellectual Confrontation?
Intelligently, constructively, but insistently, confronting the sort of crap that Delingpole, Breitbart, Watts, etc, (with a little Russian Love)
churns out by the bushel and spreads through the blogs and public media with impunity?

Why is he/they not opposed with rational intellectual fact based constructive confrontation.  Everywhere he turns.
Expose their base dishonesty and disinterest and inadequacy when it comes to actually understanding this topic of utmost importance.
Confront the malicious slanders with fact after fact.
The public climate change debate is supposed to be about learning, why not get a little militant about demanding a respect for honestly representing science,
even if you disagree with it, make your disagreements facts based and honest.

Act like our f’n future depends on it - because it really does.  Giving in only guarantees the worst possible pathway into an already rough future.


.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2017 03:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  175
Joined  2017-09-01

I can partially reply to question…

Most people check the source (Breitbart) and does not feel the need to challenge the claims. Because everyone intelligent enough knows how the articles at Breitbart looks like. At some time since the article was online, a group of people reads it, most of it wont trust, but some will trust it.

On other hand i am bit critical even to real science documents - not by directly challenging them, but asking a questions. I am perfectly aware there is climate change for last 5-6 bilion years, as the Earth changed from desolate volcanic wasteland, to planet with vast global ocean, to planet covered completely with ice, to blooming jungle, and to world as we know it now. Of course the Sun (not the newspaper) is one of the driving force, so is composition of the atmosphere and hydrosphere, volcanic activity and biosphere (all life).

We know that massive volcanic eruptions in 19th century caused long winters, we also know that CO2 is absorbed by plants from the air. The best proof that mankind has effect on the climate was discovery of thin ash layers (originated from coal and early industry) in the Antactic ice, dated from 18th century until recently. Also air bubbles contained in the ice had much lower CO2 in them, if they were from older samples.

The question i kept asking climatologists is why is that biosphere is no longer capable of absorbing those increased amounts of CO2? CO2 in air, and also in water acts as a fertilizer to plants and algae.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2017 06:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2286
Joined  2016-12-24
Offler - 28 November 2017 03:13 PM

The question i kept asking climatologists is why is that biosphere is no longer capable of absorbing those increased amounts of CO2? CO2 in air, and also in water acts as a fertilizer to plants and algae.

Do you mean the current biosphere that we have?
The biosphere that humanity has always known goes through slow evolution and adaptation to changing climate conditions.

The amount of CO2 that humanity has injected into our atmosphere is comparable only to periods of massive vulcanization that resulted in mass extinction episodes.

This is because thee current biosphere, what ever it may be, is dependent on the conditions that sustained that particular biosphere’s evolution.

Today we are setting up our planet for heat waves, torrential storms, a weirding hydrological cycle, floods, droughts, sea levels that will drown most of our coastal cities and all of our coastal installations, and that’s just the big hitters.  Our biosphere is a web of life that depends on each other and who’s activities have been finely tuned to current fluctuations - they are not capable of adapting to radical changes hurling at them at warp speed.

Think about it historically 100ppm fluctuations took on the order of 100 thousand years, humanity has inject around 120ppm in couple hundred years since the industrial revolution.  100,000 vs 200.  Sure “Earth’s” biosphere will survive, that is “life” will survive, but it will certainly be nothing like the life you are familiar with.  Given the rate we’re going (You know, America’s new position and the Corporation of Amerika, whole highest calling is the satisfaction of self interest, no matter how much needs to be destroyed to get there. wherever the hell that might be.) - it’s not at all impossible that in a century or two, life might be back to very basics indeed.  ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e44ydPIQGSc&t=33s - Crude - The Incredible Journey Of Oil, at 59:45 )

Consider, 100 ppm is the difference between ice ages and the temperate climate all of us have known all our lives.  120 ppm, think about transformation that will drive.

But you have no reference point do you?
The school system and our economy doesn’t encourage anyone to spend time learning about the nature that makes all we love possible.
People don’t know about the web of life, they hate mosquitos without ever wondering whether those pests might we good for something.  (etc., etc.)
All they teach is to consume and think the world is found within our heads.

Here’s another big deal.  Do you know about “wet bulb temperature” ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVkV1b8cg0I )
You may find it interesting.

Cheers, happy learning

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2017 06:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2286
Joined  2016-12-24

Oh and their is the whole moral question of honesty and the need for standards of honesty in a healthy society.

Has to do with understanding the science as much as with politics and other endeavors.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 28 November 2017 06:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2286
Joined  2016-12-24
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 28 November 2017 06:52 PM
Offler - 28 November 2017 03:13 PM

The question i kept asking climatologists is why is that biosphere is no longer capable of absorbing those increased amounts of CO2? CO2 in air, and also in water acts as a fertilizer to plants and algae.

Oh and also none of this mentions the horrors of ocean acidification and its cascading consequences.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2017 07:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  175
Joined  2017-09-01

Well it actually does not explain my question, it just adds points to fact that CO2 levels are increasing - and thats something I am not denying. Its a proven fact.

The amount of green algae is expected to increase in such circumstances as well, but its not happenning.

Also when it comes to change in climate, there are two important things.

1. Climate does not care about us.
Someday, climate will change regardless if we will be part of the process or not.

2. Reasons why we care, and why we should care are partly economical, partly about our natural habitat (ref. George Carlin). I read a study which claimed that central USA will be plagued with severe drought, while Siberia will melt and become biggest land able to produce crops.

The second point summarize why USA in particular should care, and we as a species will be forced either to evolve, or extinct. At this state we are not facing such crisis.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 November 2017 10:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2286
Joined  2016-12-24
Offler - 30 November 2017 07:59 AM

Well it actually does not explain my question (You should reread #2, you seem to have missed the point all together.)

The amount of green algae is expected to increase in such circumstances as well, but its not happenning.
(Who says?  Link/reference please.  How do you know it’s not?  Link/reference please.
How would that fact, one way or the other, have a bearing on ocean acidification and anoxic conditions?)

Also when it comes to change in climate, there are two important things.

1. Climate does not care about us.(What intelligent person ever thought otherwise.)

Someday, climate will change regardless if we will be part of the process or not.
(What’s with that sort of juvenility? 
Please, I know I should be polite but for jc sake,
we know how much of the stuff we are injecting into the atmosphere and global system;
we know that it has a specific and quantified impact of our atmosphere’s insulation ability.
 

Why the diversion to deep ancient past, changes that we know were caused by a different combination of drivers?

Why are you ignoring the documented profound impacts humanity is having on the biosphere and climate system?
There’s nothing tentative or casual about it - but you lull yourself into self-imposed ignorance with such childish reasoning.
Why, why, why? This is about honestly looking at the facts, no matter how much smoke and mirrors you toss at us.)

2. Reasons why we care, and why we should care are partly economical, partly about our natural habitat (ref. George Carlin). I read a study which claimed that central USA will be plagued with severe drought, while Siberia will melt and become biggest land able to produce crops.
(Sad fool, you actually think it’s that simple.  If not, why the game of diversions and deceptions? )

Have you studied evolution at all? 
Have you ever thought about deep time and global time scales? 
Have you ever thought about down to Earth nuts and bolts such as creating the infrastructure to enable this farming in Siberia? 
It’s not like a Star Wars flick where everything is magically there for us.

We are talking real life, in a real tough world. 
It’s already underway in many third world countries, our current smugness won’t help us when our time arrives and it will.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2017 05:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  175
Joined  2017-09-01

I actually studied geology for 2 years, while I planned to specialize on paleontology. However due some events in family i decided to abandon the study.

https://phys.org/news/2013-03-algae-capture-co2.html

Anyway, you are seriously asking a source for my claim that microalgae, which are part of phytoplankton living in the oceans are capturing CO2? Every green plant does that.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2017 07:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4507
Joined  2009-10-21
Offler - 01 December 2017 05:16 AM

I actually studied geology for 2 years, while I planned to specialize on paleontology. However due some events in family i decided to abandon the study.

https://phys.org/news/2013-03-algae-capture-co2.html

Anyway, you are seriously asking a source for my claim that microalgae, which are part of phytoplankton living in the oceans are capturing CO2? Every green plant does that.

Pretty classic of using what you know to make a point about something you don’t know. Of course algae absorbs CO2. Then you link to an article about how it is currently not feasible to attempt to produce it at a scale that could change the current rising CO2 levels. But you say that is happening on its own. Or, what are you saying? It’s hard to tell.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2017 07:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2286
Joined  2016-12-24
Offler - 01 December 2017 05:16 AM

I actually studied geology for 2 years, while I planned to specialize on paleontology. However due some events in family i decided to abandon the study.

https://phys.org/news/2013-03-algae-capture-co2.html

Anyway, you are seriously asking a source for my claim that microalgae, which are part of phytoplankton living in the oceans are capturing CO2? Every green plant does that.

No please look at what you said:

Offler - 30 November 2017 07:59 AM

Well it actually does not explain my question, it just adds points to fact that CO2 levels are increasing - and thats something I am not denying. Its a proven fact.

The amount of green algae is expected to increase in such circumstances as well, but its not happenning.

in response I asked:

Offler - 30 November 2017 07:59 AM

Well it actually does not explain my question (You should reread #2, you seem to have missed the point all together.)

The amount of green algae is expected to increase in such circumstances as well, but its not happenning.
(Who says?  Link/reference please.  How do you know it’s not?  Link/reference please.
How would that fact, one way or the other, have a bearing on ocean acidification and anoxic conditions?)

Okay you’ve shown us some background.
But, it’s your late claim that I’m questioning - you claimed algae growth is not increasing.
Or did I misunderstand?
I notice you also confused Lausten, perhaps some clarification.

Oh and what does any of to do with humanity’s responsibility for the global warming we are currently witnessing.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2017 08:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  175
Joined  2017-09-01
Lausten - 01 December 2017 07:10 AM

Pretty classic of using what you know to make a point about something you don’t know. Of course algae absorbs CO2. Then you link to an article about how it is currently not feasible to attempt to produce it at a scale that could change the current rising CO2 levels. But you say that is happening on its own. Or, what are you saying? It’s hard to tell.

Well Citizen was asking about my knowledge about evolution and i was replying only about that, as for the rest as I dont know… Well thats the point I am asking the question in the first place :D.

Every green plant benefit from CO2 in atmosphere (or water) and result is increased growth. This has been demonstrated on rings size of the trees. After certain vulcanic activity, and local increase of CO2 (it was either mount Pinatubo or Krakatoa eruption) was observed on tree which was close (but not too close) to eruption, that rings are wider. Conclusion made by a botanist was that the tree absorbed much more CO2 from the air and grew faster. This method is sometimes used by botanists of paleontologists to date certain events.

It was also proven by air samples trapped in Antarctic ice that 200 years ago were CO2 levels much lower as today.

If both statemets are true, the question which remains is why we do not observe or measure increased growth of green plants (in general)?

Microalgae in phytoplanktom are the most important indication in this puzzle, as those represent largest mass of all plants.


And for the record, I dont deny climate change (its quite obvious if you are aware of Earth’s geological history), nor current high levels of CO2, nor temperature increase.

on Antarctica air samples here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD03410/full
On Microalgae and their ability to capture carbon dioxide:
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/9/722/238034

[ Edited: 01 December 2017 08:12 AM by Offler ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2017 09:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2013-06-01
Offler - 01 December 2017 08:09 AM
Lausten - 01 December 2017 07:10 AM

Pretty classic of using what you know to make a point about something you don’t know. Of course algae absorbs CO2. Then you link to an article about how it is currently not feasible to attempt to produce it at a scale that could change the current rising CO2 levels. But you say that is happening on its own. Or, what are you saying? It’s hard to tell.

Well Citizen was asking about my knowledge about evolution and i was replying only about that, as for the rest as I dont know… Well thats the point I am asking the question in the first place :D.

Every green plant benefit from CO2 in atmosphere (or water) and result is increased growth. This has been demonstrated on rings size of the trees. After certain vulcanic activity, and local increase of CO2 (it was either mount Pinatubo or Krakatoa eruption) was observed on tree which was close (but not too close) to eruption, that rings are wider. Conclusion made by a botanist was that the tree absorbed much more CO2 from the air and grew faster. This method is sometimes used by botanists of paleontologists to date certain events.

It was also proven by air samples trapped in Antarctic ice that 200 years ago were CO2 levels much lower as today.

If both statemets are true, the question which remains is why we do not observe or measure increased growth of green plants (in general)?

Microalgae in phytoplanktom are the most important indication in this puzzle, as those represent largest mass of all plants.


And for the record, I dont deny climate change (its quite obvious if you are aware of Earth’s geological history), nor current high levels of CO2, nor temperature increase.

on Antarctica air samples here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95JD03410/full
On Microalgae and their ability to capture carbon dioxide:
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/9/722/238034

 
You’re a sad fool who does not want to learn that is ignoring humanity. Shame on you. According to CC. Just shows you the level of interest on the subject that CC has. It is not about the earth or climate change. It is about personal, political and the distribution of wealth for CC. If it not climate change then it would be Trump or something else used to promote the communist goals.
 
I agree with you, we should look at the good as well as the bad. Humans and plants do better I am told in warmer weather.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2017 11:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4507
Joined  2009-10-21

Really Mike and Offler? You don’t think someone has considered the very questions you are asking? You’re just going to throw them out there like you asking them shows you’ve thought of something that no one else has?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2017 02:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  175
Joined  2017-09-01
Lausten - 01 December 2017 11:13 AM

Really Mike and Offler? You don’t think someone has considered the very questions you are asking? You’re just going to throw them out there like you asking them shows you’ve thought of something that no one else has?

1. I had an opportunity to ask a climatologist here in Slovakia.
He studies ice layers in Antarctica, and was reporting how increasing temperature affects their shape. His research was yet another to prove that temperature is increasing, but he did not had an answer to that. He simply did not replied in anyway, he ignored the question.

2. Until recently was widely believed that its rainforest around river Amazon to be biggest mass of green plants which produces oxygen, and as we know, this forest is getting smaller. That affecting far more forests:
lomnica-gif.gif
That shows forests in High Tatras, Slovakia.

Yet some time ago I found out that this information was updated, and that biggest mass of green oxygen-producing plants is in the oceans. And as said above its expected to grow. The thing is that if we cut down too many trees, we reduce capacity of forests to capture CO2.
If only forests would be source of the oxygen in atmosphere, we definitely dont need to wait until climate change happens, we would suffocate before that.

This article is something I learned on University about history of Earth:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/origin-of-oxygen-in-atmosphere/

So i started to look for anything about “fertilization effect”.

a) I realy did not found any scientific study about green algae in oceans, and their rate of reproduction with increased CO2 or CO2 capture during holocene/antropocene.
From rising levels of CO2 we can only assume that the “fertilization effect” is not enough to increase amount of green algae and increase their CO2 capture capability this way.
(btw you dont need evolution for that, only reproduction of a microscopic plant with quite short reproducing cycle)

b) When i found anything remotely close, it was about plants growing on land.
If it was from a scientific source, it simply mentioned plants growing in Arctic. If it was from a climate change denier, it contained about same information with a notion that “nature will fix it”. Actually more plants beyond Arctic circle already ARE part of climate change. If oceans turn green, it will be also part of climate change.

So if CO2 levels continue to rise, but the mass of microalgae in oceans will not, the whole “fertilization effect” theory has a significant flaw.

I am not assuming that nobody asked that question. I absolutely dont care. I tried to find the answer myself, however it seemed that climatologist dont want to talk about it, and there is less published research I would expect, but ok.

If its a narrative used by climate change deniers? Well I am not familiar with that, and i dont care anyway. I am asking why the “fertilizer effect” does not seem to work or to be in correlation with CO2 levels.

 

to Mike Yohe:
I have absolutely no idea what are you talking about. I dont live in US, i am not ecoactivist. I am just curious.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2017 06:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2286
Joined  2016-12-24
Offler - 01 December 2017 02:43 PM

to Mike Yohe:
I have absolutely no idea what are you talking about. I dont live in US, i am not ecoactivist. I am just curious.

Don’t worry, Mike doesn’t know what he’s talking about either.

Plus he really likes to make stuff up in his head and then claim it comes from other people.

As for your comments, no time to go through those various questions and claims tonight, but I’m disappointed that you talk about scientific claims but don’t give us the references so we can look at the paper our selves.

That’s the sort of thing a confirmed contrarian and crazy-maker such a MikeYohe resorts to. 
If you want to seriously discuss serious matters, give them some respect by sharing where you’ve gotten your information from.

cheers.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 December 2017 09:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2013-06-01
Lausten - 01 December 2017 11:13 AM

Really Mike and Offler? You don’t think someone has considered the very questions you are asking? You’re just going to throw them out there like you asking them shows you’ve thought of something that no one else has?

Being told we were looking at an ice-free world with whole countries under water, these items seemed quite trivial at the time. Yea, I would say it’s about time to bring up these types of items for discussion now that predictions haven’t happened as told and new predictions don’t seem to have solid dates.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1