2 of 2
2
Breitbart/Delingpole: 400 science papers just DEBUNKED global warming.  Potholer54 takes a closer look.
Posted: 02 December 2017 05:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  108
Joined  2017-09-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 01 December 2017 06:11 PM

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.

I put some more clarification in my last post. I found no scientific research which would claim that oceans are turning green, or that growth rate of microalgae is accelerated.

And thats the reason why I “ask a question”. I didnt “made a claim”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2017 08:07 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2212
Joined  2016-12-24

oh please

MikeYohe - 01 December 2017 09:33 PM
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.

But you are yet again lying MikeYohe! 
The predictions made within the scientific community are coming true with frightening degree of accuracy although much faster than most scientists expected.

Dear onlooker please note that MikeYohe draws no distinction between serious scientific predictions by experts, and media pundits and politically/financially motivated dilettantes.  He is a joker that says a lot but then produces nothing of substance to support his wild, profoundly disconnected from reality claims.

Hell, he loves to believe Mike Mann is a fraud without the slightest substantive evidence to back it up with.
He says CO2 scientists is still tentative because he ignore all information offered.

etc., etc.,

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 December 2017 08:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2212
Joined  2016-12-24

It’a tough to tease out what you are looking for.  Have you tried googling: “Observing oceans algal blooms”?  There’s lot of information out there.

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.

Why would a climatologist have the answer to that.  You be better off asking a biologists.
It’s incorrect to claim our biosphere is no longer capable of absorbing increasing CO2.  Our biosphere is plenty capable of absorbing increasing CO2 - the scary part is that in absorbing all that extra CO2 our biosphere as we know it will be irretrievably damaged as the increasing CO2 circulating throughout the system, altering the chemical process, increasing temperature stress, energized global hydrological cycle, and of course the amount of heat being retained within our global heat and moisture distribution engine.

Offler - 01 December 2017 08:09 AM

If both statements 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.

Are you familiar with GoogleScholar? 
You’ll have better luck finding what you’re after over here.
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=increasing+co2+and+green+plant+growth&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Study Finds Plant Growth Surges as CO2 Levels Rise
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growth-surges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094

Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization in Canberra, Australia, and his colleagues developed a mathematical model to predict the extent of this carbon dioxide fertilization effect.

Between 1982 and 2010, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere increased by 14 percent. So, their model suggested, foliage worldwide should have increased by between 5 and 10 percent.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Rise in CO2 has ‘greened Planet Earth’
By Roger Harrabin - 25 April 2016
BBC environment analyst
 
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Climate Change and Harmful Algal Blooms
https://www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/climate-change-and-harmful-algal-blooms
also
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11655-climate-myths-higher-co2-levels-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/

By David Chandler and Michael Le Page - New Scientist

According to some accounts, the rise in carbon dioxide will usher in a new golden age where food production will be higher than ever before and most plants and animals will thrive as never before. If it sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is.

CO2 is the source of the carbon that plants turn into organic compounds, and it is well established that higher CO2 levels can have a fertilising effect on many plants, boosting growth by as much as a third.

However, some plants already have mechanisms for concentrating CO2 in their tissues, known as C4 photosynthesis, so higher CO2 will not boost the growth of C4 plants.

Where water is a limiting factor, all plants could benefit. Plants lose water through the pores in leaves that let CO2 enter. Higher CO2 levels mean they do not need to open these pores as much, reducing water loss.

However, it is extremely difficult to generalise about the overall impact of the fertilisation effect on plant growth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Plants cannot live on CO2 alone
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2017 09:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  363
Joined  2017-09-24

Just another example of someone publicizing denier trash.

Why not just keep posting the valid science and let the liars do their own work?

Unless you’re working with them…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 December 2017 09:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2212
Joined  2016-12-24
DougC.V2 - 03 December 2017 09:11 AM

Just another example of someone publicizing denier trash.

Why not just keep posting the valid science and let the liars do their own work?

Unless you’re working with them…

Doug, doug, doug you are such a disappointment, so little imagination. 
But guess some like keeping it within the rut, makes decisions so much easier.

P.S.  Doug been working on any interesting projects lately?

Confronting Science Contrarians.blogspot

This is a learning project dedicated to dissecting, examining, and confronting the deception dependent Republican assault on climate science and rational constructive debate. ~ I’m no scholar nor journalist so it’s rough around the edges. What I am is a life-long passionate student of our planet Earth in all her marvelous aspects, along with the humans she created and the evolving society Earth enabled and nurtured. ~ I invite, nay, I challenge, honest debate and discussion.

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com

tongue wink

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2017 12:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  108
Joined  2017-09-01

As from my experience, being a climatologist or an environmentalist (the scientific specialization) required a lot of different studies, including biology and botanics, but that can be true only for university i attended to.

The article about Earth getting greener is new for me, and not aware of Googlestudy. (Edit: Actually it was yet again about plants on land, not about study dedicated to amount of microalgae in phytoplankton).

[ Edited: 04 December 2017 06:51 AM by Offler ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 December 2017 01:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2338
Joined  2013-06-01
Citizenschallenge-v.3 - 02 December 2017 08:07 AM

oh please

MikeYohe - 01 December 2017 09:33 PM
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.

But you are yet again lying MikeYohe! 
The predictions made within the scientific community are coming true with frightening degree of accuracy although much faster than most scientists expected.

Nice dance and song. Again, all talk and no numbers. Give me facts. What is your game here? When the scientists make these predictions. You don’t say they are not true. You seem to agree with them. After time the predictions don’t come true. Then you trash your scientists. Seems to be a democratic method in political as well as science today.

Dear onlooker please note that MikeYohe draws no distinction between serious scientific predictions by experts, and media pundits and politically/financially motivated dilettantes.  He is a joker that says a lot but then produces nothing of substance to support his wild, profoundly disconnected from reality claims.

What are these predictions? You backed Al Gore, a political politician and his predictions, not me.

Hell, he loves to believe Mike Mann is a fraud without the slightest substantive evidence to back it up with.

Hey, I not the one in court for science fraud. Mann is.

He says CO2 scientists is still tentative because he ignore all information offered.

No, you and doughboy explained to me how CO2 works. The heat did not do what you said. Then you explained that the heat was going into the ocean. Let us know when the heat decides to come out. So far, all weather events you think are caused by Climate Change. That is not true, but that is what you are selling.

etc., etc.,

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 December 2017 07:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2212
Joined  2016-12-24

Scientists have beaten down the best climate denial argument

Posted on 18 December 2017 by dana1981
https://skepticalscience.com/scientists-beaten-down-best-denial-argument.html


Climate deniers have come up with a lot of arguments about why we shouldn’t worry about global warming – about 200 of them – but most are quite poor, contradictory, and easily debunked by consulting the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The cleverest climate contrarians settle on the least implausible argument – that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS – how much a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase Earth’s surface temperature) is low, meaning that the planet will warm relatively slowly in response to human carbon pollution.

But they have to explain how that can be the case, because there are a lot of factors that amplify global warming. For example, a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, which is itself a greenhouse gas, adding further warming. Warming also melts ice, leaving Earth’s surface less reflective, absorbing more sunlight. There are a number of these amplifying ‘feedbacks,’ but few that would act to significantly slow global warming.

Clouds are one possible exception, ...

Before you start cheering, read the rest of the story.  smirk

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 December 2017 05:02 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  9
Joined  2017-12-20
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.

I would have thought someone who studied paleontology would have at least understood to some degree that micoalgae needs more than just CO2 in order to grow and reproduce. I’ll answer your question for you, but I’m very surprised you didn’t know this. Microalgae also requires other minerals such as iron in order to reproduce -  hard to come by in vast quantities in the middle of the ocean. Thus that is why the increase in CO2 has not lead to a rise in the levels of sea algae.

Greater minds than both of us have been aware of the problem for a while, and have attempted to fertilize the oceans in order to increase the amount of algae and thus increase the levels of CO2 sequestration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

But, I suspect if you were really interested in the truth of the matter, you could have found this out quite quickly for yourself.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2