• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CO2 Doesn't Matter

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,238
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's Murry Salby taking down the CO2 lobby. Interesting. Your thoughts?


Murry Salby’s latest presentation

Posted on August 10, 2016 | 94 comments
by Judith Curry
Last month at the University College London, atmospheric scientist Prof. Murry Salby, gave a presentation on man-made CO2 and its (lack of) impact on global climate.
Continue reading

Last month at the University College London, atmospheric scientist Prof. Murry Salby, gave a presentation on man-made CO2 and its (lack of) impact on global climate.

The complete presentation is available on youtube [link].
Pierre Gosselin provides a summary of the talk [here]. Excerpts:
He begins by reminding that climate is a subject of “limited understanding” and that it one of “limited observation” He tells the audience that carbon in the atmosphere cannot be regulated and is NOT a pollutant. On why CO2 science got to where it is today, he cites Mark Twain: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.”
In his introduction he explains how CO2 will be a pollutant to our ecosystem only when the day arrives that water vapour becomes a pollutant – i.e. never in our geological lifetime. He says that energy sources that circumvent CO2 emissions are neither greener nor cleaner – just different.
Later he shows that although humans have emitted twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere over the last decade compared to a decade earlier, growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not change at all. He states: “The premise of the IPCC that increased atmospheric CO2 results from fossil fuels emissions is impossible.”
Salby says this is “hardly a surprise”. During the presentation Salby presents the scientific reasoning why CO2 is not the harmful gas it is claimed to be.
He concludes that 360 trillion dollars for climate protection will result in literally no benefit at all for citizens of the planet.



 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Here's Murry Salby taking down the CO2 lobby. Interesting. Your thoughts?


Murry Salby’s latest presentation

[FONT=&]Posted on August 10, 2016 | 94 comments[/FONT]
by Judith Curry
Last month at the University College London, atmospheric scientist Prof. Murry Salby, gave a presentation on man-made CO2 and its (lack of) impact on global climate.
Continue reading

Last month at the University College London, atmospheric scientist Prof. Murry Salby, gave a presentation on man-made CO2 and its (lack of) impact on global climate.

The complete presentation is available on youtube [link].
Pierre Gosselin provides a summary of the talk [here]. Excerpts:
He begins by reminding that climate is a subject of “limited understanding” and that it one of “limited observation” He tells the audience that carbon in the atmosphere cannot be regulated and is NOT a pollutant. On why CO2 science got to where it is today, he cites Mark Twain: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.”
In his introduction he explains how CO2 will be a pollutant to our ecosystem only when the day arrives that water vapour becomes a pollutant – i.e. never in our geological lifetime. He says that energy sources that circumvent CO2 emissions are neither greener nor cleaner – just different.
Later he shows that although humans have emitted twice as much CO2 into the atmosphere over the last decade compared to a decade earlier, growth in atmospheric CO2 concentration did not change at all. He states: “The premise of the IPCC that increased atmospheric CO2 results from fossil fuels emissions is impossible.”
Salby says this is “hardly a surprise”. During the presentation Salby presents the scientific reasoning why CO2 is not the harmful gas it is claimed to be.
He concludes that 360 trillion dollars for climate protection will result in literally no benefit at all for citizens of the planet.




Obviously a racist, paid shill for big oil.
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Here's Murry Salby taking down the CO2 lobby. Interesting. Your thoughts?


Murry Salby’s latest presentation

Hm. Let me see here. It's beyond question that we've had great deforestation worldwide...which means that the planet's biosphere is less able to handle the world's annual production from CO2 from natural sources (not to mention from not-natural sources). That's fact #1.

Fact #2 is that every gallon of gasoline that is burned creates 20 lbs - that's POUNDS - of atmospheric CO2. That's chemistry. There's a half billion cars operating every day on the planet, and if each car burns an average of 15 gallons of gasoline per week, that's literal gigatonnes of CO2 put into our atmosphere each and every year...from a source that our much-less-forested planet never had to deal with in the past. What's more, that's from automobiles ALONE, and does not count the emissions from ships, aircraft, trains, military vehicles, and factories.

But y'all can't bring yourselves to accept that yeah, maybe, just maybe AGW is very, very real indeed...'cause that would mean that the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community (and America's political liberals) was right all along.

Oh, btw, the oh-so-credible scientist you picked? Here's what happened to him in Australia:

Climate change critic and atmospheric scientist Murry Salby has lost his long-running court battle against Macquarie University, which he had accused of a raft of workplace contraventions and political *interference.
...
Several years later, the university declined to approve Dr Salby’s travel to the European Geosciences Union General Assem*bly in Vienna and a lecture tour of Paris, Cambridge, Oslo and Stockholm.

His employment was suspended on serious misconduct charges after he missed the start of lectures, but he later used the university’s corporate credit card for the European trip.


He had previously been working at the University of Colorado:

A CLIMATE sceptic professor fired from his Australian university for alleged policy breaches had previously been banned for three years from accessing US taxpayer-funded science research money.

Dr Murry Salby, sacked in May by Macquarie University in Sydney, was the subject of a long investigation by the US National Science Foundation.

The investigation (pdf), which was finished in February 2009, concluded that over a period when Dr Salby was working at the University of Colorado, he had likely fabricated time sheets in relation to research paid for through NSF money.

We conclude that the Subject (Dr Salby) has engaged in a long-running course of deceptive conduct involving both his University and NSF. His conduct reflects a consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit. This supports a finding that the Subject is not presently responsible, and we recommend that he be debarred for five years.

...
The investigation report found that “the total estimate of improperly collected indirect costs is $117,565.” The report added that payments to Dr Salby from a second company had been based on “fabricated time and effort reports”. The report also found that “the charges based on the reports may also be an unallowable cost in the total amount of $303,281”.
...
When we asked him (Dr Salby) to supply supporting documentation for the salary payments, the subject provided timesheets reflecting highly implausible work hours—for example, the subject claimed effort averaging nearly 14 hours a day for 98 continuous days between May and August 2002 (including weekends and holidays), and in other instances claimed to have devoted as much as 21 hours per day to the project.


But of course you'll still believe him...probably for the same reason that Trump's supporters think that he gives a damn about someone other than himself.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,238
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Hm. Let me see here. It's beyond question that we've had great deforestation worldwide...which means that the planet's biosphere is less able to handle the world's annual production from CO2 from natural sources (not to mention from not-natural sources). That's fact #1.

Fact #2 is that every gallon of gasoline that is burned creates 20 lbs - that's POUNDS - of atmospheric CO2. That's chemistry. There's a half billion cars operating every day on the planet, and if each car burns an average of 15 gallons of gasoline per week, that's literal gigatonnes of CO2 put into our atmosphere each and every year...from a source that our much-less-forested planet never had to deal with in the past. What's more, that's from automobiles ALONE, and does not count the emissions from ships, aircraft, trains, military vehicles, and factories.

But y'all can't bring yourselves to accept that yeah, maybe, just maybe AGW is very, very real indeed...'cause that would mean that the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community (and America's political liberals) was right all along.

Oh, btw, the oh-so-credible scientist you picked? Here's what happened to him in Australia:



He had previously been working at the University of Colorado:

You seem to have swallowed whole the Salem Witch Trial narrative about Professor Salby. Sadly, that is how the AGW priesthood too often deals with apostates.

Murry Salby responds to critics

Jo Nova writes: Murry Salby was sacked from Macquarie University, and Macquarie struggled to explain why, among other things, it was necessary to abandon, and strand him in Paris and hold a “misconduct” meeting in his absence. Since then he has been subject to attacks related to his previous employment. I’ve asked him to respond,…

August 11, 2013 in Climate ugliness.Macquarie University responds to Murry Salby termination issue

This just released a couple of hours ago. While the reader can make up their own mind, my view is that it seems pretty weak, especially since his student researcher was also apparently terminated as I’m told her email address at Macquarie ceases to function. Salby’s statement is here – Anthony STATEMENT REGARDING THE TERMINATION…

July 10, 2013 in Climate ugliness.Professor Murry Salby who is critical of AGW theory, is being disenfranchised, exiled, from academia in Australia

People send me stuff. Just last week we heard that Dr. Robert Carter had been blackballed at his own university where he served as department chair, and now we have this from Dr. Murray Salby, sent via email. Between John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, plus Mike Marriot and his idiotic ideas, I’m beginning to…


 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
You seem to have swallowed whole the Salem Witch Trial narrative about Professor Salby. Sadly, that is how the AGW priesthood too often deals with apostates.

Murry Salby responds to critics

Jo Nova writes: Murry Salby was sacked from Macquarie University, and Macquarie struggled to explain why, among other things, it was necessary to abandon, and strand him in Paris and hold a “misconduct” meeting in his absence. Since then he has been subject to attacks related to his previous employment. I’ve asked him to respond,…

August 11, 2013 in Climate ugliness.Macquarie University responds to Murry Salby termination issue

This just released a couple of hours ago. While the reader can make up their own mind, my view is that it seems pretty weak, especially since his student researcher was also apparently terminated as I’m told her email address at Macquarie ceases to function. Salby’s statement is here – Anthony STATEMENT REGARDING THE TERMINATION…

July 10, 2013 in Climate ugliness.Professor Murry Salby who is critical of AGW theory, is being disenfranchised, exiled, from academia in Australia

People send me stuff. Just last week we heard that Dr. Robert Carter had been blackballed at his own university where he served as department chair, and now we have this from Dr. Murray Salby, sent via email. Between John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, plus Mike Marriot and his idiotic ideas, I’m beginning to…



They look a heck of a lot like the spin Trump uses to excuse what he says and does. But I forget - he says what you want to believe, so you're willing to excuse whatever he's accused of just so you can continue to believe him.
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
You seem to have swallowed whole the Salem Witch Trial narrative about Professor Salby. Sadly, that is how the AGW priesthood too often deals with apostates.

Murry Salby responds to critics

Jo Nova writes: Murry Salby was sacked from Macquarie University, and Macquarie struggled to explain why, among other things, it was necessary to abandon, and strand him in Paris and hold a “misconduct” meeting in his absence. Since then he has been subject to attacks related to his previous employment. I’ve asked him to respond,…

August 11, 2013 in Climate ugliness.Macquarie University responds to Murry Salby termination issue

This just released a couple of hours ago. While the reader can make up their own mind, my view is that it seems pretty weak, especially since his student researcher was also apparently terminated as I’m told her email address at Macquarie ceases to function. Salby’s statement is here – Anthony STATEMENT REGARDING THE TERMINATION…

July 10, 2013 in Climate ugliness.Professor Murry Salby who is critical of AGW theory, is being disenfranchised, exiled, from academia in Australia

People send me stuff. Just last week we heard that Dr. Robert Carter had been blackballed at his own university where he served as department chair, and now we have this from Dr. Murray Salby, sent via email. Between John Cook, Stephan Lewandowsky, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, plus Mike Marriot and his idiotic ideas, I’m beginning to…



Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Very perturbing article on the treatment of Dr. Salby! Isn't that what science is supposedly all about - different ways of arriving at possible solutions to problems? Apparently freedom of speech is not encouraged in scientific circles in Australia when the subject is AGW, which is not entirely surprising - some scientists in America have even asked the Obama administration to sue any scientists here that disagree with them on AGW! Unbelievable! :thumbdown I will be very interested in hearing more about this, since what has been presented sounds very unfair - scheduling a hearing when they knew he would not be available to attend is :bs: !!
 
Last edited:

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,007
Reaction score
14,385
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
LOL...

What would Mark Twain say if he read the IPCC assessment report?

Anyone know the answer?
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,822
Reaction score
28,238
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
They look a heck of a lot like the spin Trump uses to excuse what he says and does. But I forget - he says what you want to believe, so you're willing to excuse whatever he's accused of just so you can continue to believe him.

Murry Salby is not Donald Trump.
 

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
28,200
Reaction score
14,263
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hm. Let me see here. It's beyond question that we've had great deforestation worldwide...which means that the planet's biosphere is less able to handle the world's annual production from CO2 from natural sources (not to mention from not-natural sources). That's fact #1.

Fact #2 is that every gallon of gasoline that is burned creates 20 lbs - that's POUNDS - of atmospheric CO2. That's chemistry. There's a half billion cars operating every day on the planet, and if each car burns an average of 15 gallons of gasoline per week, that's literal gigatonnes of CO2 put into our atmosphere each and every year...from a source that our much-less-forested planet never had to deal with in the past. What's more, that's from automobiles ALONE, and does not count the emissions from ships, aircraft, trains, military vehicles, and factories.

But y'all can't bring yourselves to accept that yeah, maybe, just maybe AGW is very, very real indeed...'cause that would mean that the overwhelming majority of the world's scientific community (and America's political liberals) was right all along.

Oh, btw, the oh-so-credible scientist you picked? Here's what happened to him in Australia:

Climate change critic and atmospheric scientist Murry Salby has lost his long-running court battle against Macquarie University, which he had accused of a raft of workplace contraventions and political *interference.
...
Several years later, the university declined to approve Dr Salby’s travel to the European Geosciences Union General Assem*bly in Vienna and a lecture tour of Paris, Cambridge, Oslo and Stockholm.

His employment was suspended on serious misconduct charges after he missed the start of lectures, but he later used the university’s corporate credit card for the European trip.


He had previously been working at the University of Colorado:

A CLIMATE sceptic professor fired from his Australian university for alleged policy breaches had previously been banned for three years from accessing US taxpayer-funded science research money.

Dr Murry Salby, sacked in May by Macquarie University in Sydney, was the subject of a long investigation by the US National Science Foundation.

The investigation (pdf), which was finished in February 2009, concluded that over a period when Dr Salby was working at the University of Colorado, he had likely fabricated time sheets in relation to research paid for through NSF money.

We conclude that the Subject (Dr Salby) has engaged in a long-running course of deceptive conduct involving both his University and NSF. His conduct reflects a consistent willingness to violate rules and regulations, whether federal or local, for his personal benefit. This supports a finding that the Subject is not presently responsible, and we recommend that he be debarred for five years.

...
The investigation report found that “the total estimate of improperly collected indirect costs is $117,565.” The report added that payments to Dr Salby from a second company had been based on “fabricated time and effort reports”. The report also found that “the charges based on the reports may also be an unallowable cost in the total amount of $303,281”.
...
When we asked him (Dr Salby) to supply supporting documentation for the salary payments, the subject provided timesheets reflecting highly implausible work hours—for example, the subject claimed effort averaging nearly 14 hours a day for 98 continuous days between May and August 2002 (including weekends and holidays), and in other instances claimed to have devoted as much as 21 hours per day to the project.


But of course you'll still believe him...probably for the same reason that Trump's supporters think that he gives a damn about someone other than himself.



Ad hominem.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
32,625
Reaction score
10,539
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hm. Let me see here. It's beyond question that we've had great deforestation worldwide...which means that the planet's biosphere is less able to handle the world's annual production from CO2 from natural sources (not to mention from not-natural sources). That's fact #1.

Fact #2 is that every gallon of gasoline that is burned creates 20 lbs - that's POUNDS - of atmospheric CO2. That's chemistry. There's a half billion cars operating every day on the planet, and if each car burns an average of 15 gallons of gasoline per week, that's literal gigatonnes of CO2 put into our atmosphere each and every year...from a source that our much-less-forested planet never had to deal with in the past. What's more, that's from automobiles ALONE, and does not count the emissions from ships, aircraft, trains, military vehicles, and factories.
Just the facts,
Fact #1 deforestation,
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds | NASA
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide,
according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
Fact #2
The chemistry that produces three times the unit mass of CO2 for each mass unit of fuel burned,
is reversible, so each pound of biomass grown requires 3 lbs of CO2 to create.
The greening earth is making a lot of biomass!
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Just the facts,
Fact #1 deforestation,
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds | NASA

Fact #2
The chemistry that produces three times the unit mass of CO2 for each mass unit of fuel burned,
is reversible, so each pound of biomass grown requires 3 lbs of CO2 to create.
The greening earth is making a lot of biomass!

Yeah, it's helping green the earth...but as the earth grows warmer, the warmest parts become less arable, less able to sustain plant and animal growth. Posting our hopes on greening due to CO2 is worse than useless, for while the planet will green somewhat, there's no direct correlation between CO2 level and greening - there's precisely zero indication that the planet will green enough to handle the additional gigatonnes of CO2 we pump out every year.

And how do we know this? Simple. If the planet were able to handle the extra CO2, then the CO2 level would not be rising.

But it is.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
32,625
Reaction score
10,539
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Yeah, it's helping green the earth...but as the earth grows warmer, the warmest parts become less arable, less able to sustain plant and animal growth. Posting our hopes on greening due to CO2 is worse than useless, for while the planet will green somewhat, there's no direct correlation between CO2 level and greening - there's precisely zero indication that the planet will green enough to handle the additional gigatonnes of CO2 we pump out every year.

And how do we know this? Simple. If the planet were able to handle the extra CO2, then the CO2 level would not be rising.

But it is.
Your assumptions are noted, but not supported by the actual data.
Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?
You use number like gigatonnes 1 X10^9, with thinking how many tonnes of biomass are added to an
to each square mile of a greening desert, or boreal forest.
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Your assumptions are noted, but not supported by the actual data.
Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?
You use number like gigatonnes 1 X10^9, with thinking how many tonnes of biomass are added to an
to each square mile of a greening desert, or boreal forest.

You point to the Sahara desert, but that's cherry-picking. Look at what's happening to the reefs being bleached around the planet. What's more, remember what happens when more CO2 is in the vicinity of water: production of carbonic acid. And as a direct result, our oceans are becoming more acidic - and anyone who's ever worked with aquariums can tell you how bad that is for aquatic life. Our oceanic pH is 28.8 percent higher than it was in pre-industrial times, and at the same rate, it will be over twice as acidic by 2100.

How much of humanity - heck, how much of our land biomass - depends on the sea which covers 70% of our planet? Sorry, but you could turn the whole Sahara into a jungle but it wouldn't even replace a fraction of the biomass lost in our oceans.

Time for y'all to get a clue that yeah, maybe, just maybe the world's scientific community DO know what the heck they're talking about.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
49,007
Reaction score
14,385
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Look at what's happening to the reefs being bleached around the planet.
The bleaching is not caused by warming, acidity, or CO2.

What's more, remember what happens when more CO2 is in the vicinity of water: production of carbonic acid. And as a direct result, our oceans are becoming more acidic - and anyone who's ever worked with aquariums can tell you how bad that is for aquatic life.
The chemistry has an equilibrium that is also affected by temperature, salinity, and other factors. CO2 actually has very little of an effect as it makes its own equilibrium in chemistry. Chemicals that are positive pH also.

Our oceanic pH is 28.8 percent higher than it was in pre-industrial times, and at the same rate, it will be over twice as acidic by 2100.
Wrong.

Now if your 28.8% is by chance correct, it is the ionic balance. Not the pH. For the pH change, you then have to use a log[SUB]10[/SUB] calculation for the pH change.

How much of humanity - heck, how much of our land biomass - depends on the sea which covers 70% of our planet? Sorry, but you could turn the whole Sahara into a jungle but it wouldn't even replace a fraction of the biomass lost in our oceans.
Biomass is also increased in the oceans.

Time for y'all to get a clue that yeah, maybe, just maybe the world's scientific community DO know what the heck they're talking about.
They do. Ever actually read a scientific report? In general, they purposely leave things ambiguous as to protect themselves of error. It's the pundits that propagate the lies about what the scientists say.
 

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
28,200
Reaction score
14,263
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Wrong. Why? A scientist who takes controversial positions, who also has shown a pattern to violate ethics rules for his own financial gain, is not one whose word can be trusted.

Another person who doesn't understand Ad Hominem. :roll:

Trying to dismiss an argument by impugning the source rather than the argument is ad hominem fallacy.

If you need an example of the right way to address an argument then look at Jack Hays response to the ad hominem fallacy. Jack didn't need to bother to counter the ad hominem with a direct challenge to the narrative presented in the ad hominem, but he did. He countered the argument, not the source.

Logical fallacy is not an adequate substitute for knowledge.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
32,625
Reaction score
10,539
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You point to the Sahara desert, but that's cherry-picking. Look at what's happening to the reefs being bleached around the planet. What's more, remember what happens when more CO2 is in the vicinity of water: production of carbonic acid. And as a direct result, our oceans are becoming more acidic - and anyone who's ever worked with aquariums can tell you how bad that is for aquatic life. Our oceanic pH is 28.8 percent higher than it was in pre-industrial times, and at the same rate, it will be over twice as acidic by 2100.

How much of humanity - heck, how much of our land biomass - depends on the sea which covers 70% of our planet? Sorry, but you could turn the whole Sahara into a jungle but it wouldn't even replace a fraction of the biomass lost in our oceans.

Time for y'all to get a clue that yeah, maybe, just maybe the world's scientific community DO know what the heck they're talking about.
The Sahel is not really cherry picking, as it represents many thousands of square miles,
but the greening is global.
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The bleaching is not caused by warming, acidity, or CO2.


The chemistry has an equilibrium that is also affected by temperature, salinity, and other factors. CO2 actually has very little of an effect as it makes its own equilibrium in chemistry. Chemicals that are positive pH also.


Wrong.

Now if your 28.8% is by chance correct, it is the ionic balance. Not the pH. For the pH change, you then have to use a log[SUB]10[/SUB] calculation for the pH change.


Biomass is also increased in the oceans.


They do. Ever actually read a scientific report? In general, they purposely leave things ambiguous as to protect themselves of error. It's the pundits that propagate the lies about what the scientists say.

You've got quite a Gish Gallop going there. But when it comes to coral bleaching, I'll take this list of marine biologists' word over yours any day of the week (see the references at the bottom of the page). Yes, AGW is not the only cause of coral bleaching, but here's what they - you know, the ones who are most educated in the field of marine biology (which doesn't seem to include you) - have to say about it:

If a global warming trend impacts on shallow tropical and subtropical seas, we may expect an increase in the frequency, severity and scale of coral reef bleaching. Coral mortality could exceed 95% regionally with species extirpation and extinctions. A conservative temperature increase of 1-2 degrees C would cause regions between 20-30 degrees N to experience sustained warming that falls within the lethal limits of most reef-building coral species. In conjunction with sea temperature rise would be a sea level rise, and it has been suggested that sea level rise would suppress coral growth or kill many corals through drowning or lower light levels. Some coral populations and their endosymbiotic zooxanthellae may be able to adapt to the extreme conditions predicted during global climate change. Refuges in benign habitats, such as deep, sunlit reef substrates, oceanic shoals and relatively high latitude locations, might exist, but widespread coral mortality and reef decline would be expected in shallow reef zones in most low latitude. Even if significant sea warming and elevated irradiance levels do not occur, coral reef degradation from anthropogenic pollution and overexploitation will still continue, a result of unrelenting human population growth.

I underlined the 'would' above since you seem to demand that scientists MUST use absolutes in their findings.
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The Sahel is not really cherry picking, as it represents many thousands of square miles,
but the greening is global.

Ah, here we go with the "It's okay, the planet's greening!" line again. And as usual, y'all see what y'all want to see, but turn a blind eye to what you don't want to see. From the EPA:

Warmer temperatures may make many crops grow more quickly, but warmer temperatures could also reduce yields. Crops tend to grow faster in warmer conditions. However, for some crops (such as grains), faster growth reduces the amount of time that seeds have to grow and mature. This can reduce yields (i.e., the amount of crop produced from a given amount of land).

For any particular crop, the effect of increased temperature will depend on the crop's optimal temperature for growth and reproduction. In some areas, warming may benefit the types of crops that are typically planted there. However, if warming exceeds a crop's optimum temperature, yields can decline.

Higher CO2 levels can increase yields. The yields for some crops, like wheat and soybeans, could increase by 30% or more under a doubling of CO2 concentrations. The yields for other crops, such as corn, exhibit a much smaller response (less than 10% increase). However, some factors may counteract these potential increases in yield. For example, if temperature exceeds a crop's optimal level or if sufficient water and nutrients are not available, yield increases may be reduced or reversed.
More extreme temperature and precipitation can prevent crops from growing. Extreme events, especially floods and droughts, can harm crops and reduce yields.
For example, in 2008, the Mississippi River flooded just before the harvest period for many crops, causing an estimated loss of $8 billion for farmers.
Dealing with drought could become a challenge in areas where summer temperatures are projected to increase and precipitation is projected to decrease. As water supplies are reduced, it may be more difficult to meet water demands.
Many weeds, pests and fungi thrive under warmer temperatures, wetter climates, and increased CO2 levels. Currently, farmers spend more than $11 billion per year to fight weeds in the United States. The ranges of weeds and pests are likely to expand northward. This would cause new problems for farmers' crops previously unexposed to these species. Moreover, increased use of pesticides and fungicides may negatively affect human health.


Bear in mind that the above is concerning the US only...and we have the world's best ability to develop and grow crops. How much worse will the effects be in developing nations?

In other words, YES, this means that some of the planet will get greener...but there will ALSO be a lot of land that will become less arable as a direct result of AGW, as the above reference clearly shows. Not only that, but with the rise of the oceans, we lose that much more landmass worldwide in low-lying areas...most of which is quite arable.
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Another person who doesn't understand Ad Hominem. :roll:

Trying to dismiss an argument by impugning the source rather than the argument is ad hominem fallacy.

If you need an example of the right way to address an argument then look at Jack Hays response to the ad hominem fallacy. Jack didn't need to bother to counter the ad hominem with a direct challenge to the narrative presented in the ad hominem, but he did. He countered the argument, not the source.

Logical fallacy is not an adequate substitute for knowledge.

I am quite familiar with ad hominem, and I would agree with you if it were indeed an ad hominem attack...but it's not. The individual's demonstrated pattern of ethics violations for personal gain calls into serious question his credibility...and the same would hold up in court as admissible evidence to be taken into consideration by the jury.

In other words, YES, if it can be shown that a guy is a repeat offender of being a thief or a snake-oil salesman, we most certainly CAN use his misdeeds to call into question his controversial claims in other matters as well.
 

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
28,200
Reaction score
14,263
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am quite familiar with ad hominem, and I would agree with you if it were indeed an ad hominem attack...but it's not. The individual's demonstrated pattern of ethics violations for personal gain calls into serious question his credibility...and the same would hold up in court as admissible evidence to be taken into consideration by the jury.

In other words, YES, if it can be shown that a guy is a repeat offender of being a thief or a snake-oil salesman, we most certainly CAN use his misdeeds to call into question his controversial claims in other matters as well.

Holy crap. No, apparently you DON'T understand ad hominem! It doesn't matter if you feel the ethics claims against him are true or justified. He made an argument regarding CO2 and you can either honestly counter it or not, but claiming an ethics charge discounts a scientific argument is anti-science ad hominem in its purest form.

THere is no justification for a logical fallacy argument. A logical fallacy argument is self defeating and not justifiable.
 

Glen Contrarian

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
17,688
Reaction score
8,046
Location
Bernie to the left of me, Hillary to the right, he
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Holy crap. No, apparently you DON'T understand ad hominem! It doesn't matter if you feel the ethics claims against him are true or justified. He made an argument regarding CO2 and you can either honestly counter it or not, but claiming an ethics charge discounts a scientific argument is anti-science ad hominem in its purest form.

THere is no justification for a logical fallacy argument. A logical fallacy argument is self defeating and not justifiable.

I countered his argument with other arguments...and I ALSO attacked the quite questionable credibility of his reference. That, sir, is acceptable in a debate.

If I had only attacked his reference and made no other arguments, then you might have a point. But I provided other arguments as well, and so you have no point.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
32,625
Reaction score
10,539
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ah, here we go with the "It's okay, the planet's greening!" line again. And as usual, y'all see what y'all want to see, but turn a blind eye to what you don't want to see. From the EPA:

Warmer temperatures may make many crops grow more quickly, but warmer temperatures could also reduce yields. Crops tend to grow faster in warmer conditions. However, for some crops (such as grains), faster growth reduces the amount of time that seeds have to grow and mature. This can reduce yields (i.e., the amount of crop produced from a given amount of land).


Notice the word "could", that does not mean will, and crop yields tend to be increasing.
But alas, I was not actually talking about crops, but all biomass, trees, shrubs, ect.
How much weight can a poplar gain in a year?
How many grow per acre?
640 acres per square mile, is many tonnes of biomass per year per square mile.
And each ton, uses up 3 tonnes of CO2.
 
Top Bottom