Study Says It's Plants, Not Humans, that are the Cause of Climate Change

[PoS]

Changes in vegetation shaped global temperatures over last 10,000 years

Follow the pollen. Records from past plant life tell the real story of global temperatures. Warmer temperatures brought plants — and then came even warmer temperatures, according to new model simulations published April 15 in Science Advances.

www.eurekalert.org

“Expanded vegetation during the Holocene warmed the globe by as much as 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit,” Thompson said. “Our new simulations align closely with paleoclimate proxies. So this is exciting that we can point to Northern Hemisphere vegetation as one potential factor that allows us to resolve the controversial Holocene temperature conundrum.”

Peer reviewed study too, though I bet the moronic IPCC will probably dismiss this with hardly a mention since it doesnt align with their mandate that it's only humans who are causing climate change.

But I'm skeptical of this as well, since this study also uses climate models using proxy data (and we all know these things will back up any kind of conclusion you desire, since you can just keep adjusting the variables until the results are to your liking), so take it with a big grain of salt, Id say.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

 

[Rexedgar]

It’s not my habit……


What about other factors? The two that come to my mind first are deforestation and paving. Do these factor in to your understanding of effects on the environment?

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Study Says It's Plants, Not Humans, that are the Cause of Climate Change

That's...not what the study says.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

"Changes in vegetation" are biologically impossible without human interference, so obviously people are causing botanical damage, not vice versa.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

"Changes in vegetation" are biologically impossible without human interference, so obviously people are causing botanical damage, not vice versa.

That's certainly not true. There were like a good half dozen or so major mass extinctions before we came along that were caused entirely just by internal natural mechanisms. Literally all the study is saying is to include their method for modeling climate change which includes a different way of weighing vegetation as they believe it is more accurate.

 

[CaughtInThe]

After everyone argues for a while can someone let me know if I can have a salad at dinner tonight?

 

[longview]

To me the study is saying that the large role played by plants in climate change, needs to be considered in the models
to improve their accuracy. and that as much as 1.5F (.8C) of the warming in the Holocene could be from changes in vegetation.
What is important about this is that because CO2 warming attribution is based on what remains after the known
causes of warming have been subtracted out, this is yet another thing to subtract out.
This would also track with some of the recent observed energy imbalance numbers.
Earth's energy imbalance continues to increase, but not in the infrared,
the imbalance is increasing in the short wave spectrum, like what plants absorb and convert to sugars.
Of the ~1C of warming since pre industrial times, we have roughly .28C of warming that happened before 1950,
and is considered natural. Another .2C is a result of regulations limiting aerosols allowing more sunlight to reach the ground.
(The Southern hemisphere largely did not see the aerosol increase or decrease, the .2C is how much the Northern hemisphere
average increased the global average.)
The remaining .52 C is thought to be CO2 forcing, based on the natural log formula.
5.35 X ln (416/280) X .3 =0.635C
If the greening of the earth has caused some additional warming, the error between the calculated imbalance and observed imbalance would get larger.

​

 

[Lord of Planar]

"Changes in vegetation" are biologically impossible without human interference, so obviously people are causing botanical damage, not vice versa.

Not true.

If we have retreating ice coming out of an ice age, the bare land will start to grow vegetation again, but it may take several decades for it to start and hundreds of years or more for it to spread. The vegetation will change the albedo, evaporation cooling, and also cause endothermic cooling from photosynthesis, relative to the land with no vegetation.

Temperture changes will also cause the dominant types of vegetation to change.

 

[HennyBogan]

Sshhuuussshh

 

[code1211]

Changes in vegetation shaped global temperatures over last 10,000 years

Follow the pollen. Records from past plant life tell the real story of global temperatures. Warmer temperatures brought plants — and then came even warmer temperatures, according to new model simulations published April 15 in Science Advances.

www.eurekalert.org

Peer reviewed study too, though I bet the moronic IPCC will probably dismiss this with hardly a mention since it doesnt align with their mandate that it's only humans who are causing climate change.

But I'm skeptical of this as well, since this study also uses climate models using proxy data (and we all know these things will back up any kind of conclusion you desire, since you can just keep adjusting the variables until the results are to your liking), so take it with a big grain of salt, Id say.

When an agency of government presents itself as an authority on science and absolute fact, this should raise red flags for everyone.

This is simply and obviously just one more example of the Big Lie presented by those who wish to control.

 

[soylentgreen]

"Changes in vegetation" are biologically impossible without human interference, so obviously people are causing botanical damage, not vice versa.

Changes occur in vegetation on response to the environment.

 

[soylentgreen]

The last ice age corresponds with the Upper Paleolithic period (40,000 to 10,000 years ago). The Holocene Epoch began 12,000 to 11,500 years ago at the close of the Paleolithic Ice Age and continues through today.

It got warmer after an ice age finished. And pos is having difficulty with the idea it got warmer.

 

[longview]

Changes occur in vegetation on response to the environment.

It can work both ways! Evolution does work.

 

[eohrnberger]

Changes in vegetation shaped global temperatures over last 10,000 years

Follow the pollen. Records from past plant life tell the real story of global temperatures. Warmer temperatures brought plants — and then came even warmer temperatures, according to new model simulations published April 15 in Science Advances.

www.eurekalert.org

Peer reviewed study too, though I bet the moronic IPCC will probably dismiss this with hardly a mention since it doesnt align with their mandate that it's only humans who are causing climate change.

But I'm skeptical of this as well, since this study also uses climate models using proxy data (and we all know these things will back up any kind of conclusion you desire, since you can just keep adjusting the variables until the results are to your liking), so take it with a big grain of salt, Id say.

Anything which contradicts the Climate Change Religion and it's Religious Dogma will be rejected by the 'True Believers'.

New data which doesn't conform to the religion is also flatly rejected, most frequently with the claim 'The Science Is Settled', which directly contradicts the fundamental scientific method, so, yeah, a religion at this point. Interesting to note this coming from largely self acclaimed atheists. 🤷‍♂️

 

[longview]

Anything which contradicts the Climate Change Religion and it's Religious Dogma will be rejected by the 'True Believers'.

New data which doesn't conform to the religion is also flatly rejected, most frequently with the claim 'The Science Is Settled', which directly contradicts the fundamental scientific method, so, yeah, a religion at this point. Interesting to note this coming from largely self acclaimed atheists. 🤷‍♂️

At some point there is hope that science will win out.
The structure of illusion under construction, cannot be supported without data, and the
lines between observations and predictions are already diverging.
They cannot keep saying that 2XCO2 will equal 3C of warming, if the data does not track that path.

 

[eohrnberger]

At some point there is hope that science will win out.

Let's hope so.

The structure of illusion under construction, cannot be supported without data, and the
lines between observations and predictions are already diverging.

It would seem to appear that way, but I'm inclined to hang on for awhile until there is a greater consensus among non-believers / non-benefactors.

They cannot keep saying that 2XCO2 will equal 3C of warming, if the data does not track that path.

Agreed.

 

[longview]

It would seem to appear that way, but I'm inclined to hang on for awhile until there is a greater consensus among non-believers / non-benefactors.

My first degree revolved around lasers and physics, and for me there was always something strange about the claims,
the idea of Ghost forcing. 34 years after Hansen's talk to the Senate, and plenty of data later,
I think there is even less understanding about how added CO2 behaves in the atmosphere.
The CERES satellites were put up to track the decreasing outgoing longwave radiation leaving earth.
Instead of decreasing, the exiting longwave radiation is increasing, but the overall imbalance is still going up.
It is going up, because less shortwave radiation is being reflected.
It could be from fewer clouds, or plants absorbing more shortwave radiation or both, but it is not CO2, doing what they predicted
it would do!

 

[Deuce]

Changes in vegetation shaped global temperatures over last 10,000 years

Follow the pollen. Records from past plant life tell the real story of global temperatures. Warmer temperatures brought plants — and then came even warmer temperatures, according to new model simulations published April 15 in Science Advances.

www.eurekalert.org

Peer reviewed study too, though I bet the moronic IPCC will probably dismiss this with hardly a mention since it doesnt align with their mandate that it's only humans who are causing climate change.

But I'm skeptical of this as well, since this study also uses climate models using proxy data (and we all know these things will back up any kind of conclusion you desire, since you can just keep adjusting the variables until the results are to your liking), so take it with a big grain of salt, Id say.

LOL! PoS thinks "only humans have ever changed the earth's climate" is the argument.

 

[Deuce]

Anything which contradicts the Climate Change Religion and it's Religious Dogma will be rejected by the 'True Believers'.

New data which doesn't conform to the religion is also flatly rejected, most frequently with the claim 'The Science Is Settled', which directly contradicts the fundamental scientific method, so, yeah, a religion at this point. Interesting to note this coming from largely self acclaimed atheists. 🤷‍♂️

Speaking of true believes, neither you nor PoS have put any sort of critical thinking effort into this discussion. You folks seem under the impression "climate changes naturally" is some stunning fact that climate scientists are trying to hide when climate scientists are the ones teaching you about it in the first place.

 

[eohrnberger]

My first degree revolved around lasers and physics, and for me there was always something strange about the claims,
the idea of Ghost forcing. 34 years after Hansen's talk to the Senate, and plenty of data later,
I think there is even less understanding about how added CO2 behaves in the atmosphere.
The CERES satellites were put up to track the decreasing outgoing longwave radiation leaving earth.
Instead of decreasing, the exiting longwave radiation is increasing, but the overall imbalance is still going up.
It is going up, because less shortwave radiation is being reflected.
It could be from fewer clouds, or plants absorbing more shortwave radiation or both, but it is not CO2, doing what they predicted
it would do!

Well, there's still more data being collected, analyzed, theories being proposed about the whole thing as well. For example:

Is the Sun causing global warming? - NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming​

https://climate.nasa.gov › faq › 14 › is-the-sun-causing-global-warming​

The amount of solar energy Earth receives has followed the Sun's natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century.​

What's causing the poles to warm faster than the rest of Earth? - NASA​

https://www.nasa.gov › topics › earth › features › warmingpoles.html​

Credit: Allen Lunsford, NASA GSFC Direct Readout Laboratory › View larger image. The South Pole seen at sunrise during the part of the year where there is sun at all in the region. Credit: Calee Allen, National Science Foundation . The poles are warming faster than other parts of the Earth - a fact that has been widely accepted for years.​

What Is the Sun's Role in Climate Change? - NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming​

https://climate.nasa.gov › ask-nasa-climate › 2910 › what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change​

The Sun powers life on Earth; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. It also influences Earth's climate: We know subtle changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the past ice ages. But the warming we've seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth ...​

Isn't NASA simply filled to the brim with highly qualified and serious scientists? Why do the Human Caused Climate Change Religious Zealots not consider this new data?

It goes back to the political and the political control.

 

[longview]

Well, there's still more data being collected, analyzed, theories being proposed about the whole thing as well. For example:

Is the Sun causing global warming? - NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming​

https://climate.nasa.gov › faq › 14 › is-the-sun-causing-global-warming​

The amount of solar energy Earth receives has followed the Sun's natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century.​

What's causing the poles to warm faster than the rest of Earth? - NASA​

https://www.nasa.gov › topics › earth › features › warmingpoles.html​

Credit: Allen Lunsford, NASA GSFC Direct Readout Laboratory › View larger image. The South Pole seen at sunrise during the part of the year where there is sun at all in the region. Credit: Calee Allen, National Science Foundation . The poles are warming faster than other parts of the Earth - a fact that has been widely accepted for years.​

What Is the Sun's Role in Climate Change? - NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming​

https://climate.nasa.gov › ask-nasa-climate › 2910 › what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change​

The Sun powers life on Earth; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. It also influences Earth's climate: We know subtle changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the past ice ages. But the warming we've seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth ...​

Isn't NASA simply filled to the brim with highly qualified and serious scientists? Why do the Human Caused Climate Change Religious Zealots not consider this new data?

It goes back to the political and the political control.

There are some real problems with the predictions. You mentioned that the poles are warming faster, something predicted in one of Hansen's papers. But when we look at the actual warming vs the prediction, we see this,
NASA's GISS zone warming shows minimal warming at the higher southern latitudes, yet CO2 is nearly the same everywhere.

 

[Deuce]

Also, OP seems to have confused tenses. "Are causing" and "have caused."

 

[Deuce]

Well, there's still more data being collected, analyzed, theories being proposed about the whole thing as well. For example:

Is the Sun causing global warming? - NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming​

https://climate.nasa.gov › faq › 14 › is-the-sun-causing-global-warming​

The amount of solar energy Earth receives has followed the Sun's natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century.​

What's causing the poles to warm faster than the rest of Earth? - NASA​

https://www.nasa.gov › topics › earth › features › warmingpoles.html​

Credit: Allen Lunsford, NASA GSFC Direct Readout Laboratory › View larger image. The South Pole seen at sunrise during the part of the year where there is sun at all in the region. Credit: Calee Allen, National Science Foundation . The poles are warming faster than other parts of the Earth - a fact that has been widely accepted for years.​

What Is the Sun's Role in Climate Change? - NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming​

https://climate.nasa.gov › ask-nasa-climate › 2910 › what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change​

The Sun powers life on Earth; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. It also influences Earth's climate: We know subtle changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the past ice ages. But the warming we've seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth ...​

Isn't NASA simply filled to the brim with highly qualified and serious scientists? Why do the Human Caused Climate Change Religious Zealots not consider this new data?

It goes back to the political and the political control.

LMAO

First link is "Is the Sun causing global warming" and this dude doesn't read it because ITS CONCLUSION IS NO, THE SUN IS NOT CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You just posted not one, but two links that all say "no, we can't blame the sun for the current temperature trend."

And you literally don't realize you did it.

 

[eohrnberger]

Speaking of true believes, neither you nor PoS have put any sort of critical thinking effort into this discussion. You folks seem under the impression "climate changes naturally" is some stunning fact that climate scientists are trying to hide when climate scientists are the ones teaching you about it in the first place.

Spoken as a 'true believer'.