“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.”
That's...not what the study says.Study Says It's Plants, Not Humans, that are the Cause of Climate Change
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."Changes in vegetation" are biologically impossible without human interference, so obviously people are causing botanical damage, not vice versa.
Not true."Changes in vegetation" are biologically impossible without human interference, so obviously people are causing botanical damage, not vice versa.
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.
Changes occur in vegetation on response to the environment."Changes in vegetation" are biologically impossible without human interference, so obviously people are causing botanical damage, not vice versa.
It can work both ways! Evolution does work.Changes occur in vegetation on response to the environment.
Anything which contradicts the Climate Change Religion and it's Religious Dogma will be rejected by the 'True Believers'.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.
At some point there is hope that science will win out.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.
Let's hope so.At some point there is hope that science will win out.
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.The structure of illusion under construction, cannot be supported without data, and the
lines between observations and predictions are already diverging.
Agreed.They cannot keep saying that 2XCO2 will equal 3C of warming, if the data does not track that path.
My first degree revolved around lasers and physics, and for me there was always something strange about the claims,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.
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.
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.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.
Well, there's still more data being collected, analyzed, theories being proposed about the whole thing as well. For example: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!
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,Well, there's still more data being collected, analyzed, theories being proposed about the whole thing as well. For example:
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.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.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.
LMAOWell, there's still more data being collected, analyzed, theories being proposed about the whole thing as well. For example:
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.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.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.
Spoken as a 'true believer'.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?