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

[Deuce]

Spoken as a 'true believer'.

Says the guy who just posted links he clearly did not read.

 

[eohrnberger]

Says the guy who just posted links he clearly did not read.

The point illustrated still stands, the 'Human Climate Change' religious zealots refuse new scientific information and studies if it is contrary to their religion, where as skeptics still have an open mind, which is more in accordance with the scientific method.

Especially so for the zealots, when it serves their underlying imperative, which is to have absolute political control over people. Why else deny any data or studies which contradict their religious beliefs (which only further their tyrannical tendencies and political power)?

 

[Deuce]

The point illustrated still stands, the 'Human Climate Change' religious zealots refuse new scientific information and studies if it is contrary to their religion, where as skeptics still have an open mind, which is more in accordance with the scientific method.

Especially so for the zealots, when it serves their underlying imperative, which is to have absolute political control over people. Why else deny any data or studies which contradict their religious beliefs (which only further their tyrannical tendencies and political power)?

The point illustrated? LOL. I'll start with the first link. You called it "new information," but nothing in that link is remotely new. I wrote a whole thread on that exact concept on this forum literally a decade ago.

Now, I say that you didn't read it because of this part:

No. The Sun can influence Earth’s climate, but it isn’t responsible for the warming trend we’ve seen over recent decades. The Sun is a giver of life; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen in recent decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit and too large to be caused by solar activity.

One of the “smoking guns” that tells us the Sun is not causing global warming comes from looking at the amount of solar energy that hits the top of the atmosphere. Since 1978, scientists have been tracking this using sensors on satellites, which tell us that there has been no upward trend in the amount of solar energy reaching our planet.

A second smoking gun is that if the Sun were responsible for global warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, from the surface to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). But what we actually see is warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere. This is consistent with the warming being caused by a buildup of heat-trapping gases near Earth's surface, and not by the Sun getting “hotter.”

So, the entire premise of the article that YOU LINKED is that no, actually, the sun is not responsible for the recent warming trend.

So let's back up and have you explain exactly what it is you believe is being "denied" here? LOL

 

[eohrnberger]

The point illustrated? LOL. I'll start with the first link. You called it "new information," but nothing in that link is remotely new. I wrote a whole thread on that exact concept on this forum literally a decade ago.

Now, I say that you didn't read it because of this part:



So, the entire premise of the article that YOU LINKED is that no, actually, the sun is not responsible for the recent warming trend.

So let's back up and have you explain exactly what it is you believe is being "denied" here? LOL

The rejection of ideas which go against your religion so noted.

I don't buy into the 'Human Caused Climate Change' simply from the point that all changes to combat it enable the left to dictate the transfer of wealth from developed 1st world nations to 2nd and 3rd world nations (while those leftists skim their cut as they dictate how and how much, those wealth transfers should be). Further, that continued 'Human Climate Change' research is dependent on reporting the acceptable results, so a corruption of science via the dollar.

Anyone with any common sense would and should be skeptical of this.

Claims of 'The Science Is Settled' from the left, who are angling for this political and financial control, should be met with the same level or skepticism (or more). The fundamental tenant of the scientific method is to never claim 'the science is settled', when provided new data and information.

So, yes, skepticism of this new religion is fully warranted.

 

[Deuce]

The rejection of ideas which go against your religion so noted.

Oh my god he still thinks this link goes against AGW.

 

[Deuce]

I don't buy into the 'Human Caused Climate Change' simply from the point that all changes to combat it enable the left to dictate the transfer of wealth from developed 1st world nations to 2nd and 3rd world nations (while those leftists skim their cut as they dictate how and how much, those wealth transfers should be). Further, that continued 'Human Climate Change' research is dependent on reporting the acceptable results, so a corruption of science via the dollar.

Anyone with any common sense would and should be skeptical of this.

I also decided to touch on this.

Literally you are saying "I am rejecting the concept of AGW because I politically dislike the implications."

You haven't based your objections on scientific data, you took a political stance. And you call me the true believer. Pathetic.

 

[eohrnberger]

I also decided to touch on this.

Literally you are saying "I am rejecting the concept of AGW because I politically dislike the implications."

You haven't based your objections on scientific data, you took a political stance. And you call me the true believer. Pathetic.

What's pathetic is the rejection of scientific studies and data which counter and thwart the political control ambitions of the 'Climate Change' religion, which you've and many other in this forum, have rejected in favor of those political ambitions.

Describing the left as 'Politics Uber Alles' is accurate and a truism. Why else squelch any scientific studies which are counter to those religious zealot held beliefs?

It's the political imperative of political control which drives the left. Always has. Always will, and because of that, should be viewed with healthy skepticism at all times.

 

[Deuce]

What's pathetic is the rejection of scientific studies and data which counter and thwart the political control ambitions of the 'Climate Change' religion, which you've and many other in this forum, have rejected in favor of those political ambitions.

Describing the left as 'Politics Uber Alles' is accurate and a truism. Why else squelch any scientific studies which are counter to those religious zealot held beliefs?

It's the political imperative of political control which drives the left. Always has. Always will, and because of that, should be viewed with healthy skepticism at all times.

Again, what do you think I am rejecting about the links you posted? The first one is saying the sun is not responsible for warming over the last few decades, and it explains why. I've known this for many years. It's not new information and it doesn't contradict AGW.

 

[longview]

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

Because what AGW proponents are proposing is limiting warming to 1.5C above the pre industry level, past causes are also important.

 

[Deuce]

Because what AGW proponents are proposing is limiting warming to 1.5C above the pre industry level, past causes are also important.

Ahh, this idiotic straw man again. LOL. No, we're not doing this again. Your interpretation is dumb and wrong and the scientific community does not believe what you think they believe.

 

[multivita-man]

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.

Um, no.

 

[longview]

Ahh, this idiotic straw man again. LOL. No, we're not doing this again. Your interpretation is dumb and wrong and the scientific community does not believe what you think they believe.

What do you think is the starting year, when they say 1.5C above the pre industrial temperature?
The widely accepted belief is that the vast majority of the Human caused greenhouse gas warming
happened after 1978. Of the ~1C of observed warming, how much do you think is from CO2, and why?

 

[Luckyone]

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.

Reminds me of the age old question about "what came first, the chicken or the egg".

Bottom line is that plants are affected by the environment and the environment is now full of carbon dioxide that has been caused by humans and increases of carbon dioxide is the main reason for plants growth causing climate warming. Whether it be for natural reasons as it was in the past or for man-made reasons, the bottom line is that the earth is warming up and it is a problem.

As such, "yes" plants are causing the global warming but we are the ones supplying the "extra" carbon dioxide that is causing the plants to warm the climate. We stop the addition of carbon dioxide and we stop the global warming.

 

[PoS]

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?

Are you actually gonna talk about the subject matter for once in your life?

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

What part of:

“Expanded vegetation during the Holocene warmed the globe by as much as 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit,” Thompson said.

Do you not understand?

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

LMAO what a thoroughly stupid statement. It just goes to show what a climate alarmist knows about anything.

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

Nope you can't- because it causes climate change!

And you can't eat meat either- because it causes climate change!

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.

LOL another moronic statement.

The study says youre wrong. And even if you were right about it getting warmer because the last ice age is over, then climate change is a natural occurence, since its still getting warmer, according to you.

Either way, epic fail on your part. Good job!

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

Obtuse as usual. My statement was sarcasm, since its you and your AGW cohorts who are the ones who think its only humans who cause climate change, so the jokes on you lol.

Um, no.

This is a peer reviewed study. I think I'll take it over your opinion anytime.

Reminds me of the age old question about "what came first, the chicken or the egg".

Bottom line is that plants are affected by the environment and the environment is now full of carbon dioxide that has been caused by humans and increases of carbon dioxide is the main reason for plants growth causing climate warming. Whether it be for natural reasons as it was in the past or for man-made reasons, the bottom line is that the earth is warming up and it is a problem.

As such, "yes" plants are causing the global warming but we are the ones supplying the "extra" carbon dioxide that is causing the plants to warm the climate. We stop the addition of carbon dioxide and we stop the global warming.

So you think cavemen in the last 10,000 years who made little fires have been warming the climate since then? What an idiotic belief. So tell me, what caused climate change at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction event- dont tell me you think it was humans too... but I wouldnt be surprised if you believe that.

 

[CaughtInThe]

Nope you can't

too late

 

[multivita-man]

This is a peer reviewed study. I think I'll take it over your opinion anytime.

I don't doubt that it's a peer reviewed study, nor do I doubt the veracity of their claims; I doubt that their claims support the premise upon which you support your climate-change worldview.

Big difference.

 

[Luckyone]

Are you actually gonna talk about the subject matter for once in your life?


What part of:

“Expanded vegetation during the Holocene warmed the globe by as much as 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit,” Thompson said.

Do you not understand?


LMAO what a thoroughly stupid statement. It just goes to show what a climate alarmist knows about anything.


Nope you can't- because it causes climate change!

And you can't eat meat either- because it causes climate change!



LOL another moronic statement.

The study says youre wrong. And even if you were right about it getting warmer because the last ice age is over, then climate change is a natural occurence, since its still getting warmer, according to you.

Either way, epic fail on your part. Good job!


Obtuse as usual. My statement was sarcasm, since its you and your AGW cohorts who are the ones who think its only humans who cause climate change, so the jokes on you lol.


This is a peer reviewed study. I think I'll take it over your opinion anytime.



So you think cavemen in the last 10,000 years who made little fires have been warming the climate since then? What an idiotic belief. So tell me, what caused climate change at the Triassic-Jurassic extinction event- dont tell me you think it was humans too... but I wouldnt be surprised if you believe that.

I don't know where you get the idea that I am suggesting that cavemen caused global warming in the past. What caused global warming then was some kind of natural phenomenon that happened at that time. It (natural phenomenon) does happen you know?

Nonetheless, you have absolutely no proof that the same natural phenomenon is happening now. There is plenty of "PROOF" that global warming at this time is due to humans burning extreme amounts of carbon dioxide, which does cause global warming. As such, common sense would say that if you remove the reasons for the global warming now, that it will be reduced. Doesn't that make sense to you? (probably not. You are looking for excuses to keep burning natural coal to pad the pockets of the rich oil men)/

 

[longview]

I don't know where you get the idea that I am suggesting that cavemen caused global warming in the past. What caused global warming then was some kind of natural phenomenon that happened at that time. It (natural phenomenon) does happen you know?

Nonetheless, you have absolutely no proof that the same natural phenomenon is happening now. There is plenty of "PROOF" that global warming at this time is due to humans burning extreme amounts of carbon dioxide, which does cause global warming. As such, common sense would say that if you remove the reasons for the global warming now, that it will be reduced. Doesn't that make sense to you? (probably not. You are looking for excuses to keep burning natural coal to pad the pockets of the rich oil men)/

I am not so sure there is "PROOF" that global warming at this time is due to humans releasing large amounts of CO2.
It sounds good, and some of the warming is likely from added CO2, but proof is more difficult.
The basic idea is that added CO2 would slow infrared radiation from leaving the planet, creating an energy imbalance.
to correct the imbalance the planet will be forced to warm until the energy coming in equals the energy leaving.
Where this runs into trouble, is the CERES satellites were put up to record this decrease in outgoing LW radiation,
and the outgoing LW radiation is increasing instead. We do have an energy imbalance, but it comes from less SW radiation
being reflected, not LW radiation as the theory suggests.
There could be several causes for this, one being that CO2 at the current level (~416 ppmv) is passed the point
where added CO2 has much effect. Once you block 100% of the central band (667 cm-1), there are still some side bands
called pressure broadening, but they function at much lower efficiency.
The response would no longer be logarithmic but super logarithmic.
An Analytical Model for CO2 Forcing, Part II: State-Dependence and1 Spatial Variations

At higher qi other spectral regions start to contribute to the forcing, making
this particular upper bound irrelevant and yielding a super-logarithmic scaling of CO2 forcing with
CO2 concentrations (Seeley et al. 2020; Zhong and Haigh

 

[Deuce]

Obtuse as usual. My statement was sarcasm, since its you and your AGW cohorts who are the ones who think its only humans who cause climate change, so the jokes on you lol.

"It was sarcasm but also I literally believe the thing you were saying."

LOL!

So, let's clarify: you think the climate scientists telling you about all these past cycles of temperature swings think only humans can cause temperature swings.

 

[soylentgreen]

The rejection of ideas which go against your religion so noted.

I don't buy into the 'Human Caused Climate Change' simply from the point that all changes to combat it enable the left to dictate the transfer of wealth from developed 1st world nations to 2nd and 3rd world nations (while those leftists skim their cut as they dictate how and how much, those wealth transfers should be). Further, that continued 'Human Climate Change' research is dependent on reporting the acceptable results, so a corruption of science via the dollar.

What rejection? That climate changes from natural events such as the sun is not being denied. There is no need to reject any such claim while still giving support to the science that humans are also effecting the climate.

So it is not the science that is your problem but instead that you are a believer of conspiracy theories. And your accusing those who argue on the basis of science of being religious while all you bring to the table is your belief that the left are evil.

Anyone with any common sense would and should be skeptical of this.

Claims of 'The Science Is Settled' from the left, who are angling for this political and financial control, should be met with the same level or skepticism (or more). The fundamental tenant of the scientific method is to never claim 'the science is settled', when provided new data and information.

So, yes, skepticism of this new religion is fully warranted.

This is really ****ed up thinking. If we go with your theory that the science is never settled then please do explain how a computer works. Because apparently we cannot trust the science behind it to actually work.

The fundamental rule of science is that there is always more to learn. Not some poorly thought out idea of we cannot trust that which we have already learnt.

 

[eohrnberger]

What rejection? That climate changes from natural events such as the sun is not being denied. There is no need to reject any such claim while still giving support to the science that humans are also effecting the climate.

So it is not the science that is your problem but instead that you are a believer of conspiracy theories. And your accusing those who argue on the basis of science of being religious while all you bring to the table is your belief that the left are evil.



This is really ****ed up thinking. If we go with your theory that the science is never settled then please do explain how a computer works. Because apparently we cannot trust the science behind it to actually work.

You need to study up on the scientific method. I'll leave you to it.

The fundamental rule of science is that there is always more to learn. Not some poorly thought out idea of we cannot trust that which we have already learnt.

 

[longview]

This is really ****ed up thinking. If we go with your theory that the science is never settled then please do explain how a computer works. Because apparently we cannot trust the science behind it to actually work.

The fundamental rule of science is that there is always more to learn. Not some poorly thought out idea of we cannot trust that which we have already learnt.

There is an ocean of difference between the level of understanding of digital circuits and how sensitive the climate is to added CO2.
The state of the art in climate science, is still using a simulation of an event that cannot happen to model the climate (ECS).
(I say ECS cannot happen, because ECS is an abrupt doubling or quadrupling of the CO2 level.)

 

[nvflash]

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.

Shut up and pay your carbon tax.

Don't you know man is killing the planet and the only way to save it is with tax?

 

[nvflash]

Shut up and pay your carbon tax.

Don't you know man is killing the planet and the only way to save it is with tax?

Once you send 100% of your income to the government they will disperse funds back to you so that you may live the way they tell you to.

Then they will want 110% of you income.

 

[Deuce]

You need to study up on the scientific method. I'll leave you to it.

You posted a link that says the sun is not the cause of recent warming trends and you didn't read it.

How can you proclaim to be an expert on the scientific method when reading a single article is not something you are willing to do?