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

[watsup]

That is precisely what I said. Apparently you do not know the difference between the environment and climate, or you wouldn't have asked such a ridiculous question.

Please tell us the difference between the environment and the climate then. Are you saying that the climate is not part of the environment? Then basically 100% of scientists would disagree with you.

 

[watsup]

I once spent three months living in the back country of Glacier National Park in 1971. Primarily on the western side of the continental divide. It is an absolutely gorgeous park, and the closest you can get to what Alaska looks like without leaving the lower-48.

You do know that many of the glaciers have shown a lot of melt since then, right? Look it up if you don’t believe it.

 

[Deuce]

Actually, it does. Overall = All over. So much for your education.

r/confidentlyincorrect

 

[Glitch]

"This number seems small" is unscientific. Comparing greenhouse gases to the total mass of the atmosphere doesn't make any sense.

Next time try actually quoting what I said. Unlike you, I have some knowledge of mathematics and can comprehend what constitutes a "tiny fraction" of the overall total.

 

[Glitch]

You do know that many of the glaciers have shown a lot of melt since then, right? Look it up if you don’t believe it.

I would certainly hope so.

Now if you had said that the glaciers in the park had advanced, then I would become concerned. As it is, I'm glad that they are receding.

 

[watsup]

11,700 years is "permanent," as far as humans are concerned.


Why would anyone fear the release of methane hydrates? Methane accounts for 0.0001879% of the total atmosphere. Even when factoring in that it retains more heat than carbon dioxide, it is a tiny fraction of the heat retained by carbon dioxide which in itself is a tiny fraction (0.042%) of Earth's atmosphere.

Vegetation in the Arctic and Antarctic grew for millions of years before the current ice-age began 2.58 million years ago. Just over 40 million years ago there was no ice anywhere on the planet. During the Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Triassic both the Arctic and Antarctic were the home of dinosaurs and was covered in thick vegetation.

Who said anything about melting permafrost being anyone's fault? As temperatures increase permafrost slowly melts, and land that was once frozen and unable to bear crops becomes arable once again. This is a reoccurring cycle that happens during every interglacial period. Only to have the permafrost reassert itself when the interglacial period ends and another glacial period begins.

As a side note, technically speaking, since the word "Arctic" is from the Greek word ἀρκτικός (arktikos), "near the Bear, northern" and from the word ἄρκτος (arktos), meaning "bear." There could not be an "Arctic" or "Antarctic" (meaning "no, or without, bears") before the existence of bears about 38 million years ago.

None of this has anything to do with AGW, per se.

 

[watsup]

I would certainly hope so.

Now if you had said that the glaciers in the park had advanced, then I would become concerned. As it is, I'm glad that they are receding.

It’s a generalized statement that doesn’t mean much without taking a close look at its actual effect.

 

[Deuce]

Next time try actually quoting what I said. Unlike you, I have some knowledge of mathematics and can comprehend what constitutes a "tiny fraction" of the overall total.

The math being accurate does not mean the math is relevant. It's an even tinier fraction of the mass of our solar system, but that doesn't actually matter.

Comparing the mass of CO2 in the atmosphere to the mass of nitrogen in the atmosphere isn't a useful comparison.

 

[watsup]

I would certainly hope so.

Now if you had said that the glaciers in the park had advanced, then I would become concerned. As it is, I'm glad that they are receding.

That’s such a silly statement. The problem that we are experiencing right now is AGW and the effects that it is having on a worldwide basis.
And BTW, have you ever given us a link to that chart from the astrologist that you posted a few pages back? I wouldn’t want you to get in trouble for not following DP rules, you know.

 

[Glitch]

None of this has anything to do with AGW, per se.

That is because AGW only exists as a politicial ideology of Marxists. A figment of leftists vivid imagination, and a vehicle for their Marxist redistribution of wealth philosophy. AGW has no more meaning than that.

 

[watsup]

That is because AGW only exists as a politicial ideology of Marxists. A figment of leftists vivid imagination, and a vehicle for their Marxist redistribution of wealth philosophy. AGW has no more meaning than that.

I see that you have moved away from thoughtful debate and into your standard right wing rant phase. It’s what we always expect of you when you are losing the reasoned argumentation. That sure didn’t take long.

 

[Deuce]

None of this has anything to do with AGW, per se.

They think "climate has changed in the past" inherently disproves AGW.

 

[Glitch]

That’s such a silly statement.

Are you asserting that you want to see the glaciers in the park start advancing or remain static? Those are the only two other possibilities, and neither are a good thing as far as humanity is concerned. It would require reducing the carrying capacity of the planet, which would - over the course of centuries - result in the deaths of hundreds of millions.

Let me guess, you are one of those Malthusians who consider humanity to be a scourge on the planet, and needs to be utterly wiped out of existence, right?

The problem that we are experiencing right now is AGW and the effects that it is having on a worldwide basis.
And BTW, have you ever given us a link to that chart from the astrologist that you posted a few pages back? I wouldn’t want you to get in trouble for not following DP rules, you know.

It is pure hubris to believe humans could have any impact on the climate of the planet, either way.

Don't like that graph, here is one that NOAA uses:


There are quite a few different temperature graphs available from a wide variety of sources, and they all show pretty much the same thing. During the last ~8,000 years there have been four (counting the current Modern Warming period) major warming and three major cooling periods. Each period spanning centuries. The current Modern Warming period is still slightly cooler than the Medieval Warming period, and cooler than the Roman Warming period, and much cooler than the Minoan Warming period. The cold periods in between each of those warming periods has also been getting colder and colder. As the above graph indicates.

 

[iguanaman]

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 The study fails to mention any mechanism involving the growth of plants that would cause warming. Plants do not produce heat...duh.. More likely it was high CO2 levels that caused the increased plant growth AND the warming. Plants are sensitive to CO2 levels and grow faster as levels increase. They also serve to reduce atmospheric CO2 which cools the planet...but it take 10's of 1000's of years to happen.

 

[iguanaman]

Are you asserting that you want to see the glaciers in the park start advancing or remain static? Those are the only two other possibilities, and neither are a good thing as far as humanity is concerned. It would require reducing the carrying capacity of the planet, which would - over the course of centuries - result in the deaths of hundreds of millions.

Let me guess, you are one of those Malthusians who consider humanity to be a scourge on the planet, and needs to be utterly wiped out of existence, right?


It is pure hubris to believe humans could have any impact on the climate of the planet, either way.

Don't like that graph, here is one that NOAA uses:
View attachment 67387157

There are quite a few different temperature graphs available from a wide variety of sources, and they all show pretty much the same thing. During the last ~8,000 years there have been four (counting the current Modern Warming period) major warming and three major cooling periods. Each period spanning centuries. The current Modern Warming period is still slightly cooler than the Medieval Warming period, and cooler than the Roman Warming period, and much cooler than the Minoan Warming period. The cold periods in between each of those warming periods has also been getting colder and colder. As the above graph indicates.

The medieval warming was a localized phenomena not a global one. Also we use glacial melt rates to determine warming. Glaciers have been melting since the end of the ice age but NEVER at the levels that they are disappearing now.

medieval warm period (MWP), also called medieval warm epoch or little climatic optimum, brief climatic interval that is hypothesized to have occurred from approximately 900 CE to 1300 (roughly coinciding with the Middle Ages in Europe), in which relatively warm conditions are said to have prevailed in various parts of the world, though predominantly in the Northern Hemisphere from Greenland eastward through Europe and parts of Asiahttps://www.britannica.com/science/medieval-warm-period

Speed at which world’s glaciers are melting has doubled in 20 years​

The authors found the pace of glacier thinning outside of Greenland and Antarctica picking up from about a third of a metre per year in 2000 to two-thirds in 2019. This is equivalent to an acceleration of 62Gt per year each decade.
The study uses historical Nasa satellite data and new statistical methods to construct three-dimensional topographies going back 20 years and covering 99.9% of the world’s glaciers. The result is the most accurate and comprehensive assessment of the world’s 217,175 glaciers to date.
Scientists said the precision of the data allowed them to be more certain than before that glacier loss is enormous and accelerating. Previous estimates of mass loss were about 20% more negative, but those had an even greater margin of error because they were either extrapolated from ground measurements at a few hundred reference glaciers and a limited coverage of satellite imagery, or based on the study of gravimetric signals which have a coarse resolution.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-glaciers-are-melting-has-doubled-in-20-years

 

[Glitch]

I see that you have moved away from thoughtful debate and into your standard right wing rant phase. It’s what we always expect of you when you are losing the reasoned argumentation. That sure didn’t take long.

Actually, you did that when you referred to the entirely political term "AGW." It is the natural tendency of leftists to blame others for their own failings.

 

[iguanaman]

Actually, you did that when you referred to the entirely political term "AGW." It is the natural tendency of leftists to blame others for their own failings.

How is saying that the earth is warming because of human activity blaming others? You don't think leftists are human? Right winger tend to blame science for inconvenient truths. They are just the messengers.

 

[Glitch]

The medieval warming was a localized phenomena not a global one.

medieval warm period (MWP), also called medieval warm epoch or little climatic optimum, brief climatic interval that is hypothesized to have occurred from approximately 900 CE to 1300 (roughly coinciding with the Middle Ages in Europe), in which relatively warm conditions are said to have prevailed in various parts of the world, though predominantly in the Northern Hemisphere from Greenland eastward through Europe and parts of Asia.

https://www.britannica.com/science/medieval-warm-period

Close enough. I have the Medieval Warming Period lasting from 950 AD until 1250 AD, but that would be quibbling. It also coincides with the Renaissance in Europe, which began sometime during the 14th century. Like the Roman and Minoan warming periods before it, these warming periods have all been immensely beneficial to humanity technologically, socially, and culturally. Consider what the human species has accomplished since the Modern Warming period began.

 

[iguanaman]

Close enough. I have the Medieval Warming Period lasting from 950 AD until 1250 AD, but that would be quibbling. It also coincides with the Renaissance in Europe, which began sometime during the 14th century. Like the Roman and Minoan warming periods before it, these warming periods have all been immensely beneficial to humanity technologically, socially, and culturally. Consider what the human species has accomplished since the Modern Warming period began.

Have you ever heard of too much of a good thing? We are warming ourselves to death.

 

[Glitch]

How is saying that the earth is warming because of human activity blaming others? You don't think leftists are human? Right winger tend to blame science for inconvenient truths. They are just the messengers.

LOL! That answer to your question is contained within your question. AGW is all about blaming humanity, as a means of control. After all, it is not the fault of humans then there is absolutely nothing humans can do to change things and that means government has no control. The reality is that the climate is going to continue to change, irrespective to anything humanity may or may not do.

As far as that change is concerned, there would appear to be climatic cycles within cycles. Not only are these multiple-century long warming and cooling periods cyclic, but each of those periods also contain warming and cooling cycles. For example, the NASA GISS data from 1880 until 2010 shows two 35-year cooling cycles (1880-1915, 1945-1980) , and two 30-year warming cycles (1915-1945, 1980-2010).

Armed with this information we can reasonably conclude that another 35-year cooling cycle began ~2010 and will last until ~2045. During which time we can probably expect climatic conditions similar to what occurred between 1945 and 1980. Although, this cooling cycle should be slightly cooler than the previous. Just as the next warming cycle (which should be between ~2045 and ~2075) will be slightly warmer than the 1980-2010 warming cycle.

 

[iguanaman]

LOL! That answer to your question is contained within your question. AGW is all about blaming humanity, as a means of control. After all, it is not the fault of humans then there is absolutely nothing humans can do to change things and that means government has no control. The reality is that the climate is going to continue to change, irrespective to anything humanity may or may not do.

As far as that change is concerned, there would appear to be climatic cycles within cycles. Not only are these multiple-century long warming and cooling periods cyclic, but each of those periods also contain warming and cooling cycles. For example, the NASA GISS data from 1880 until 2010 shows two 35-year cooling cycles (1880-1915, 1945-1980) , and two 30-year warming cycles (1915-1945, 1980-2010).

Armed with this information we can reasonably conclude that another 35-year cooling cycle began ~2010 and will last until ~2045. During which time we can probably expect climatic conditions similar to what occurred between 1945 and 1980.

The "cycle" that started in 1980 has never ended because it is driven by CO2 levels which continue to increase. There is no indication that the warming we are having is part of any climate "cycle". You just find the truth and the science behind it inconvenient so you find ways to deny the truth. That is what right wingers do. We all wish we could burn all the free fossil energy with no side effects unfortunately the earth's climate is controlled by the carbon balance and we have been living in a goldilocks world up to now.

 

[watsup]

Actually, you did that when you referred to the entirely political term "AGW." It is the natural tendency of leftists to blame others for their own failings.

See post #136.

 

[Glitch]

The "cycle" that started in 1980 has never ended because it is driven by CO2 levels which continue to increase. There is no indication that the warming we are having is part of any climate "cycle". You just find the truth and the science behind it inconvenient so you find ways to deny the truth. That is what right wingers do. We all wish we could burn all the free fossil energy with no side effects unfortunately the earth's climate is controlled by the carbon balance and we have been living in a goldilocks world up to now.

A gas that is a mere 0.042% of the atmosphere does not drive anything. Atmospheric CO2 accounts for ~3% of the total radiative forcing. Water vapor is the chief greenhouse gas and responsible for as much as 95% of the radiative forcing. However, water vapor is not something the government can control, considering 71% of the planet is covered by water. Which explains why Marxists fixated solely on atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, while completely ignoring water vapor. Once again, AGW is all about Marxist control.

 

[Glitch]

The "cycle" that started in 1980 has never ended because it is driven by CO2 levels which continue to increase. There is no indication that the warming we are having is part of any climate "cycle". You just find the truth and the science behind it inconvenient so you find ways to deny the truth. That is what right wingers do. We all wish we could burn all the free fossil energy with no side effects unfortunately the earth's climate is controlled by the carbon balance and we have been living in a goldilocks world up to now.

The Modern Warming period began ~1850. The three prior warming periods vary considerably in duration. The Medieval Warming, for example, lasted ~300 years (your source says ~400 years). The Roman Warming lasted ~600 years from 200 BC until 400 AD, and the extremely long Minoan Warming lasted 1,500+ years.

If we just average the prior warming periods we end up with 800 years, but you will also notice that each warming period is getting shorter and shorter. So it is very unlikely that the Modern Warming period will last 800 years, and more likely be a century or so shorter than the previous warming period. If I were a gambling man, I would wager that the Modern Warming period will only last ~200 years, or from 1850 until 2050. After which time we can probably expect to experience another cold period that will be much colder than the "Little Ice-Age" from 1250 until 1850.

 

[iguanaman]

The Modern Warming period began ~1850. The three prior warming periods vary considerably in duration. The Medieval Warming, for example, lasted ~300 years (your source says ~400 years). The Roman Warming lasted ~600 years from 200 BC until 400 AD, and the extremely long Minoan Warming lasted 1,500+ years.

If we just average the prior warming periods we end up with 800 years, but you will also notice that each warming period is getting shorter and shorter. So it is very unlikely that the Modern Warming period will last 800 years, and more likely be a century or so shorter than the previous warming period. If I were a gambling man, I would wager that the Modern Warming period will only last ~200 years, or from 1850 until 2050. After which time we can probably expect to experience another cold period that will be much colder than the "Little Ice-Age" from 1250 until 1850.

So you deny that CO2 levels have anything to do with global temperatures? The speed of the temperature rise is unprecedented in human history and does not follow any "cycle" we know about either.

Global warming isn’t just a natural cycle​

Here’s how we know that.

The Earth’s temperature changes naturally over time. Variations in the planet’s orbit, solar cycles, and volcanic eruptions can all cause periods of warming or cooling.
But Kim Cobb, a climate scientist at Georgia Tech, says none of these natural causes can explain the Earth’s current warming trend.
“What we see clearly is that the rate and the magnitude of current warming really dwarfs anything in this most recent geologic period,” she says.
Cobb says that the current concentration of global warming pollution in the atmosphere is the only factor that explains it.
“We can use global climate models to understand what would be happening if greenhouse gases weren’t in the atmosphere,” she says. “When we leave greenhouse gases out of the equation, we don’t get the warming that we’ve seen over the last several decades. When we put in those greenhouse gases, we do see this accelerated warming.”
She says the origin of all that global warming pollution is clear.
“We can tell that that’s coming from fossil fuels by studying the composition and chemical signature of that gas in the atmosphere,” she says.
So scientists are convinced by the evidence: Today’s global warming is human-caused.

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/09/global-warming-isnt-just-a-natural-cycle-2/