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

[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.

Cycles always end, and then begin again. That is why they are called cycles. In this case NASA's data shows that cooling cycles are 35-years in duration and warming cycles are 30-years in duration. Although, I will grant you that two data points for each is not exactly a trend, but it is currently the best observed data available.

There is no such thing as a "goldilocks world." At 420 ppmV atmospheric CO2 the vegetation on the planet is on a starvation diet, but that is to be expected during ice-ages. During the Permian, at the end of the last ice-age atmospheric CO2 had dropped to between 250 and 350 ppmV. Just so you know, if atmospheric CO2 ever drops below between 150 and 180 ppmV all photosynthesis stops and all complex life on the planet dies.

 

[iguanaman]

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.

We are "fixated" on CO2 because it is one we have made big changes in. Water vapor is increasing too because it's amount depends on temperature so it provides a positive feedback effect that increases the warming caused by higher CO2 levels. You do understand what feedback is don't you? Scientists are not "marxists" either.

Although water vapor probably accounts for about 60% of the Earth’s greenhouse warming effect, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature. Instead, the amount of water vapor is controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.

The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases. Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel.

If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/...cenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

 

[Court Jester]

I hope the planet heats up hot enough to give a lot of humans some idea what hell will be like for them.

 

[Glitch]

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/

You have it backwards actually. It is temperature that drives atmospheric CO2, although there is about an 800 year lag between an increase in temperature and an increase in atmospheric CO2. Which means that the increases in atmospheric CO2 we are witnessing today were driven by temperature increases ~800 years ago. Which coincides with the end of the Medieval Warming period ~1222 AD.

Source: Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III - Science, Volume 299, Issue 5613, pp. 1728-1731, 14 Mar 2003 (free preprint)

The speed of the temperature increase is also not unprecedented, as has already been demonstrated by prior warming periods. All of which has been cyclic, but those multiple century long warming cycles are getting shorter, while the subsequent cooling cycles are getting longer and colder.

 

[Glitch]

We are "fixated" on CO2 because it is one we have made big changes in. Water vapor is increasing too because it's amount depends on temperature so it provides a positive feedback effect that increases the warming caused by higher CO2 levels. You do understand what feedback is don't you? Scientists are not "marxists" either.

Actually, water vapor is extremely variable. Depending on your location on a given day, water vapor can range from 0% to as much as 95% of all the radiative forcing.

You also had better hope the planet continues to create O3 if you want life to continue to exist. The chief source of O3 is the sun, not fossil fuels. As long as there is sunlight, or more specifically UV light, and molecule oxygen there will always be ozone.

It isn't the scientists pushing this Marxist AGW nonsense, it is the politicians, particularly the IPCC. Instead of reading the IPCC Marxist garbage, read the actual sources the IPCC claims to be using. You will find that those peer-reviewed scientific sources do not say the same thing as the Marxist-pushing IPCC propagandists.

 

[Glitch]

I hope the planet heats up hot enough to give a lot of humans some idea what hell will be like for them.

That wouldn't take much. Homo sapiens have never experienced anything but an ice-age, where mean surface temperatures are between 8°C and 10°C colder than normal (22°C ± 1°C). Currently we are only 7.2°C colder than normal with a mean surface temperature of 14.8°C, but that is because we are in the middle of a Warming period in the middle of an interglacial period.

However, if given the choice between being warmer or colder, the obvious answer has to be warmer. A warming climate benefits more than just humanity.

 

[Court Jester]

That wouldn't take much. Homo sapiens have never experienced anything but an ice-age, where mean surface temperatures are between 8°C and 10°C colder than normal (22°C ± 1°C). Currently we are only 7.2°C colder than normal with a mean surface temperature of 14.8°C, but that is because we are in the middle of a Warming period in the middle of an interglacial period.

However, if given the choice between being warmer or colder, the obvious answer has to be warmer. A warming climate benefits more than just humanity.

I'm fine with any changes which annoy liberals. Would love to see a plague of locusts and boils hit San Francisco and Los Angeles.

 

[Glitch]

I'm fine with any changes which annoy liberals. Would love to see a plague of locusts and boils hit San Francisco and Los Angeles.

Thankfully, the nasty locusts that plagued the mid-west went extinct in 1956.

The Days of the Locust

One summer in the late 1950s our farm became home to an unusually large number of grasshoppers. Every year had its grasshoppers, of course, happily chirping in the grass and doing a tolerable amou…

clarksonhistory.wordpress.com

San Francisco's day is coming. It sits smack dab on top of the San Andreas fault that runs right through the bay. Putting everyone within a ~5 mile radius of the ocean within tsunami range. An 8.0 magnitude quake in the middle of the bay would give them absolutely no warning.

 

[iguanaman]

Cycles always end, and then begin again. That is why they are called cycles. In this case NASA's data shows that cooling cycles are 35-years in duration and warming cycles are 30-years in duration. Although, I will grant you that two data points for each is not exactly a trend, but it is currently the best observed data available.

There is no such thing as a "goldilocks world." At 420 ppmV atmospheric CO2 the vegetation on the planet is on a starvation diet, but that is to be expected during ice-ages. During the Permian, at the end of the last ice-age atmospheric CO2 had dropped to between 250 and 350 ppmV. Just so you know, if atmospheric CO2 ever drops below between 150 and 180 ppmV all photosynthesis stops and all complex life on the planet dies.

This is not a cycle so stop claiming it is. We are warming because of higher CO2 levels caused by digging up sequestered carbon and releasing it as CO2 in the atmosphere. The carbon cycle is being tampered with and that is the cause of most of the mass extinctions in our planets history.

Four of the five largest mass extinctions are associated with large igneous provinces (LIPs). These LIPs are associated with major carbon cycle perturbations caused by large and rapid influxes of carbon into the system from both mantle and sedimentary sources (Svensen et al. 2009). The rate at which the carbon is input into the atmosphere, and its chemical nature (e.g., CO2 versus CH4) is likely to be more important than the absolute amount. Although the sulfate aerosol that is formed from volcanic SO2, when injected into the stratosphere, has a cooling effect (Robock 2000), the residence time is only on the order of days to years; however, the effects may be prolonged due to frequent injections. Carbon, on the other hand, especially in the form of CO2, has the ability to warm the planet over hundreds to thousands of years in the long-term carbon cycle because its residence time in the surface reservoir is longer, on the order of 10–104 years. This warming can cause changes to the hydrologic cycle, thermal damage to plants, melting of ice-sheets, disruption to the thermohaline circulation of the ocean, anoxia, and ocean acidification. These components contribute to the habitable environment of communities or ecosystems. Therefore, it is not so much the carbon itself that causes extinction, but its effect on the environment and the life that inhabits it.

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ms...h-Catastrophes-and-their-Impact-on-the-Carbon

 

[iguanaman]

You have it backwards actually. It is temperature that drives atmospheric CO2, although there is about an 800 year lag between an increase in temperature and an increase in atmospheric CO2. Which means that the increases in atmospheric CO2 we are witnessing today were driven by temperature increases ~800 years ago. Which coincides with the end of the Medieval Warming period ~1222 AD.

Source: Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III - Science, Volume 299, Issue 5613, pp. 1728-1731, 14 Mar 2003 (free preprint)

The speed of the temperature increase is also not unprecedented, as has already been demonstrated by prior warming periods. All of which has been cyclic, but those multiple century long warming cycles are getting shorter, while the subsequent cooling cycles are getting longer and colder.

LOL That is almost a dumb as the OP that claims plants warm up the earth. What is the mechanism that drives up CO2 with increases in temperature? Why is there a 800 year lag? Humans are digging up and releasing sequestered carbon at a rate of nearly 10 BILLION tons a year. Are you saying that does not increase the CO2 in the atmosphere? How could it not?

At present, humans are putting an estimated 9.5 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year by burning fossil fuels, and another 1.5 billion through deforestation and other land cover changes. Of this human-produced carbon, forests and other vegetation absorb around 3.2 billion metric tons per year, while the ocean absorbs about 2.5 billion metric tons per year. A net 5 billion metric tons of human-produced carbon remain in the atmosphere each year, raising the global average carbon dioxide concentrations by about 2.3 parts per million per year. Since 1750, humans have increased the abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by nearly 50 percent. Learn more.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/are-humans-causing-or-contributing-global-warming#:~:text=A net 5 billion metric,parts per million per year.

 

[watsup]

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.

More lies. They never end.

 

[watsup]

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.

That's not what the actual climate scientists say. Are you a climate scientist?

 

[PoS]

Glaciers are clearly shrinking overall. Not sure why you feel the need to dodge the truth.

Let us know when they finally disappear like what the people you worship predicted, alright?

You sure are sensitive. I just came to the conclusion that most right-libertarians are actually very sensitive. Being sensitive isn't a bad thing.

Still trolling even though the mods warned you to knock it off? I'll let them deal with you.

 

[Glitch]

This is not a cycle so stop claiming it is. We are warming because of higher CO2 levels caused by digging up sequestered carbon and releasing it as CO2 in the atmosphere. The carbon cycle is being tampered with and that is the cause of most of the mass extinctions in our planets history.

Of course it is a cycle. Climate is always cyclic, and it has absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric CO2.

The Permian Extinction between 270 and 250 million years ago wiped out 80% of all marine species, and 70% of all land species, yet atmospheric CO2 was between 250 and 350 ppmV, much lower than today. If atmospheric CO2 is the cause of mass extinctions, then explain how it caused the greatest extinction event of all time.

None of Earth's mass extinction events have been caused by atmospheric CO2. It is simply too small an amount to have any effect on any species.

You are also wasting your time posting your Marxist propaganda. I don't bother reading any of it.

 

[Glitch]

LOL That is almost a dumb as the OP that claims plants warm up the earth.

A science denier, as expected. You only accept the IPCC Marxist propaganda and completely ignore the peer-reviewed science.

What is the mechanism that drives up CO2 with increases in temperature? Why is there a 800 year lag? Humans are digging up and releasing sequestered carbon at a rate of nearly 10 BILLION tons a year. Are you saying that does not increase the CO2 in the atmosphere? How could it not?

Nothing humans produce ever leaves the troposphere. You are aware that atmospheric CO2 is heavier than air, right? So how exactly are humans contributing CO2 to the atmosphere? Remember, to be global it has to be in the stratosphere. While it remains in the troposphere everything is washed out of the atmosphere in a matter of weeks. This is how acid rain is created. None of the pollution that China creates will ever make it to the US, because it is washed out of the atmosphere and could not possibly effect the global climate. That is true for the entire planet. None of the pollution humans produce ever makes it into the stratosphere, therefore, none of it could ever have any effect globally.

You should really try learning a little science and stop buying into the propaganda leftist filth are pushing.

 

[Glitch]

More lies. They never end.

As if you had a clue.

 

[Glitch]

That's not what the actual climate scientists say. Are you a climate scientist?

This is precisely what scientists are saying, but you wouldn't know because you are a science denier.

 

[Glitch]

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.

The Medieval Warming period, as with the Modern and Roman Warming periods, was world-wide. As the temperature data from that period around the South China Sea indicates:


The biggest amount of glacial melt occurred 15,00 years ago and over the course of ~7,000 years the world's oceans increased by more than 120 meters and the overwhelming majority of the world's glaciers disappeared. By comparison, the glacial melt and sea level rise is practically non-existent today. It is very evident that you know nothing about Earth's climate history.

 

[watsup]

Of course it is a cycle. Climate is always cyclic, and it has absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric CO2.

The Permian Extinction between 270 and 250 million years ago wiped out 80% of all marine species, and 70% of all land species, yet atmospheric CO2 was between 250 and 350 ppmV, much lower than today. If atmospheric CO2 is the cause of mass extinctions, then explain how it caused the greatest extinction event of all time.

None of Earth's mass extinction events have been caused by atmospheric CO2. It is simply too small an amount to have any effect on any species.

You are also wasting your time posting your Marxist propaganda. I don't bother reading any of it.

Should astrologists be considered to be climate science experts?

 

[Lord of Planar]

The carbon cycle is being tampered with and that is the cause of most of the mass extinctions in our planets history.

Total bullshit. Higher CO2 is not causing extinction. I only see positive results, as we have more lush vegetation.

Four of the five largest mass extinctions are associated with large igneous provinces (LIPs). These LIPs are associated with major carbon cycle perturbations caused by large and rapid influxes of carbon into the system from both mantle and sedimentary sources (Svensen et al. 2009). The rate at which the carbon is input into the atmosphere, and its chemical nature (e.g., CO2 versus CH4) is likely to be more important than the absolute amount. Although the sulfate aerosol that is formed from volcanic SO2, when injected into the stratosphere, has a cooling effect (Robock 2000), the residence time is only on the order of days to years; however, the effects may be prolonged due to frequent injections. Carbon, on the other hand, especially in the form of CO2, has the ability to warm the planet over hundreds to thousands of years in the long-term carbon cycle because its residence time in the surface reservoir is longer, on the order of 10–104 years. This warming can cause changes to the hydrologic cycle, thermal damage to plants, melting of ice-sheets, disruption to the thermohaline circulation of the ocean, anoxia, and ocean acidification. These components contribute to the habitable environment of communities or ecosystems. Therefore, it is not so much the carbon itself that causes extinction, but its effect on the environment and the life that inhabits it.

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/ms...h-Catastrophes-and-their-Impact-on-the-Carbon

Svensen 2009 is speaking of CO2 outputs of over 100,000 gigatons. This is not a proper argument at all, as 100,000 is almost 3,000 times man's annual output of CO2.

Loading…

www.sciencedirect.com

Do you ever read -AND- understand the source material, or just blindly follow what bloggers and other activists use as a narrative?

 

[Lord of Planar]

LOL That is almost a dumb as the OP that claims plants warm up the earth.

Not dumb at all if you understand the probable mechinism.

The albedo of ice that keeps getting snow would likely be around 0.8. The albedo of grass is about 0.25. The albedo of forest is under 0.2.

This means that assuming these numbers are correct, the ice covered areas are only warming the surface using 20% of the solar insolation (1.0 - 0.8 = 0.2, or 20%). The rest is reflected back out to space. Using 0.25 for grass, 25% of the surface insolation is being reflected. 75% is absorbed, warning the surface. Here is the kicker. 0.75 / .2 = 3.75... The grass is capturing 3.75 times more warming rays from the sun than the snow does.

Disagree with these numbers I used if you want. Seek you own, but you will see that vegetation absorbs more heat than ice, and that ice reflects more heat than vegetation.

Please learn the science you wish to debate.

What is the mechanism that drives up CO2 with increases in temperature?

It has to be with the known properties of gas solubility in liquids. It's basic chemistry. The colder a liquid is, the more gas it can absorm. The warmer it is, the less. The oceans contain about 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere, when in balance. Warming has the oceans out gas more CO2 in the equatorial regions than the polar regions absorb. Cooling does the reverse. The polar regions will absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit at the polar regions.

Why is there a 800 year lag?

Because of the ocean currents. The warm areas vs. cool areas and CO2 retention.

Humans are digging up and releasing sequestered carbon at a rate of nearly 10 BILLION tons a year. Are you saying that does not increase the CO2 in the atmosphere? How could it not?

It most certainly does increase CO2. The CO2 cycle is out of balance because of us. People who don't realize this, are out of touch with that part of science. The oceans currently absorb about half the CO2 we put in the atmosphere. The rest has been accumulating over the natural balance of the earth system.

At present, humans are putting an estimated 9.5 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year by burning fossil fuels, and another 1.5 billion through deforestation and other land cover changes. Of this human-produced carbon, forests and other vegetation absorb around 3.2 billion metric tons per year, while the ocean absorbs about 2.5 billion metric tons per year. A net 5 billion metric tons of human-produced carbon remain in the atmosphere each year, raising the global average carbon dioxide concentrations by about 2.3 parts per million per year. Since 1750, humans have increased the abundance of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by nearly 50 percent. Learn more.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/are-humans-causing-or-contributing-global-warming#:~:text=A net 5 billion metric,parts per million per year.

Nobody disputes the loose approximation of these numbers.

 

[Lord of Planar]

More lies. They never end.

He is correct. H2O is the key driving factor of the earths greenhouse effect.

 

[iguanaman]

Not dumb at all if you understand the probable mechinism.

The albedo of ice that keeps getting snow would likely be around 0.8. The albedo of grass is about 0.25. The albedo of forest is under 0.2.

This means that assuming these numbers are correct, the ice covered areas are only warming the surface using 20% of the solar insolation (1.0 - 0.8 = 0.2, or 20%). The rest is reflected back out to space. Using 0.25 for grass, 25% of the surface insolation is being reflected. 75% is absorbed, warning the surface. Here is the kicker. 0.75 / .2 = 3.75... The grass is capturing 3.75 times more warming rays from the sun than the snow does.

Disagree with these numbers I used if you want. Seek you own, but you will see that vegetation absorbs more heat than ice, and that ice reflects more heat than vegetation.

Please learn the science you wish to debate.

It has to be with the known properties of gas solubility in liquids. It's basic chemistry. The colder a liquid is, the more gas it can absorm. The warmer it is, the less. The oceans contain about 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere, when in balance. Warming has the oceans out gas more CO2 in the equatorial regions than the polar regions absorb. Cooling does the reverse. The polar regions will absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit at the polar regions.

Because of the ocean currents. The warm areas vs. cool areas and CO2 retention.

It most certainly does increase CO2. The CO2 cycle is out of balance because of us. People who don't realize this, are out of touch with that part of science. The oceans currently absorb about half the CO2 we put in the atmosphere. The rest has been accumulating over the natural balance of the earth system.

Nobody disputes the loose approximation of these numbers.

Plants can't live in snow so warming had to melt it first. Bare ground is darker and absorbs more heat than grassland. The idea that plants warm the earth is ludicrous. End of story. I do appreciate that at least you admit humans are disturbing the carbon cycle but do you understand that that is also the source of most of the earth's mass extinctions in the past? The carbon cycle gives life and can also take it all away when it is upset. We do not know the exact tipping point but we do know we are getting closer every single day. Tick, tick.

 

[watsup]

He is correct. H2O is the key driving factor of the earths greenhouse effect.

“Concerns about global warming are about how human beings are altering the radiative balance,” says Reilly. “While some of the things we do change water vapor directly, they are insignificant. Increasing ghg's [greenhouse gases] through warming will increase water vapor and that is a big positive feedback [meaning: the more greenhouse gases, the more water vapor, the higher the temperature]. But the root cause are ghg's. So in talking about what is changing the climate, CHANGES IN WATER VAPOR ARE NOT A ROOT CAUSE.”

Greenhouse gases, water vapor and you | MIT Global Change

globalchange.mit.edu

As such, Glitch’s post was basically a BIG LIE based on the purposeful OMISSION of relevant information.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Plants can't live in snow so warming had to melt it first. Bare ground is darker and absorbs more heat than grassland. The idea that plants warm the earth is ludicrous. End of story. I do appreciate that at least you admit humans are disturbing the carbon cycle but do you understand that that is also the source of most of the earth's mass extinctions in the past? The carbon cycle gives life and can also take it all away when it is upset. We do not know the exact tipping point but we do know we are getting closer every single day. Tick, tick.

I'm sorry that you didn't comprehend.

When the ice retreats, plants end up covetring the land rather than ice. Is that simplicity too much?