So I'm confused. (Globular Wöerming, part 5,093,385)

[Scout26]

Can someone help me out here.  I remember being told that all the Carbon emissions would  heat up the world causing deserts to expand, to the point where we would have nothing to eat but a bowl of sand each day.  

https://www.yahoo.com/news/earth-gets-greener-globe-gets-hotter-121156415.html?nhp=1

Human activities, such as driving cars and burning coal for energy, account for about 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year, and half of this CO2 is stored in plants.

How much combines with rain, dust, etc. and falls out of the sky ?
 
So what is the net atmospheric increase (or is it all filtered out one way or another ?)  

Does not more sunlight being absorbed help cool the planet ?  Especially if:

All told, carbon emissions have fueled greening in an area about twice the size of the continental United States between 1982 and 2009, according to the study.

 Which would seem to put a check on Globular Wöerming ?

And many of those more plants give people stuff to eat ?

Seems as if it's a self balancing system, which (even if) human actions are taken to have an effect, the system self-regulates to negate that effect.



(The giant flaming ball in the sky and axial tilt still be the primary drivers of weather/climate.)

[230RN]

^  "Seems as if it's a self balancing system, which (even if) human actions are taken to have an effect, the system self-regulates to negate that effect."

Sounds like the Gaia Hypothesis --which unfortunate name has turned it into a concept subject to ridicule.  I wish he, Lovelock, had left it as "a possible homeostatic system" instead of using mythological similes.  But then that term would have morphed into another concept subject to ridicule.

And indeed, as you touched upon, in some quarters, it is thought that pumping CO₂ up there can only help to increase plant growth (and thereby oxygen production).  And, would help in sustaining our growing population.

Some say this possible process might even turn arid areas fertile again.

And looking out the window at the snow, I'm thinking a little global warming from CO₂ emissions ain't such a bad idea.

Terry. 230RN

REF:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

[charby]

C02 does come back to earth with rain, carbonic acid, why rain is slightly acidic. Not to be confused with sulfuric acid rain from burning coal.

Also plants absorb CO2 as part of the photosynthesis cycle to make sugar/energy to sustain life. The equation is 6 CO2 + 6 H2O → C6H12O6 + 6 O2 (need to add energy, i.e. sunlight) Plants also have a cycle at night called the Krebs cycle that uses oxygen, but that would take a long time to explain and not germane to the discussion.

Carbon storage or carbon sequestration is what some folks are pushing for, would be to keep areas of slow growing perennial vegetation that would store carbon in the plant material for very a long time, multiple centuries in some cases, have a tree that grows for 300-1000 years, dies and the decomposition of the woody biomass which is rich in carbon takes centuries to decompose and as long as the soil isn't disturbed the carbon will stay locked up in organic matter.

If you plow soil rich in organic matter, much of if becomes oxidized and C02 is released into the atmosphere, and the overall level of organic matter decreases. If you harvest annuals for food, such as corn, beans, etc, the carbon is cycled back into the atmosphere as the consumer exhales CO2 in normal animal respiration. And the stubble left in the field will decompose into organic matter, but is released into the atmosphere as it oxidizes when the soil is disturbed.

Coal and other fossil fuels are rich in carbon because they are highly compressed organic matter, as they are released from the deep and consumed lots of C02 is released. C02 is a called a greenhouse gas because it acts like the greenhouse window in the atmosphere. Sunlight radiation enters the atmosphere, is reflected off the surface, then some of the radiation is reflected back to earth, so forth and so forth. If we didn't have any of the greenhouses gases, earth would be like Mars and without life. Too much greenhouse gases and the planet could warm like Venus and not be able to sustain life as we know it. There is a equilibrium to support life as we know it.

Now back to the article, yes they said the earth was getting greener, but I read it was getting greener in areas that had been void of vegetation due to extreme cold conditions or were previously covered in ice.

Now I'm not sure if man is contributing to climate change, or if it part of a cycle. We are releasing carbon that was stored from a extreme warm period many millions of years ago, but theories also figure the continents were more aligned in a mass group near the equator at the time also.

[RevDisk]

CO2 forms a couple different cycles. One of them is plants eat CO2, and then release it when they die. More plants eating CO2 is good, but they also release more CO2 when they die as well.

Some plants actually thrive better under higher CO2 levels, up to levels that are ungood for humans. However, that isn't always a good thing. Certain wheats will grow like weeds in artificially high CO2 environments. Higher yields, but less protein, more sugar.

[MechAg94]

I thought the AGW theory said CO2 would increase temperatures then the increased temperatures would lead to more water evaporation and humidity would stay elevated further increasing the temperature........at some point the temperature slowly spirals out of control.  They tend to ignore a lot of things that would negate that stuff along with historical data showing CO2 levels and temperatures have both been higher than present levels and we are all still here.  

That is my 2 cents.  I am sure someone could come along to tell me how wrong I am.

[brimic]

Kill all of the termites- they release more CO2 than human activities.

The whole CO2 = globular warming is based on poorly understood assumptions about the past that can't tested - you know, like with science.
Its a whole government/university sham based on confirmation bias.

[brimic]

Kill all of the termites- they release more CO2 than human activities.

The whole CO2 = globular warming is based on poorly understood assumptions about the past that can't tested - you know, like with science.
Its a whole government/university sham based on confirmation bias.

The chart below is just as valid as any academic 'research.

[brimic]

The great thing about something as obviously as stupid as global warming is that SJWs will eventually latch onto that free money train and drive it in absurd directions...
http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/07/this-university-of-oregon-study-on-femin

Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers – particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge – remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.

[230RN]

That ^ reads like it was generated by a random sentence generator.  Some of them are pretty sophisticated and you can choose lists of buzzwords related to science, politics, religion, etc., and have them generate whole paragraphs at a time.  A little polishing with the human mind, and you'd be hard pressed to make sense out of them even though they're completely readable and grammatically correct.

Eight'll getcha ten that's what this paper is, a fraudulent attempt at collecting grant money.  Or a bad joke which I hope will backfire on them.

And no, I do not use one for generating my posts despite what some think.

Here's a sample of one which generates text for web designers, but it just builds subject-object-verb sequences, and does not give options for "flavoring" the text to a specific subject area.

http://randomtextgenerator.com/

The one I played with about ten years ago was pretty good, with selectable lists of suitable terms.  I think it was developed by some graduate IT students as a class project, but I can't recall specifically.  Besides, I had to get back to work since it was our busy season.

My theory is that programs similar to these are what they use to generate automobile and drug names, that is, automatic random consonant-vowel-dipthong selectors.  "Enter length desired here."  "Enter number of syllables here." :)

Terry

[bedlamite]

Reads like it was generated by a random sentence generator.  Some of them are pretty sophisticated and you can choose lists of buzzwords related to science, politics, religion, etc., and have them generate whole paragraphs at a time.  A little polishing with the human mind, and you'd be hard pressed to make sense out of them even though they're completely readable and grammatically correct.

Eight'll getcha ten that's what this paper is, a fraudulent attempt at collecting grant money.  Or a bad joke which I hope will backfire on them.

And no, I do not use one for generating my posts despite what some think.

Terry

The culture of the culture industry is synonymous with the expropriation of difference.

[Ron]

The scientific consensus (at least regarding AGW) has been unmasked as just another example of social proof.

 

[KD5NRH]

That ^ reads like it was generated by a random sentence generator.  Some of them are pretty sophisticated and you can choose lists of buzzwords related to science, politics, religion, etc., and have them generate whole paragraphs at a time.  A little polishing with the human mind, and you'd be hard pressed to make sense out of them even though they're completely readable and grammatically correct.

Eight'll getcha ten that's what this paper is, a fraudulent attempt at collecting grant money.  Or a bad joke which I hope will backfire on them.

Clearly you haven't read many college students' idea of a paper.  I saw plenty that made less sense than this that were going to be turned in for an English class.  And those students even passed.

[230RN]

The scientific consensus (at least regarding AGW) has been unmasked as just another example of social proof.

Hey, now I'm confused.  That actually makes sense.

[brimic]

That ^ reads like it was generated by a random sentence generator.  Some of them are pretty sophisticated and you can choose lists of buzzwords related to science, politics, religion, etc., and have them generate whole paragraphs at a time.  A little polishing with the human mind, and you'd be hard pressed to make sense out of them even though they're completely readable and grammatically correct.

Eight'll getcha ten that's what this paper is, a fraudulent attempt at collecting grant money.  Or a bad joke which I hope will backfire on them.

And no, I do not use one for generating my posts despite what some think.

Here's a sample of one which generates text for web designers, but it just builds subject-object-verb sequences, and does not give options for "flavoring" the text to a specific subject area.

http://randomtextgenerator.com/

The one I played with about ten years ago was pretty good, with selectable lists of suitable terms.  I think it was developed by some graduate IT students as a class project, but I can't recall specifically.  Besides, I had to get back to work since it was our busy season.

My theory is that programs similar to these are what they use to generate automobile and drug names, that is, automatic random consonant-vowel-dipthong selectors.  "Enter length desired here."  "Enter number of syllables here." :)

Terry

It's very likely to never be peer reviewed as just reading the title causes eyes to roll out of the head.
I heard the guy got 700,000 in tax grant money for his project. Yes, you read that right, a seven with five zeroes after it.

[Hawkmoon]

Now I'm not sure if man is contributing to climate change, or if it part of a cycle. We are releasing carbon that was stored from a extreme warm period many millions of years ago, but theories also figure the continents were more aligned in a mass group near the equator at the time also.

Back to my new mantra: REMEMBER THAT GREENLAND WAS NOT NAMED BECAUSE IT WAS COVERED IN ICE!

Eric the Red settled Greenland in about 950 A.D. The Vikings inhabited Greenland and maintained an agricultural/agrarian society for approximately 500 years, before they finally had to abandon the settlements because there was too much sea ice for shipping back to Scandanavia during the increasingly long winters.

Hence my view that there's no need to worry about global warming until it becomes too hot to farm on Greenland.

[Hawkmoon]

Eight'll getcha ten that's what this paper is, a fraudulent attempt at collecting grant money.  Or a bad joke which I hope will backfire on them.

Sexist!

What have you got against female glaciers?

[MechAg94]

Back to my new mantra: REMEMBER THAT GREENLAND WAS NOT NAMED BECAUSE IT WAS COVERED IN ICE!

Eric the Red settled Greenland in about 950 A.D. The Vikings inhabited Greenland and maintained an agricultural/agrarian society for approximately 500 years, before they finally had to abandon the settlements because there was too much sea ice for shipping back to Scandanavia during the increasingly long winters.

Hence my view that there's no need to worry about global warming until it becomes too hot to farm on Greenland.

That warm period was a drop in the bucket in global climate trends.  Yet we are supposed to drop everything over a short warming trend that may not even be happening. 

[230RN]

Sexist!

What have you got against female glaciers?

Quit feeding me straight lines.  That's a dangerous area.

[brimic]

Quit feeding me straight lines.  That's a dangerous area.

Glaciers 'birth' icebergs, there is never any room for iceberg abortions.

#ciswhitemaleclimatologistprivilege

[Ben]

That warm period was a drop in the bucket in global climate trends.  Yet we are supposed to drop everything over a short warming trend that may not even be happening. 

That is the crux of the situation. I always find it hilarious when they throw out the term "climate denier". The AGW alarmists are, in fact, the deniers. The rest of us understand that climate happens.

[Scout26]

The chart below is just as valid as any academic 'research.

Actually the number of pirates has increased dramatically the last 30-40 years.  (Somali, Straights of Malacca, etc).  Unless you are simply counting the "Arrrgghh" type pirates. 


[^peer review, debunking your research.]   

[Scout26]

Looks like they forgot to carry the 1 when they created their models...


http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html

[brimic]

Actually the number of pirates has increased dramatically the last 30-40 years.  (Somali, Straights of Malacca, etc).  Unless you are simply counting the "Arrrgghh" type pirates. 


[^peer review, debunking your research.]   

If you include 'road pirates' who collect their booty through 'asset forfeiture', then yeah, that curve is completely off.

[230RN]

That is the crux of the situation. I always find it hilarious when they throw out the term "climate denier". The AGW alarmists are, in fact, the deniers. The rest of us understand that climate happens.

Well-put, Ben.

Looks like they forgot to carry the 1 when they created their models...


http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html

Why include variables that disrupt your theory?  Details, details... feh!