EAU Data Suggests Warming Ended In 1997

[waldo]

Shady, quit avoiding the questions presented to you... would you like them re-quoted?

[GostHacked]

is this you... again... touting the "just plant trees" meme? That dog don't hunt - and you've been shown why. And yet you persist in the face of the countering scientific information/data and practicalities.

yawn! Again, the problem is you/others touting the CO2 is simply plant food meme as an attempt to downplay/offset/negate the actual negative impacts of rising/accelerated CO2 atmospheric levels.

OK, now here is where you are going to do yourself the most harm. You are denying the bacis fact of photosynthesis, dismissing it as plant food. That will also provide more OXYGEN for us to breath. Wihtout plants, the human race is no more.

so what? Your anecdotal nickel smelting plant reference has been acknowledged in the past - you have received positive comment on your expressed legitimate concerns for traditional 'toxic" atmospheric emissions. Which has no relevant relationship to the overwhelming world-wide impact of fossil-fuel burning sources on atmospheric CO2 levels. Somehow, you naively and myopically propose that simply reducing toxic emissions would miraculously reduce CO2 emissions. Wow!

It's not anecdotal. Numerous studies were done wich started re-greening projects in the Sudbury area. I provided those articles before to you. The environmental improvements I have seen in the Sudbury area (and planting trees was one of the tasks taken to hand to turn the landscape around). 40 years ago, the place was fairly barren. Black rock hill for miles. I should dig up some before and after photos for you. When driving in from the west, you'd think you had entered an industrial wasteland.

I have seen it first hand. I've lived it most of my life. I understand it. Anyone who has lived around heavy industry knows the environmental risks with something like mining.

of course what you continue to avoid is you commenting on your contradiction - the one I keep highlighting. The one that has you accepting atmospheric based physical science/studies/regulation/etc., on one hand, on one level... and that has you selectively rejecting an atmospheric physical science basis in your self-serving fake skeptic denial that CO2 emissions are a problem. Just a phenomenal contradiction.

I am not a fake sceptic. I am a real skeptic, one you seem to just can't win over.

Pant a tree, it gives you oxygen.

Edited February 20, 2012 by GostHacked

[waldo]

OK, now here is where you are going to do yourself the most harm. You are denying the bacis fact of photosynthesis, dismissing it as plant food. That will also provide more OXYGEN for us to breath. Wihtout plants, the human race is no more.

idiocy. You're blustering... and purposely attempting to distract from the impacts of increased/accelerated CO2 atmospheric concentrations. Your juvenile "CO2 is plant food" meme has no legs:

nonsense... about you playing that, "CO2 is plant food" meme before (several times now). What's your point?

CO2 IS plant food, along with water and sunlight. We breathe out CO2, plants turn it into oxygen. More CO2 means more plants!! This was something that was taught in first year science classes in high school (or in some cases earlier)

Very good point.

I can't believe I've wasted my time discussing these issues with apparently a colossal idiot who's never heard of photosynthesis!

Waldo may want to retake grade 9 science before lecturing other people on the reality of complex weather phenomenon!

...

even isolating the discussion

towards plant related impacts... and

even excluding implications

towards the broader effects of increased warming and AGW climate change... what does your and GostHacked's, "grade 9 and first year high school science class", inform you about the effect of increased CO2 on acclimated plants? What effect does CO2 soil saturation have on plants? In a real world - practical - context, what science exists to convincingly link increased CO2 as a tangible net benefit for crops and crop yields? What effect does increased CO2 have on undesired plant growth among invasive weeds? What effect does increased CO2 have on the efficacy of widely used herbicides? What effect does increased CO2 have on the prevalence of pests? In a real world - practical - context, what science exists to speak to elevated CO2 effects having no effect on pasture and rangeland photosynthesis? Etc, etc, etc,.....

of course, we could also extend this discussion around the devastating impact of elevated CO2 on ocean acidification and it's related ecosystems... marine fauna, corals, etc. Of course, we could open it wide up and speak to the broader effects of increased CO2 on warming - on AGW climate change itself... or... we could sit back and beak off fallaciously about the marvels and magic of, Shady's "CO2 as plant food"!

It's not anecdotal.

yes, in the context given/discussed your continued reference to the Sudbury nickel smelting plant is anecdotal... more pointedly, as stated several times now, it has no relative relevance to you placing reclamation aspects of the nickel smelting plant as a "testimony" of anything to do with global agreements to reduce CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel sources. This is just you, again, blustering and distracting. It's what you do.

I am not a fake sceptic. I am a real skeptic, one you seem to just can't win over.

not that I give a rats-patooey over personally "winning you over"... there is no winning over a fake skeptic.

[GostHacked]

Ahh more quote nesting from Waldo, which I usually glaze over now. Wash rinse, repeate.

[waldo]

Ahh more quote nesting from Waldo, which I usually glaze over now. Wash rinse, repeate.

perfect!

I am not a fake sceptic. I am a real skeptic

[GostHacked]

perfect!

If you did not want to win me over, you would have stopped posting a long time ago. Or would have ignored me by now.

[waldo]

If you did not want to win me over, you would have stopped posting a long time ago. Or would have ignored me by now.

rather than your continued attempts to insult and/or marginalize, do you actually have substantive input for discussion? Perhaps you could actually showcase your self-claimed "real" skepticism.

[Shady]

Waldo, I don't know the answers to the questions. That's why I'm asking you. You're the expert.

What were the causes of the medival warming period?

Are they taking place now?

Why or why not?

And of the suggested warming that's taken place over the last hundred years, what portion of it, in degrees celsius, is attributed to man?

Once again. I don't know the answers. That's why I'm asking you.

[waldo]

Once again. I don't know the answers. That's why I'm asking you.

you've been given the answers - repeatedly... see previous posts. If you have trouble understanding, perhaps consider outside remedial education in basic reading/comprehension skills.

now go answer the questions posed to you - the one's you're avoiding/ignoring.

[Shady]

you've been given the answers - repeatedly

Nope. You've never given the answers. It should be fairly simple, no? Just type the causes of the medival warming period. You don't even have to go into detail. Just point form. Then, just answer yes or no as to whether or not they're occuring today. Again, no detail, just a simple yes or no. And then finally, just type the amount of warming, in degrees celsius that's attributed to man over the last hundred years. It should just be a decimal number. Just type it. Literally typing three short lines of writing will answer all the questions. Why do you continue to decline?

[Shady]

Here's an example of what your post should look like:

Here's the reason for the medival warming period.

Yes or no, that reason isn't happening today.

0.?? degrees celsius.

[GostHacked]

rather than your continued attempts to insult and/or marginalize, do you actually have substantive input for discussion? Perhaps you could actually showcase your self-claimed "real" skepticism.

Who gives out pet names for everyone?

[Shady]

Who gives out pet names for everyone?

Great point. But waldo broke the hypocrisy metre long ago.

[waldo]

Nope. You've never given the answers. It should be fairly simple, no? Just type the causes of the medival warming period. You don't even have to go into detail. Just point form. Then, just answer yes or no as to whether or not they're occuring today. Again, no detail, just a simple yes or no. And then finally, just type the amount of warming, in degrees celsius that's attributed to man over the last hundred years. It should just be a decimal number. Just type it. Literally typing three short lines of writing will answer all the questions. Why do you continue to decline?

as I said, consider remedial classes in reading/comprehension.

=> MWP causes - see (

READ

) post #175 in this thread.

=> Anthropogenic source warming - see (

READ

) post #174 in this thread.

... now, if you're asking for an absolute, definitive degrees Celsius warming number, this dovetails quite nicely with one of the questions you flat out won't answer, are avoiding and continue to run away from. You want a number... you tell me how much warming has occurred, which, of course, gets you to definitively state whether or not you accept warming has occurred. State your number Shady - how much warming has occurred? I've certainly given that number many times over. Just state it Shady... how much warming do you understand and accept has occurred? - there is no need for you to attribute a cause(s). How much warming has occurred Shady - what's your degrees Celsius number? If you won't answer this simple question, I suggest you and GostHacked join each other in a circle... if you won't answer this simple question, I will no longer engage you further.

[Shady]

I have to apologize to waldo. He did answer one of the questions.

there is scientifically accepted consensus on what caused the warming of the MWP; specifically, it was attributed to increased natural variations in the form of higher than average solar radiation, reduced volcanic activity and changes in ocean circulation patterns that particularly influenced the North Atlantic affecting adjacent land areas

[waldo]

I have to apologize to waldo. He did answer one of the questions.

pffft! Answers which were a re-quote of a years old post reply... to you! Answers which were given several times previously to that year old original post... to you (and others). Now - now, you acknowledge them! Bully!

(note: this post is not an engagement - this is me showcasing a pattern of your reading/comprehension difficulty... you still have questions to respond to before any further engagement will commence.)

[lukin]

I have to apologize to waldo. He did answer one of the questions.

Interesting. Even waldo admits that nature plays a big role in climate change. I agree with waldo that humans have very little if any impact on climate change.

[waldo]

Interesting. Even waldo admits that nature plays a big role in climate change. I agree with waldo that humans have very little if any impact on climate change.

trolling reported

[lukin]

trolling reported

Are you telling on me because I've proven how wishy washy you really are. I take it as a compliment that you have to report me. I'm beating you and you don't like it. You feel threatened by my questions.

[waldo]

Are you telling on me because I've proven how wishy washy you really are. I take it as a compliment that you have to report me. I'm beating you and you don't like it. You feel threatened by my questions.

trolling reported

[lukin]

trolling reported

I guess I win. What kind of grown man "tattles"?

Humans are making no impact on climate change, yet waldo feels a need to consistently insult those who don't buy his propaganda.

[waldo]

I guess I win. What kind of grown man "tattles"?

Humans are making no impact on climate change, yet waldo feels a need to consistently insult those who don't buy his propaganda.

trolling reported

[lukin]

trolling reported

You said that already. Anything new to add to the thread?

[waldo]

You said that already. Anything new to add to the thread?

trolling reported

[cybercoma]

This exchange is hilarious. lol