Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[Shady]

well, i will wait for waldo to prove you wrong. he knows lots on the subject.

Wait, you wanna be a teacher, yet you don't know about C02 and photosynthesis? Yikes!

[socialist]

Particularly how to make multicolor posts and insult.

sometimes when you argue with dummies, insults are the only way to get your point across. it's like people tryin to argue education with me. people who know nothing about a subject are easy prey.

[socialist]

Wait, you wanna be a teacher, yet you don't know about C02 and photosynthesis? Yikes!

haven't heard about the greenhouse effect, have you?

[Shady]

sometimes when you argue with dummies, insults are the only way to get your point across. it's like people tryin to argue education with me. people who know nothing about a subject are easy prey.

Unless they start talking about photosynthesis!

[Shady]

haven't heard about the greenhouse effect, have you?

Yes I have. But I don't think it's been called that for quite a while. 1995 called, it wants it's terminology back!

[Smallc]

Yes I have. But I don't think it's been called that for quite a while. 1995 called, it wants it's terminology back!

You're clueless.

[Shady]

You're clueless.

Go kiss your poster of Obama.

[Smallc]

[socialist]

You're clueless.

you just figured that out. the greenhouse effect is a fact. shady is a know nothing denier.

[Shady]

the greenhouse effect is a fact.

So is photosynthesis.

[waldo]

But C02 isn't pollution.

It's essential for plant life, and a natural substance. Like I said, it's not pollution like you falsely claimed.

no - CO2, as a greenhouse gas, is ruled/regulated as air pollution... particularly given your oft expressed U.S. wannabe aspirations, you'd certainly accept the following U.S. Supreme Court and EPA ruling/regulation, right?

- not according to the

U.S. Supreme Court

- not according to the EPA, now obligated by the aforementioned U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling to follow it's mandate/obligations under the U.S. Clean Air Act

the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act and that EPA must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare

- not according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

that has now just recently released it's Endangerment & Cause or Contribute Findings

---

Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act (PDF)

- not according to the EPA that is now

meandering down the legal battle towards regulation

[waldo]

It's essential for plant life, and a natural substance.

...yet you don't know about C02 and photosynthesis? Yikes!

Unless they start talking about photosynthesis!

So is photosynthesis.

what, Shady? Not your replay of the "CO2 is plant food meme", again? Has your early onset Alzheimer's kicked in again... you didn't fare so well when you bleated about photosynthesis before, right? As they were subsequently expounded upon, I could certainly replay each and every one of the referenced points from below... if you'd like Shady?

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 range-land 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"!

Shady, here... let me replay the related Crock video for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g093lhtpEFo#!

[waldo]

It also happens that 1990 was, globally, an extremely hot year. The only thing that makes 1990 a benchmark is that the U.S. was in a recession and Europe was prospering. Their economy and emissions were about to drop into a precipice because of the end of the Cold War and shutdown of large amounts of Warsaw Pact industry.

what? Not another guy trotting out the same ole, same ole! Here, jgb... a refresher for you:

ah yes, the appease Russia meme... one trotted out quite regularly in past MLW threads... in fact, you've been one of those... trotters! Clearly you don't accept when you've refuted - once more with vinegar! Let's briefly recap your past related posts - then I'll follow-up with the references you can't be bothered to accept/acknowledge:

Just look at the selection of base years. 1990 was picked since it was an economic peak for Europe as the Iron Curtain fell and shut down large swaths of Communist-era industry. It was a valley for the U.S., Canada and other new economy countries.

The selection of 1990 for a treaty penned in 1997 was no accident. Most European economies had declined or were at best flat between 1990 and 1997 whereas the U.S. and Canada had come out of a recession and were vigorously expanding during that period. Add to it the fact tha the collapse of the Soviet Union and unification of Germany cratered the newly joined Germany's output levels.

why do you persist in spreading your purposeful disinformation?

... that 1990 base year reference associates to benchmark 1990 emission levels accepted by member parties of UNFCCC... effectively, the values of "global warming potential" calculated for the IPCC SAR Report (as used to convert various GHG emissions into comparable CO2 equivalents).

As I said, within the Kyoto Protocol, the 1990 base reference was used... was selected... in relation to the "global warming potentials (GWPs)" developed within the SAR report.

Kyoto Protocol:

The benchmark 1990 emission levels accepted by the Conference of the Parties of UNFCCC (decision 2/CP.3) were the values of "global warming potential" calculated for the IPCC Second Assessment Report. These figures are used for converting the various greenhouse gas emissions into comparable CO2 equivalents (CO2-eq) when computing overall sources and sinks.

UN REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES ON ITS THIRD SESSION, HELD AT KYOTO FROM 1 TO 11 DECEMBER 1997

Reaffirms that global warming potentials used by Parties should be those provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its Second Assessment Report (1995 IPCC GWP values) based on the effects of the greenhouse gases over a 100-year time horizon

IPCC Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995 (SAR) --- 2.5 Trace Gas Radiative Forcing Indices - Table 2.8: Net GWPs per unit mass emission for halocarbons including indirect effects for time horizons from 1990

Exceptions to 1990 allowed mid-1980's years to be used by Eastern European counties who peaked in emissions before their Communist systems imploded.

Basically yes. The Global Warming acolytes do this with abandon in allowing favorable Kyoto base years other than 1990; in some cases as early as 1984 or 1986, so that countries who can be bribed into supporting the treaty get their peak economic years to work with.

As for your specific slag, it's baseless, as the handful of countries that were excepted to the 1990 base year within the Kyoto Protocol, were done so based on their economies being 'in transition' (the so-called "EIT" countries)... the one's I'm aware of, the only countries granted exception to the 1990 base year, that I'm aware of, were Bulgaria (1988), Hungary (1985-8), Poland (1988) and Romania (1989).

[jbg]

haven't heard about the greenhouse effect, have you?

You haven't heard about capitalizing the first letter of a sentence, have you? Or isn't that done in the Canadian language?

[jbg]

no - CO2, as a greenhouse gas, is ruled/regulated as air pollution... particularly given your oft expressed U.S. wannabe aspirations, you'd certainly accept the following U.S. Supreme Court and EPA ruling/regulation, right?

the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act and that EPA must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare

What the Supreme Court was ruling on was the legality of a legislative or regulatory finding. The Supreme Court did not and does not rule on scientific facts (except for Roe v. Wade but Blackmun was a bit "out there" for doing his own research in the stacks at the Mayo Clinic).

[WWWTT]

the greenhouse effect is a fact.

No it's not.

There are people in this world still starving and dying from long ago curable disease,and somehow you are trying to convince us that we are intelligent enough to fully understand the complexities or our planet and its history!?!??!

We still have a long way to go.

I wouldn't be so quick to put faith in such propaganda.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

So is photosynthesis.

Oh no Shady don't tell them about facts and logic.

Facts and logic have no place in propaganda/agendas!

WWWTT

[Moonbox]

what? Not another guy trotting out the same ole, same ole! Here, jgb... a refresher for you:

Oh boy! A cross/re-post from 2010! This should be interesting...wait...nobody is going to read it.

[waldo]

Oh boy! A cross/re-post from 2010! This should be interesting...wait...nobody is going to read it.

hey Moonbox... good to see you're contributing!

Your drama position would require one to refute those repeated denier talking points... from scratch. Instead I choose to pull selective statements... extracts... of refutations that have been previously made. If the denier talking points can get replayed, ad nauseum, most certainly, most definitely, succinct extracts of previously posted refutations are fair game. If you don't think so, run your drama on up the moderators flag pole.

[Wild Bill]

no - CO2, as a greenhouse gas, is ruled/regulated as air pollution... particularly given your oft expressed U.S. wannabe aspirations, you'd certainly accept the following U.S. Supreme Court and EPA ruling/regulation, right?

Waldo, what has that got to do with the price of eggs? Legislators have passed rules and regulations that were scientific nonsense since time immemorial.

It wasn't that long ago that an American state tried to legislate the value of Pi!

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/805/did-a-state-legislature-once-pass-a-law-saying-pi-equals-3

"It happened in Indiana. Although the attempt to legislate pi was ultimately unsuccessful, it did come pretty close. In 1897 Representative T.I. Record of Posen county introduced House Bill #246 in the Indiana House of Representatives. The bill, based on the work of a physician and amateur mathematician named Edward J. Goodwin (Edwin in some accounts), suggests not one but three numbers for pi, among them 3.2, as we shall see. The punishment for unbelievers I have not been able to learn, but I place no credence in the rumor that you had to spend the rest of your natural life in Indiana."

So forgive me if I take the idea that something has been ruled or regulated with a grain of salt. Wasn't there a king once who tried to order the tide?

[Pliny]

not today Pliny - I danced to your last CO2 related idiocy in the past, across multiple threads... if nothing else it most certainly exposed your Mr. Wizard "prowess"! You do remember being punted over your 'breathing exhalation' nonsense... or your mindless fumbling over 'carbon isotope variants of CO2'? Right? Good times, hey Pliny?

I quoted you the exact sequence of exchange where you've made unsubstantiated claims concerning (expected) exponential temperature change relative to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. If you're not prepared to bring out Mr. Wizard just fade away, Pliny.

Now there you go again....same old, same old. If you said anything that promoted understanding somebody might listen to you but you don't. You like to dance around.

I certainly wouldn't want you interpreting the IPCC scriptures for our politicians to act upon. We would have been in the fox's den during the 60's "projection" of the coming ice age.

[waldo]

no - CO2, as a greenhouse gas, is ruled/regulated as air pollution... the following U.S. Supreme Court and EPA ruling/regulation

- not according to the U.S. Supreme Court

- not according to the EPA, now obligated by the aforementioned U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling to follow it's mandate/obligations under the U.S. Clean Air Act

the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act and that EPA must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare

- not according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that has now just recently released it's Endangerment & Cause or Contribute Findings --- Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act (PDF)

What the Supreme Court was ruling on was the legality of a legislative or regulatory finding. The Supreme Court did not and does not rule on scientific facts.

thanks Captain Obvious... see my added, and obvious, multiple bold highlighting to the words rule/regulated & ruling/regulation. Now I realize this reaches beyond your self-proclaimed bankruptcy expertise, but do you believe it necessary to advise that the U.S. Supreme Court is not a scientific body/organization/institution?

of course the U.S. Supreme Court ruling does draw considerable reference to science in shaping its ruling. From the ruling itself, I'm particularly taken with the following extract, particularly as it hits a couple of the regular MLW denier talking points: the 'do nothing, no action required' sentiments and the 'what about China/India' bleats:

And reducing domestic automobile emissions is hardly a tentative step. Even leaving aside the other greenhouse gases, the United States transportation sector emits an enormous quantity of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — according to the MacCracken affidavit, more than 1.7 billion metric tons in 1999 alone. That accounts for more than 6% of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions. To put this in perspective: Considering just emissions from the transportation sector, which represent less than one-third of this country’s total carbon dioxide emissions, the United States would still rank as the third-largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, outpaced only by the European Union and China. Judged by any standard, U. S. motor-vehicle emissions make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations and hence, according to petitioners, to global warming.

While it may be true that regulating motor-vehicle emissions will not by itself reverse global warming, it by no means follows that we lack jurisdiction to decide whether EPA has a duty to take steps to slow or reduce it.

Because of the enormity of the potential consequences associated with man-made climate change, the fact that the effectiveness of a remedy might be delayed during the (relatively short) time it takes for a new motor-vehicle fleet to replace an older one is essentially irrelevant.23 Nor is it dispositive that developing countries such as China and India are poised to increase greenhouse gas emissions substantially over the next century: A reduction in domestic emissions would slow the pace of global emissions increases, no matter what happens elsewhere.

[waldo]

You haven't heard about capitalizing the first letter of a sentence, have you? Or isn't that done in the Canadian language?

what language do you use in Ajax?

[waldo]

not today Pliny - I danced to your last CO2 related idiocy in the past, across multiple threads... if nothing else it most certainly exposed your Mr. Wizard "prowess"! You do remember being punted over your 'breathing exhalation' nonsense... or your mindless fumbling over 'carbon isotope variants of CO2'? Right? Good times, hey Pliny?

I quoted you the exact sequence of exchange where you've made unsubstantiated claims concerning (expected) exponential temperature change relative to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. If you're not prepared to bring out Mr. Wizard just fade away, Pliny.

Now there you go again....same old, same old. If you said anything that promoted understanding somebody might listen to you but you don't. You like to dance around.

I certainly wouldn't want you interpreting the IPCC scriptures for our politicians to act upon. We would have been in the fox's den during the 60's "projection" of the coming ice age.

the only dance is yours Pliny... your avoidance dance. As you've done many times over, you drop your unsubstantiated opinion and proceed to challenge others to refute it. As I pointed out to you, I've played your game, several times now - I pointed out a couple of those instances where you, danced and bobbed and weaved and shucked and jived... after lengthy exchanges across multiple threads, your Mr. Wizard self was laid bare, exposed for its nothingness, its nonsense. This is now the second time I've replayed the following exchange sequence. As I said, if you're not prepared to bring Mr. Wizard out again...

according to the theory, GHGs are building up in the atmosphere annually and it is GHGs that are the source of AGW. How is it possible to have a decrease in warming with a constant increase in GHGs? You can say there are other factors but the argument is that it is GHGs that are the source of the problem. The argument real skeptics make is that CO2 build up that exceeds the natural cycling levels builds up and does not disappear for as much as a century. That may be correct, but if so the warming should be exponential and it is not.

interesting, particularly given the logarithmic relationship between a rising atmospheric CO2 level and its associated radiative forcing proportional affect on warming. Tell me - what distinguishes logarithmic and exponential changes over time... is one, uhhh... the inverse of the other?

waldo...I'm surprised. If the accumulation of GHGs remained constant the temperature change might rise linearly. However, the accumulation is not constant and the fact it is a continuing increased accumulation should result in an exponential rise in temperature. Obviously this has not been demonstrated in reality but seems to be the "projection" you prefer and we should be half way to the fox's den by now.

... don't hesitate to offer substantiation to your claim of expected (but not realized) "exponential" temperature rise, particularly in regards the logarithmic relationship I described.

[Shady]

no - CO2, as a greenhouse gas, is ruled/regulated as air pollution

But it's not pollution. Unless you think that plants give off pollution on a regular basis. Water vapour is regulated. So is dirt. They're also not pollution. That's a fact. That's science.