AGW/CC Deniers & "Fake-Skeptics" - their mindset

[waldo]

We've already digested the same data and analysis ad nauseam for over a decade and the only real impact came from a serious economic recession. Cap and trade, Kyoto, carbon sequestration, etc., etc. are all dead for the most part. Al Gore laughed all the way to the bank.

you've clearly shown you know nothing about what's actually been done, is being done toward reducing emission levels. As much as you'd like to claim (as you repeatedly claim) effective U.S. reductions are not the result of any recessionary downturn... previous study/reference provided on MLW has shown this. As for sequestration, see China... see Canada - yes, see Saskatchewan; yes, see Alberta: now critical review of sequestration is certainly on the table, but at least you should get your denier talking points updated, hey!

[cybercoma]

according to some of the fake-skeptics/deniers (even here on MLW) that whole ocean warming thingee is just a convenient ruse by scientists in an attempt to rationalize the relatively recent reduced rate of surface temperature warming. Cyber... your post is bordering on alarmism! Much like the recent days announcement from the European Space Agency (ESA) in regards the degree of Antarctic ice melt... gravity impacting, no less:

ESA’s GOCE satellite has shown that the ice lost from West Antarctica over the last few years has left its signature showing that the loss of ice from West Antarctica between 2009 and 2012 caused a dip in the gravity field over the region. Of course, another ESA satellite, CryoSat, has recently shown that since 2009 the rate at which ice is being lost from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet every year has increased by a factor of three. And, between 2011 and 2014, Antarctica as a whole has been shrinking in volume by 125 cubic kilometres a year.

Stupid me. Why would oceanographers know anything about the oceans?

[waldo]

The greatest source of misinformation comes from climate alarmists and their patsies in the MSM who routinely misrepresent what the science actually says and fail to report the how little we really know about the effects of warming on society.

excellent addition to the mindset tally! Are you suggesting the much touted fake-skeptic/denier, "Uncertainty Monster™", is being hidden by legitimate scientists? Thanks for including your usual conspiracy angles - well done!

[Keepitsimple]

according to some of the fake-skeptics/deniers (even here on MLW) that whole ocean warming thingee is just a convenient ruse by scientists in an attempt to rationalize the relatively recent reduced rate of surface temperature warming. Cyber... your post is bordering on alarmism! Much like the recent days announcement from the European Space Agency (ESA) in regards the degree of Antarctic ice melt... gravity impacting, no less:

ESA’s GOCE satellite has shown that the ice lost from West Antarctica over the last few years has left its signature showing that the loss of ice from West Antarctica between 2009 and 2012 caused a dip in the gravity field over the region. Of course, another ESA satellite, CryoSat, has recently shown that since 2009 the rate at which ice is being lost from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet every year has increased by a factor of three. And, between 2011 and 2014, Antarctica as a whole has been shrinking in volume by 125 cubic kilometres a year.

I think the Gravity Boys might want to recalibrate their instruments:

While it is too soon to tell if sea ice around Antarctica has reached its annual maximum for the winter, it remained at record high daily levels for most of the year. On September 19, the five-day average ice extent surpassed 20 million square kilometers (7.72 million square miles) for the first time in the satellite record. Ice extent is above average in almost all sections of the Antarctic, particularly in the northern Ross Sea and Indian Ocean sectors. Near-average ice extent occurs south of South America in the northern Bellingshausen Sea and in a small region south of Australia.

Link: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[waldo]

I think the Gravity Boys might want to recalibrate their instruments

oh my! Simple, Simple, Simple..... do you actually understand the difference between extent and mass/volume? Your's is certainly a most worthy mindset addition; in this case, that you would so willingly, so easily and so all-knowingly, presume to refute the European Space Agency's, as you say, "Gravity Boys". Thanks for the thread update!

.

Edited October 6, 2014 by waldo

[Keepitsimple]

oh my! Simple, Simple, Simple..... do you actually understand the difference between extent and mass/volume? Your's is certainly a most worthy mindset addition; in this case, that you would so willingly, so easily and so all-knowingly, presume to refute the European Space Agency's, as you say, "Gravity Boys". Thanks for the thread update!

.

Yes - I do - and it's quite puzzling that there should be such a dichotomy.....just another facet of Climate Clange that we don't fully understand?

[-1=e^ipi]

When will they benefit, next week, next business cycle, 100,000 years from now?

I already explained this. The benefits of CO2 fertilization are immediate. If you don't believe me,you can go to a greenhouse and ask people why they increase the CO2 content of the air inside the greenhouse.

[On Guard for Thee]

I already explained this. The benefits of CO2 fertilization are immediate. If you don't believe me,you can go to a greenhouse and ask people why they increase the CO2 content of the air inside the greenhouse.

Yes and you know that OSHA for instance limits that amount so as not to be harmful to humans in the workplace, and that too much cO2 is actually harmful to the plants> You know that right?

[-1=e^ipi]

Yes and you know that OSHA for instance limits that amount so as not to be harmful to humans in the workplace, and that too much cO2 is actually harmful to the plants> You know that right?

Yes. And do you not understand that there is a big difference between the change in CO2 levels we are talking about in the context of human emissions and the amount that CO2 levels would need to rise before creating these problems you refer to. Have you ever been indoors? CO2 levels between 1000-2000 ppm in doors are not uncommon. Atmospheric CO2 could increase to 1500 ppm without direct negative impacts on human health (I'm referring to the partial derivative not full derivative here, in case anyone tries to misread what I wrote).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia

At what atmospheric CO2 concentrations does the CO2 fertilization effect start to plateau for plants? Around 1200-1500 ppm. Maybe this is related to the fact that the vast majority of the past 600 million years has seen much higher atmospheric CO2 levels than 1000 ppm and the fact that CO2 is an ingredient in photosynthesis.

By comparison, current CO2 levels are not even 400 ppm, and in a non-mitigation scenario are unlikely to exceed 800 ppm by the end of this century. Keep things in perspective. If you want to discuss real issues related to increasing atmospheric CO2 fine, but don't make up BS about running out of oxygen or dying of CO2 poisoning.

[waldo]

Yes - I do - and it's quite puzzling that there should be such a dichotomy.....just another facet of Climate Clange that we don't fully understand?

"dichotomy"??? "Quite puzzling"??? "We don't fully understand"???

there's no dichotomy here... there's nothing puzzling here. YOU simply don't understand and YOU got caught in it! But nice try/show of false bravado to go along with your fake-skeptic/denier mindset!

[waldo]

At what atmospheric CO2 concentrations does the CO2 fertilization effect start to plateau for plants? Around 1200-1500 ppm. Maybe this is related to the fact that the vast majority of the past 600 million years has seen much higher atmospheric CO2 levels than 1000 ppm and the fact that CO2 is an ingredient in photosynthesis.

ah yes! Once again we're back to you pedding the 'CO2 is simply plant food' meme, we're back to you peddling your focus on artificial growth mediums (aka controlled non-real world greenhouse/hood enclosures), we're back to you in line with your prior statements like, "if anything we should subsidize CO2 emissions (rather than tax) to get to 1200 ppm faster"... with you stating emissions should be subsidized... to get to 1200 ppm... faster! Of course, this is simply you following in step with your other claims... that at 1200 ppm, you're simply after more of those overall benefits you claim that climate change has - 1200 ppm (faster!), which to you, means more benefits, and according to your other claim the cost of those 1200 ppm (faster!) "benefits, will outweigh the costs of climate change"!

like I said, those other MLW threads where you peddled your unsubstantiated opinions await your return any time you're actually prepared to offer scientific based assessments that support your opinions.

[waldo]

I already explained this. The benefits of CO2 fertilization are immediate. If you don't believe me,you can go to a greenhouse and ask people why they increase the CO2 content of the air inside the greenhouse.

now c'mon... you quite literally made a fool of yourself when you acknowledged you didn't even know about real-world emulating "Free-air Concentration Enrichment" (FACE) studies. Care to step out from your controlled non-real world, artificial, controlled, isolated, greenhouse/hood enclosure bubble world? If you are, please do so in the appropriate MLW threads where this has been claimed by you previously.

[-1=e^ipi]

ah yes! Once again we're back to you pedding the 'CO2 is simply plant food' meme, we're back to you peddling your focus on artificial growth mediums (aka controlled non-real world greenhouse/hood enclosures), we're back to you in line with your prior statements like, "if anything we should subsidize CO2 emissions (rather than tax) to get to 1200 ppm faster"... with you stating emissions should be subsidized... to get to 1200 ppm... faster! Of course, this is simply you following in step with your other claims... that at 1200 ppm, you're simply after more of those overall benefits you claim that climate change has - 1200 ppm (faster!), which to you, means more benefits, and according to your other claim the cost of those 1200 ppm (faster!) "benefits, will outweigh the costs of climate change"!

like I said, those other MLW threads where you peddled your unsubstantiated opinions await your return any time you're actually prepared to offer scientific based assessments that support your opinions.

Again strawman, and taking what I say out of context.

Do you not understand what a conditional statement is? Saying if A then we should do B, does not mean we should do B. The context of me saying we should subsidize CO2 emissions was conditional on only looking at the CO2 fertilization effect. But it doesn't make sense to only look at the CO2 fertilization effect, thus I don't advocate for subsidizing of CO2 until 1200 ppm.

now c'mon... you quite literally made a fool of yourself when you acknowledged you didn't even know about real-world emulating "Free-air Concentration Enrichment" (FACE) studies. Care to step out from your controlled non-real world, artificial, controlled, isolated, greenhouse/hood enclosure bubble world? If you are, please do so in the appropriate MLW threads where this has been claimed by you previously.

Your continued rejection of Occum's Razor is well established.

Tell me, what brand of religious BS do you subscribe to?

[waldo]

Again strawman, and taking what I say out of context.

Do you not understand what a conditional statement is? Saying if A then we should do B, does not mean we should do B. The context of me saying we should subsidize CO2 emissions was conditional on only looking at the CO2 fertilization effect. But it doesn't make sense to only look at the CO2 fertilization effect, thus I don't advocate for subsidizing of CO2 until 1200 ppm.

no - no strawman here! As for context, let's see how much more twisted you can make that pretzel you're caught up in... tell me... just how much subsidization for CO2 emissions goes on in your preferred non-real world, artificial, controlled, isolated greenhouse/hood enclosure bubble? You're really going to have to make up your mind here on which "global" confines you're trolling on about when you claim "increased global crop yields"... is that your global complement of greenhouses/hood enclosures? C'mon... tighten up your pretzel, hey! Here's you context:

Here is a website that explains CO2 enrichment for plant growth and recommends concentrations to use in greenhouses etc.

So does 1200 ppm seem reasonable now?

Edit: actually, if anything we should subsidize CO2 emissions (rather than tax) to get to 1200 ppm faster.

.

.

.

Your continued rejection of Occum's Razor is well established.

Tell me, what brand of religious BS do you subscribe to?

ah yes! Your ever ready, ever present 'razor fall-back'... again, be careful, don't cut yourself on that razor! As for your stated 'religious BS'... I don't subscribe; I'll leave that mindset subscription to the one that you and your fellow fake-skeptics/deniers follow!

.

[eyeball]

I already explained this. The benefits of CO2 fertilization are immediate. If you don't believe me,you can go to a greenhouse and ask people why they increase the CO2 content of the air inside the greenhouse.

Wonderful, now tell me something I don't know, like how long until the Sahara greens up - next week, next business cycle, just in time for biological communities displaced from the new deserts that browned up elsewhere to migrate to or too late to matter for any of the above?

It should be bleedingly obvious why I keep asking about a time-frame that includes a business cycle. You can't even ball-park an estimate? C'mon.

[On Guard for Thee]

Apparently we just all have to go live in a greenhouse and jack up that CO2 gas and all will be well. I liked the Jurrasic Park movie. Can't wait to really relive it.

[Keepitsimple]

"dichotomy"??? "Quite puzzling"??? "We don't fully understand"???

there's no dichotomy here... there's nothing puzzling here. YOU simply don't understand and YOU got caught in it! But nice try/show of false bravado to go along with your fake-skeptic/denier mindset!

....YAWN...

[waldo]

....YAWN...

you should have just accepted your failure and kept quiet... let it pass. You clearly have no understanding of the distinctions between land and sea ice... of the distinctions between extent, mass and volume as relates to increasing/decreasing ice. As is your way, you took your misunderstandings and they blew up on you. But your failure is a great fit for this mindset thread!

Simple, given there was a recent flurry of MLW fake-skeptic/denier misunderstandings concerning Antarctic ice (in other threads and status updates), let's try again:

- while presuming to put up extent increase references, fake-skeptics fail to grasp/acknowledge that the Antarctic sea ice almost completely melts annually... that is the norm (as shown below in a representative March versus September rendering). Of course, the reason for the annual melting, all things remaining equal, is simply due to the thickness of Antarctic sea ice... typically 1-2 meters thick. In comparison, Arctic ice is typically 2-3 and 4-5 meters (in certain areas) in thickness... of course, given the significant Arctic warming, varying thickness is decreasing. In terms of Antarctic land sheet ice, I expect the recent ESA satellite data release announcement I linked to above will bring forward more timely data than the 2009 end-point shown in the graphic I've included...

Edited October 7, 2014 by waldo

[-1=e^ipi]

Wonderful, now tell me something I don't know, like how long until the Sahara greens up - next week, next business cycle, just in time for biological communities displaced from the new deserts that browned up elsewhere to migrate to or too late to matter for any of the above?

It should be bleedingly obvious why I keep asking about a time-frame that includes a business cycle. You can't even ball-park an estimate? C'mon.

The premises in your question is poorly defined. The Sahara being 'green' or not is not a binary thing; there is no point at which you can objectively say the Sahara has 'greened up'. Also, the length of time of a business cycle isn't a well defined nor consistent concept. Your questions frequently have these poorly defined concepts and are ambiguous.

And the 'bleedingly obvious' reason you keep asking about a time-frame that includes the business cycle is because you purposely want to ask poorly defined questions that cannot be answered. That's why you prefer to use a non-well defined time period as opposed to a well-defined time period.

I'm aware of the absurd tactic you are trying to use:

1. Demand an answer to an absurd question with poorly defined concepts and false premises.

2. Receive no answer due to ridiculousness of original question.

3. Claim that the opponent's position is wrong because they cannot answer your 'simple' question.

4. Repeat tactic ad nauseam.

Edited October 8, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[On Guard for Thee]

Let's just conclude that the Sahara won't likely be greening up any time soon.

[eyeball]

Certainly not soon enough to matter much in any contemporary or adaptive sense for quite some time.

[On Guard for Thee]

Certainly not soon enough to matter much in any contemporary or adaptive sense for quite some time.

So far it just keeps getting bigger. Aren't you glad you don't live in Mali?

[TimG]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

mages taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.

...

In the eastern Sahara area of southwestern Egypt and northern Sudan, new trees—such as acacias—are flourishing, according to Stefan Kröpelin, a climate scientist at the University of Cologne's Africa Research Unit in Germany.

...

"Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back," he said.

"The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable."

[On Guard for Thee]

The Sahara expands southward about 30 miles annually. It's called desertification.

[-1=e^ipi]

The Sahara expands southward about 30 miles annually. It's called desertification.

That desertification is primarily a result of issues such as overgrazing of land, overpopulation and poor land practices. Not as a result of climate change due to increased atmospheric CO2.