-1=e^ipi Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 I included direct countering evidence to your ongoing repeated claim of increased global crop yields Why do you continually deny the well-known CO2 fertilization effect? Are you that emotionally attached to a certain conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Why do you continually deny the well-known CO2 fertilization effect? Are you that emotionally attached to a certain conclusion? why the perpetual strawman routine? As you've been advised many times over, my related responses are to your unsubstantiated claims of increased global crop yields (that you attribute to the effect). As I whined about in an earlier post a short while back in this thread, you purposely and with intent used that Putin quote for the sole purpose of presuming to leverage your ongoing unsubstantiated claims of increased/future global crop yields. As I've done in the past in other threads, as I just did here (only to have the post deleted/hidden by the moderator.... with no explanation provided), I responded to your nonsense by countering it with direct evidence from one of the latest IPCC AR5 reports & from the latest USGCRP report. note: again, your "substantiation" based on little to nothing more than non-real world, controlled and isolated greenhouse hood/enclosure studies... doesn't count! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 controlled and isolated greenhouse hood/enclosure studies... doesn't count! Why? Because you disagree with Occam's razor and the scientific method? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Why? Because you disagree with Occam's razor and the scientific method? you should direct your bafflegab towards the IPCC and the USGCRP... you know, just 2 of the many formal recognized organizations that ain't buying your unsubstantiated claims of "increased global crop yields". Now, of course, that IPCC/USGCRP evidence exists in other threads... and would exist directly within this thread in response to your earlier post... if only the moderator, without explanation, hadn't chosen to delete/hide it! Somehow, you're allowed to continue to make the unsubstantiated claims... but, in this thread, counters to your claim are deleted/hidden by the moderator... without explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69cat Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 I just cant get on board with the planet warming theory when the science is based on creating models to present data for what has already been recorded. Environment Canada is not helping the climate change cause as i look at average temperatures for Regina, Toronto and Yellowknife and see no 25 year upswing. http://regina.weatherstats.ca/metrics/temperature.html And Environment Canada data seems to match this data http://www.cics.uvic.ca/climate/CanadaGriddedClimateData/ReginaT.JPG And for those wodering about rain, assuming we are getting warmer and history shows things were wetter before, i guess we can expect drier times? An inverse relationship maybe. http://i.bullfax.com/imgs/a8988b02e09fee9cb85dc1676a955499fbc476d5.jpg This all doesnt mean the earth is not warming, but to say it is warming and not going to level off or decrease in 20 years is a bit of a stretch. We know sunspot activity follows roughly 11 year cycles, how convinced is the scientific community that the sun follows no other cycles? Just questions i ask myself. Perhaps the PDO, ENSO and ADO are driven by solar output. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 This all doesnt mean the earth is not warming, Good. Here's NASA (validated by another anti-warming poster here as a source) and their graph: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 I just cant get on board with the planet warming theory when the science is based on creating models to present data for what has already been recorded. and your "getting on board" is predicated upon you presenting localized temperatures... see weather-climate conflation! . This all doesnt mean the earth is not warming, but to say it is warming and not going to level off or decrease in 20 years is a bit of a stretch. We know sunspot activity follows roughly 11 year cycles, how convinced is the scientific community that the sun follows no other cycles? Just questions i ask myself. Perhaps the PDO, ENSO and ADO are driven by solar output. you earlier presented a nonsensical attachment to PDO cycles... and you presumed to "eyeball" some perceived 60-year temperature trend (30 up 30 down). I suggest you present actual legitimate prevailing peer-reviewed science to support your claim. Equally, it is well established that solar cycles can't account for increased warming - there is no correlation between solar activity and recent warming. And then you top it all off with a "perhaps" suggestion... cause nothing says ignore the prevailing world scientific community and the physics of CO2... like a "perhaps"! . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69cat Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_24 Well how about, 2014 is lowest sunspot activity since 1750. And then we have scientists claiming that high sunspot activity causes cooling in the oceans. http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Ok - now that you have used NASA as a source, clear it up for me: are they "in on it" or not ? They have a lot of good information on climate change, so now that you are citing them you should check that out tool. Why ? NASA is a U.S. government agency...just like the CIA or NSA...why does it have such credibility to some in Canada or elsewhere? The U.S. will go to Paris with U.S. interests in mind, and that includes leveraging resources like NASA, NOAA, GISS, NSIDC, etc. to American advantage (INDCs) before any more selling out to the alarmists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 NASA is a U.S. government agency...just like the CIA or NSA...why does it have such credibility to some in Canada or elsewhere? why do you perpetually have little to nothing else to offer than this same ongoing, year-upon-year, theme of yours? Why do you so object to MLW members drawing reference to American sources... why do you so object to the level that you incessantly, at any opportunity, draw attention to MLW members referencing U.S. sources? Is there a point... will there ever be a point... at which you've accomplished "the ends to your means" - whatever it is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Why ? NASA is a U.S. government agency...just like the CIA or NSA...why does it have such credibility to some in Canada or elsewhere? You can either claim superiority, or feign surprise when others recognize the high standards of your institutions, but not both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 You can either claim superiority, or feign surprise when others recognize the high standards of your institutions, but not both. But that's the point....how can some Canadians bemoan the state of "denier" America and its government while relentlessly depending on these U.S. government agencies for access to so called climate change and other information ? Will the Canadian delegation for COP21 in Paris also rely on their trusty web links to these American resources ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_24 Well how about, 2014 is lowest sunspot activity since 1750. And then we have scientists claiming that high sunspot activity causes cooling in the oceans. http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html you're on a roll - please proceed to draw a correlation to sunspot activity and increased warming/global surface temperatures: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69cat Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Here you go Waldo, even mentions peer reviewed data and a 64.3 year cycle (1) Solar activities (including sunspot number and TSI) have four major periodic components higher than the 95% significance level of white noise during the period of interest, i.e. 11-year period, 50-year period, 100-year period, and 200-year period. The global temperature anomalies of the Earth have only one major periodic component of 64.3-year period, which is close to the 50-year cycle of solar activity. (2) Significant resonant periodicities between solar activity and the Earth’s temperature are focused on the 22- and 50-year period. (3) Correlations between solar activity and the surface temperature of the Earth on the long time scales are higher than those on the short time scales. As far as the sunspot number is concerned, its correlation coefficients to the Earth temperature are 0.31-0.35 on the yearly scale, 0.58-0.70 on the 11-year running mean scale, and 0.64-0.78 on the 22-year running mean scale. TSI has stronger correlations to the Earth temperature than sunspot number. (4) During the past 100 years, solar activities display a clear increasing tendency that corresponds to the global warming of the Earth (including land and ocean) very well. Particularly, the ocean temperature has a slightly higher correlation to solar activity than the land temperature. All these demonstrate that solar activity has a non-negligible forcing on the temperature change of the Earth on the time scale of centuries. But you can read the entire article regarding sun spot activity and surface as well as ocean temps here http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/28/new-paper-finds-high-correlation-between-solar-activity-and-earths-temperature-over-centuries/ As i say, there are reasons to suspect other factors are at work, and sunspot activity has been well documented but apparently the IPCC dismisses its importance, and so arises the sceptics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 But that's the point....how can some Canadians bemoan the state of "denier" America .... Not a very difficult thing to understand. Everybody has their embarrassments, and the bigger you are the bigger - HUGEr - your embarrassments really are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) @69cat: there isn't a "chance in hell" you're going to get me to look at the renowned denier site from the notorious Marc Morano! Nice try though. Edited October 31, 2015 by waldo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 As i say, there are reasons to suspect other factors are at work, and sunspot activity has been well documented but apparently the IPCC dismisses its importance, and so arises the sceptics. 69cat - this really hasn't been considered seriously in a long time. Not sure what 'climate depot' is but maybe like 'Home Depot' it's not the first place I think of when I need something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) Not a very difficult thing to understand. Everybody has their embarrassments, and the bigger you are the bigger - HUGEr - your embarrassments really are. So you are saying that Canada's massive Kyoto FAIL is less of an embarrassment because it does not have the research and science resources of the United States ? What does Canada bring to the COP21 table....photos of skinny polar bears plus more links to NASA and NOAA ? Edited October 31, 2015 by bush_cheney2004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 So you are saying that Canada's massive Kyoto FAIL is less of an embarrassment because it does not have the research and science resources of the United States ? No, I'm responding to your question wherein you ask how I can quote great American institutions like NASA while simultaneously discounting/ignoring/disparaging/mocking individual American deniers or failed American institutions like the scabby roadkill that the once-proud GOP has become. But anyway, this is really thread drift. If you like, start another thread wherein we can compare all things American - great and awful. There is endless material for both lists. I'm fighting to keep this thread on Climate Change ... not about moderation or your pet topic... admiring yourself through the Canadian prism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 But that's the point....how can some Canadians bemoan the state of "denier" America and its government while relentlessly depending on these U.S. government agencies for access to so called climate change and other information ? Will the Canadian delegation for COP21 in Paris also rely on their trusty web links to these American resources ? Will the American delegation be raising these burning issue at Paris, and if not, why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Pretty sure you need about 7 C of global warming for this to occur in the Persian Gulf.Best we just wait and until we're sure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Will the American delegation be raising these burning issue at Paris, and if not, why? U.S. strategy is to pre-empt more stringent reduction targets with self-imposed INDCs. China and India will also use this strategy, effectively undermining the real impact of any COP21 protocols, as any treaty has little chance of ratification in the USA and other nations with similar interests. As we know, Canada actually ratified the Kyoto protocol treaty and proceeded to do absolutely nothing about GHG emissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Best we just wait and until we're sure? Max wet bulb temperatures in the Gulf are around 31 C. Humans can survive up to 35 C wet bulb temperatures. So you need + 4 C. But the Persian Gulf is in an equatorial region and warms less than polar regions and the globe as a hole; factor this in and you need 7 C of warming, which realistically isn't going to occur over the next century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 50-year period 50 years? I've heard of the Gleissberg cycle (88 years) but not a 50 year cycle. I've also done fourier analysis of solar irradiance data and I have never seen a peak around 50 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) Here you go Waldo, even mentions peer reviewed data and a 64.3 year cycle (1) Solar activities (including sunspot number and TSI) have four major periodic components higher than the 95% significance level of white noise during the period of interest, i.e. 11-year period, 50-year period, 100-year period, and 200-year period. The global temperature anomalies of the Earth have only one major periodic component of 64.3-year period, which is close to the 50-year cycle of solar activity. (2) Significant resonant periodicities between solar activity and the Earth’s temperature are focused on the 22- and 50-year period. (3) Correlations between solar activity and the surface temperature of the Earth on the long time scales are higher than those on the short time scales. As far as the sunspot number is concerned, its correlation coefficients to the Earth temperature are 0.31-0.35 on the yearly scale, 0.58-0.70 on the 11-year running mean scale, and 0.64-0.78 on the 22-year running mean scale. TSI has stronger correlations to the Earth temperature than sunspot number. (4) During the past 100 years, solar activities display a clear increasing tendency that corresponds to the global warming of the Earth (including land and ocean) very well. Particularly, the ocean temperature has a slightly higher correlation to solar activity than the land temperature. All these demonstrate that solar activity has a non-negligible forcing on the temperature change of the Earth on the time scale of centuries. But you can read the entire article regarding sun spot activity and surface as well as ocean temps here http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/07/28/new-paper-finds-high-correlation-between-solar-activity-and-earths-temperature-over-centuries/ As i say, there are reasons to suspect other factors are at work, and sunspot activity has been well documented but apparently the IPCC dismisses its importance, and so arises the sceptics. Seems like an impressive article - but is the author Marc Morano a scientist? Why yes he is. He has a bachelor's degree from George Mason University in political science. A political scientist. So, you've quote a Republican talking head. Can you find someone with less credibility? Edited October 31, 2015 by ReeferMadness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts