NASA Study Indicates Antarctica is Gaining More Ice Than It's Losing -

[Steve R.]

Well if Mars is really undergoing global warming, the global warming crowd here may need to rethink their hypotheses. Obviously Mars may present a different set of possible causes for its apparent warming. Something to ponder.

No news concerning Venus.

Red Planet Heats Up: Ice Age Ending on Mars

Scientists find evidence of global warming on Mars

 

[isladogs]

Neither of the links in the previous post seem to be working.
The first isn't a URL. The second just doesn't load

 

[Steve R.]

Neither of the links in the previous post seem to be working.

Fixed. I hope. I usually check the links before posting. Must have overlooked it this time.

Red Planet Heats Up: Ice Age Ending on Mars

Scientists find evidence of global warming on Mars

 

[The_Doc_Man]

So will Al Gore publish another book for this event?

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

I found the following two links.

The first link Here:-
Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective

Leading to the second link:-
Ice Core Studies Prove CO2 Is Not the Powerful Climate Driver Climate Alarmists Make It Out to Be
Volume 6, Number 26: 25 June 2003

In the second link:-
I draw your attention to this comment "he concluded that "changes in CO2 concentration cannot be claimed to be the cause of changes in air temperature,"

Just to reiterate my position, I am aware that the climate is getting warmer, however I find it difficult to see the minuscule increase in CO2 emissions is the culprit.

Mind you it is definitely dangerous for the CO2 emissions to continue rising because they will eventually reach a level where CO2 is poisonous to humans!

In the interim, there is a good argument that an increase in CO2 levels will actually be beneficial.

 

[Galaxiom]

Well if Mars is really undergoing global warming, the global warming crowd here may need to rethink their hypotheses. Obviously Mars may present a different set of possible causes for its apparent warming. Something to ponder.

Climatic change on Mars is driven by its own Milankovitch Cycles just as these cycles underlay glaciation cycles on Earth. They are quite separate for each planet, being a product of changes in the axial tilt of the individual plant.

No correlations between warming on Mars and Earth can be drawn from it and absolutely no need to rethink any hypothesis. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of climate change science would know this and not draw any conclusion that the science needs to be reconsidered in the light of the article. In fact it strengthens the evidence for the science by validating the models' treatment of the Milankovitch Cyle in climate models of Earth.

Glaciation cycles on Earth are at a stage where the interglacial period should be ending with a slow decline in the temperature. This is is why scientists in the seventies were projecting an ice age. Climate change denialists like to point out this didn't happen as evidence for scientists being wrong. Ironically it strengthens the evidence for the carbon being the cause warming that has overwhelmed the natural cycle.

Those who claim the now undeniable warming they previously denied for so long is due to a planetary cycle need to nominate a mechanism that would be expected to cause the observed temperature rise. They can't because there isn't one.

 

[Galaxiom]

I found the following two links.

The first link Here:-
Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective

The first article makes the following unsubstantiated claim and bases their who case on it.

The real signature of greenhouse warming is not surface temperature but temperature in the middle of the troposphere, about 5 kilometers up.

 

[Galaxiom]

Leading to the second link:-
Ice Core Studies Prove CO2 Is Not the Powerful Climate Driver Climate Alarmists Make It Out to Be
Volume 6, Number 26: 25 June 2003

In the second link:-
I draw your attention to this comment "he concluded that "changes in CO2 concentration cannot be claimed to be the cause of changes in air temperature,"

Misleading by selective presentation of facts.

The whole story is clearly explained here.

 

[isladogs]

Just to reiterate my position, I am aware that the climate is getting warmer, however I find it difficult to see the minuscule increase in CO2 emissions is the culprit.

It isn't the sole culprit but it is a significant factor both in itself and in the fact that it amplifies the effects due to other causes
In 1975, CO2 comprised about 330ppm and has risen steadily since to about 405ppm in 2017.
That's a significant increase - certainly not miniscule. Its also far higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

Mind you it is definitely dangerous for the CO2 emissions to continue rising because they will eventually reach a level where CO2 is poisonous to humans!

No argument there

In the interim, there is a good argument that an increase in CO2 levels will actually be beneficial.

Really? Please could you give details of what the benefits will be globally.

...No news concerning Venus.

I realise that was a 'throwaway' comment and not intended to be taken seriously.
However, comparing the average temperatures of Mercury ('negligible' atmosphere) and Venus (atmosphere largely CO2), Venus does of course provide clear evidence for the effects of greenhouse gases on raising surface temperatures

 

[AccessBlaster]

It isn't the sole culprit but it is a significant factor both in itself and in the fact that it amplifies the effects due to other causes
In 1975, CO2 comprised about 330ppm and has risen steadily since to about 405ppm in 2017.
That's a significant increase - certainly not miniscule. Its also far higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years
https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...carbon-dioxide

In your link you quote a science writer, Author: Rebecca Lindsey. She has a monetary interest in the out come of her articles. NOAA itself has been accused of data manipulation. Google NOAA controversies. Just like YouTube NOAA is another sketchy source with their own partisan and monetary motivations. Will the next quote come from Bill Nye the science guy?

 

[isladogs]

In your link you quote a science writer, Author: Rebecca Lindsey. She has a monetary interest in the out come of her articles. NOAA itself has been accused of data manipulation. Google NOAA controversies. Just like YouTube NOAA is another sketchy source with their own partisan and monetary motivations. Will the next quote come from Bill Nye the science guy?

Ha!
I'm not going to spend any time arguing about whether the author or NOAA may or may not be biased.
The only point in providing the link was to reference the data showing CO2 levels over time.
Just a statement of facts...not opinions .
There are plenty of other places that data can be found including
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/24/graphic-the-relentless-rise-of-carbon-dioxide/
https://www.co2levels.org/

For info, the CO2 level measured at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii exceeded 415ppm for the first time in May 2019 and the global average for this year is expected to be around 411ppm. One of many links for this info is
https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/14/co2-levels-record-high-first-time-human-existence-9523919/

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Really? Please could you give details of what the benefits will be globally.

Since plants take in CO2 for photosynthesis, if there is more of it, they will do better.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

If plants grow better, we get more food. This isn't a bad thing.

 

[isladogs]

I was expecting that response.
The article you quote clearly states that whilst increased greening has occurred in conjunction with the increase in CO2 levels, the cause is due to a number of factors as well as CO2. Also that the specific amount thought to be due to CO2 itself is based on models rather than data. In other words, similar to the models you have been objecting to repeatedly in terms of climate change.
Furthermore, the article makes it clear, both in the title and the artic itself, that this is likely to be a temporary increase in greening as plants adjust to the amount of CO2 available

 

[Galaxiom]

Since plants take in CO2 for photosynthesis, if there is more of it, they will do better.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

If plants grow better, we get more food. This isn't a bad thing.

As both Colin and the authors pointed out, it is a very superficial treatment of the subject with nothing but a computer model that has not been verified or calibrated in any way.

Moreover, carbon fertilisation only makes a difference if CO2 is the limiting factor in growth. Doesn't matter how much CO2 you have if water or some other nutrient is the limit, which is often the case.

It also depends on the type of photosynthesis employed by the plant. Higher temperatures drastically reduce the efficiency of plants using C3 photosynthesis and they make up the bulk of the food producing crops.

The subject is vastly more complex than the simplistic notion DocMan uncritically sucked up from the denialist website where he read about it. This is typical of his kind, who pretend to understand the science but actually haven't a clue. (Dunning-Kruger strikes again)

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-carbon-dioxide-boost-plantgrowth.html

 

[Galaxiom]

I[CO2] isn't the sole culprit but it is a significant factor both in itself and in the fact that it amplifies the effects due to other causes

Actually most of the climate models show that almost all or even more than all of the observed global temperature rise is cause by human carbon pollution.

When fed with pre-industrial atmospheric carbon concentrations many of the climate models project a fall in global temperature consistent with the fact that natural cycles are on the cusp of ending the current interglacial period.

The average calculation is that 110 percent of the warming is due to human emissions.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans

 

[AccessBlaster]

Actually most of the climate models show that almost all or even more than all of the observed global temperature rise is cause by human carbon pollution.

When fed with pre-industrial atmospheric carbon concentrations many of the climate models project a fall in global temperature consistent with the fact that natural cycles are on the cusp of ending the current interglacial period.

The average calculation is that 110 percent of the warming is due to human emissions.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans

Any author, any link can be countered by opposing arguments. This is tactic can be used to discredit anyone. https://realclimatescience.com/2017/08/todays-featured-climate-fraudster-zeke-hausfather/

Zeke Hausfather of Berkeley Earth has become the go to guy for disinformation about the temperature record, for climate fraud publications like the Guardian and New York Times. Zeke parrots over and over again that NOAA/NASA temperature adjustments warm the past.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Any author, any link can be countered by opposing arguments.

Exactly, which is why I prefer to do my own thinking.

To me, it's such a minute increase in the amount of carbon dioxide (as compared to the total volume of the atmosphere) that it just seems very unlikely that it is having such a profound effect.

Now the counter argument to this is that it is a small effect but it is being amplified by other things.

I can see that argument has merit, however it also has a big flaw, for example we have tarmacked and built upon many acres of the land, and this is obviously having a small effect, which you could argue the same in that it is producing its own amplification. I could list many similar things that could be responsible, and indeed it might well be a combination of many things.

It looks to me more like someone looked at the increase in carbon dioxide and said Ah! There's the culprit! Now, it could well be the culprit, but I've seen nothing that convinces me, all I see is a convenient association.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

 

[AccessBlaster]

Science is akin to religion, mere mortals can neither prove or disprove certain facts. We take it on FAITH, what we are being told is factual.

 

[Galaxiom]

Science is akin to religion, mere mortals can neither prove or disprove certain facts. We take it on FAITH, what we are being told is factual.

Except science actually delivers on its promises, confirming it truths beyond possibility of denial.

We live in a world now dominated by devices based on Quantum technologies that defy the notions of common sense.

Meanwhile the religious have waited two millennia for the promise made by Christ to return within the lifetime of some of the people he was speaking to.

 

[Galaxiom]

Exactly, which is why I prefer to do my own thinking.

Unfortunately you have been proven incapable of drawing logical conclusions because you clearly don't understand the science.

"Thinking for yourself" underpins a whole range of modern maladies such as flat-Earth Movement and the anti-vaxers to name just a couple.

Some people have decided to reclaim the notion of science for themselves but aren't interested in going to the trouble of understanding what is actually known.