Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong

Climate changes. CO2 is essential to all life. We are stardust.

Fun Facts wrote:

Climate changes.

TRUE. AGW is REAL, We must reduce CO2 emissions for our own good.

<quoted text>
CO2 is essential to all life.

Does life include lives that live on SO2 cycle?

The truth: the CO2 sensitivity is essential in life. The window of health is constrained by the CO2 partial pressure in a living organism.

<quoted text>
We are stardust.

Are you really?

I am a STAR ;)

truthist wrote:

<quoted text>TRUE. AGW is REAL, We must reduce CO2 emissions for our own good.
<quoted text>Does life include lives that live on SO2 cycle?
The truth: the CO2 sensitivity is essential in life. The window of health is constrained by the CO2 partial pressure in a living organism.
<quoted text>Are you really?
I am a STAR ;)

"The window of health is constrained by the CO2 partial pressure in a living organism. "

Don't ya just love the AGW crisis. It allows all kinds of people to wax all eloquent and science like: "The window of health is constrained by the CO2 partial pressure in a living organism. "

Don't ya just love the AGW crisis. It allows all kinds of people to wax all eloquent and science like.

"a new study this week suggests scientists' best predictions about global warming might be incorrect."

As we were informed by our resident soothsayer:

MattJ wrote:

It is unscientific in the extreme to make predictions

Are the deserts getting greener?
Sahara is experiencing a shift from dryer to wetter conditions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8150415.stm
"The heating of the Earth would result in more evaporation of the oceans, in turn resulting in more rainfall."

LOL wrote:

Are the deserts getting greener?
Sahara is experiencing a shift from dryer to wetter conditions.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8150415.stm
"The heating of the Earth would result in more evaporation of the oceans, in turn resulting in more rainfall."

That might upset a few warmist alarmists who have been predicting desertification.

Warmer = wetter = better.

JRS wrote:

<quoted text>
"The window of health is constrained by the CO2 partial pressure in a living organism. "
Don't ya just love the AGW crisis. It allows all kinds of people to wax all eloquent and science like: "The window of health is constrained by the CO2 partial pressure in a living organism. "
Don't ya just love the AGW crisis. It allows all kinds of people to wax all eloquent and science like.

Elaquent[sic]?

If you had "eloquent" in mind, I could take it as a compliment. However, it is a correct science statement.

Your love of AGW crisis is misunderstated in these forums.

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>
Warmer = wetter = better.

NONSENCE. That is not a TRUE statement.

Show us in scientific terms. You can NOT. You just make UNTRUE claims. BORING!

NONSENSE is the meaning/spelling I had in mind in #8.

Misspelling is contagious.

Earthling wrote:

<quoted text>That might upset a few warmist alarmists who have been predicting desertification.
Warmer = wetter = better.

Uh oh, you're going to have to get MattJ to give you the map.

JRS wrote:

<quoted text>
"The window of health is constrained by the CO2 partial pressure in a living organism. "
Don't ya just love the AGW crisis. It allows all kinds of people to wax all eloquent and science like: "The window of health is constrained by the CO2 partial pressure in a living organism. "
Don't ya just love the AGW crisis. It allows all kinds of people to wax all eloquent and science like.

I thought it was pretty straightforward English JRS. I also think it's a rather obvious statement and applies to a lot of substances besides CO2. Which words didn't you understand, that made you think it's "all eloquent and science like"?

Interesting new study:

Scientists find link between solar cycle and global climate similar to El Nino/La Nina. Credit: NCAR

Establishing a key link between the solar cycle and global climate, research led by scientists at the National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., shows that maximum solar activity and its aftermath have impacts on Earth that resemble La Niña and El Niño events in the tropical Pacific Ocean.

The research may pave the way toward predictions of temperature and precipitation patterns at certain times during the approximately 11-year solar cycle.

“These results are striking in that they point to a scientifically feasible series of events that link the 11-year solar cycle with ENSO, the tropical Pacific phenomenon that so strongly influences climate variability around the world,” says Jay Fein, program director in NSF’s Division of Atmospheric Sciences.“The next step is to confirm or dispute these intriguing model results with observational data analyses and targeted new observations.”

The total energy reaching Earth from the sun varies by only 0.1 percent across the solar cycle. Scientists have sought for decades to link these ups and downs to natural weather and climate variations and distinguish their subtle effects from the larger pattern of human-caused global warming.

Building on previous work, the NCAR researchers used computer models of global climate and more than a century of ocean temperature to answer longstanding questions about the connection between solar activity and global climate.

The research, published this month in a paper in the Journal of Climate, was funded by NSF, NCAR’s sponsor, and by the U.S. Department of Energy.

“We have fleshed out the effects of a new mechanism to understand what happens in the tropical Pacific when there is a maximum of solar activity,” says NCAR scientist Gerald Meehl, the paper’s lead author.“When the sun’s output peaks, it has far-ranging and often subtle impacts on tropical precipitation and on weather systems around much of the world.”

...As a result, the Pacific experiences an El Niño-like event about two years after solar maximum. The event settles down after about a year, and the system returns to a neutral state.

neighbour wrote:

<quoted text>
I thought it was pretty straightforward English JRS. I also think it's a rather obvious statement and applies to a lot of substances besides CO2. Which words didn't you understand, that made you think it's "all eloquent and science like"?

ROFLMHO!
"The window of health is constrained by the CO2 partial pressure in a living organism."
ROFLMHO!

Oh, how the AGW crisis peddlers try to simulate intelligence and expertise: "The window of health is constrained by the CO2 partial pressure in a living organism."

It reminds me of a hunting book sold during hunting season (good marketing strategy)
The only problem is that it was likely written by a city dweller that never went hunting. They descried the memorable hunt - father and son - the deer silouetted by the moon - shot it - life time memories - blah blah blah.

Problem = Night hunting is illegal

And other rubbish short stories betraying the ignorance of the writer(s) trying to simulate intelligence and expertise.

VERY SIMILAR TO AGW CRISIS PEDDLERS = "The window of health is constrained by the CO2 partial pressure in a living organism."

==========
VERY SIMILAR TO AGW CRISIS PEDDLERS = "The window of health is constrained by the CO2 partial pressure in a living organism."
==========

Dear JRS,

If you think intelligence and expertise can be simulated, you should try some.

Admit it: you like the picture I painted in words. I happen to think you also like me.

I noticed your indifference turned to fondness when I replied to your "shut up." My way touched your heart then.

I am present here, are you?

Earthling wrote:

Warmer = wetter = better.

As you said:

Earthling wrote:

Broad statements mean zilch.

truthist wrote:

NONSENCE. That is not a TRUE statement.
Show us in scientific terms. You can NOT. You just make UNTRUE claims. BORING!

Now let's see.

Ironically, some of the benefits come from the growth-promoting effect of the very greenhouse gas now causing so much alarm: carbon dioxide. Global yields of wheat and rice are expected to rise by 18 per cent, while yields of clover - a key foodstuff for grazing animals - looks set to rise by 36 per cent.

Global vegetation density seems to be benefiting already, with net gains in growth across the whole planet since the early 1980s. Even tropical forests and the Amazon are reported to be growing more luxuriant as CO2 levels rise.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/149187...

So in summary...
The whole AGW crisis is an overblown hoax.

You can tell it's a hoax because there's never been an experimental test on climate mitigation. We have thousands of atmospheric tests on manmade aerosols and cooling, but not a single test on manmade GHGs and warming.

WeElectedABunchOfIdiots wrote:

So in summary...
The whole AGW crisis is an overblown hoax.

If all the positives are ignored and only the negatives considered, yes, that's an excellent description.