NASA Report: Dying Forests Are Really Bad For Climate Change

What’s causing the forests to die? Apparently, the very trace gas they need for life

(UK Express) While most scientists say that global warming is a byproduct of human activity, particularly in the industrial age, new research has found trees, which are meant to be saving us from doom, are actually contributing to our downfall.

Trees are known to absorb CO2 and produce oxygen.

However, research from Nasa’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, has found little carbon dioxide is being absorbed by Earth’s biggest tropical forests which is causing them to die off.

As the trees in the forests die, they rot and release large amounts of CO2 contributing to global warming.

But as more trees die, more CO2 is produced, leading to the death of more trees in what is a slippery downward spiral for the planet.

Wait, wait, did they just say that CO2 is killing trees? Anyway

One of the main contributing factors to this has been an increase in the strength of El Nino – warm ocean temperatures – over the last few decades. (snip)

“Our analysis shows this extra carbon dioxide explains the difference in atmospheric carbon dioxide growth rates between 2011 and the peak years of 2015-16.

So, really, nature is doing this. Yet another nail in the coffin of Warmism/

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

88 Responses to “NASA Report: Dying Forests Are Really Bad For Climate Change”

  1. Zachriel says:

    William Teach: So, really, nature is doing this.

    Actually, based on observations from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, Liu et al. tentatively found that El Niño events combine with global warming to damage forests. Damaged forests release CO2, which causes more warming. It’s a positive feedback.

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    Zero proof that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

    Zero CO2 warming signature in any reliable temperature data set.

    Zero, nada, zilch.

    • Zachriel says:

      drowningpuppies: Zero proof that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere.

      Actually, the greenhouse effect is basic physics. The simplest direct evidence is that the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere are warming while the lower stratosphere is cooling.

      • david7134 says:

        Don’t desire to break it to you z but your grafts do not show much.

        • Zachriel says:

          david7134: Don’t desire to break it to you z but your grafts do not show much.

          The graphs show the global lower troposphere and surface anomalies are increasing, while the global lower stratosphere anomalies are decreasing, consistent with an increase in the greenhouse effect.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Yep, the Zzz cannot cite the study that shows empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convectively controlled atmosphere.
          Graphs with different colored lines doesn’t prove it.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: Graphs with different colored lines doesn’t prove it.

            It’s evidence supporting the hypothesis. It’s a stronger argument than “Is not!”, even if you repeat it over and over again.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            So cite the paper or study.
            All your graphs show are changes in the temp anomalies.
            Hardly empirical evidence of manmade CO2 causing global warming.
            Any way, there’s been no statistically significant rise in temps globally since around 2000, and certainly nothing outside of the natural range of temps planet earth has experienced in the past.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: So cite the paper or study.

            Um, the data sources are indicated on the graph, including HadAT2, and UAH, RSS.

            drowningpuppies: Hardly empirical evidence of manmade CO2 causing global warming.

            It’s evidence of an increasing greenhouse effect. Did you need data on the atmospheric composition of greenhouse gases?

            drowningpuppies: Any way, there’s been no statistically significant rise in temps globally since around 2000

            From 2000-present (2-sigma)
            HadCRUT4: 0.165 ±0.119°C/decade
            NOAA: 0.204 ±0.123°C/decade
            UAHv5.6: 0.193 ±0.176°C/decade

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Nice try, kidz. You’re not really paying attention.

            Where is the study or paper that proves empirically that man made CO2 causes warming in a convectively controlled atmosphere?

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: Where is the study or paper that proves empirically that man made CO2 causes warming in a convectively controlled atmosphere?

            Science doesn’t deal in proof, as with mathematics, but in evidence, as with hypothetico-deduction. For the very basics, you can calculate the graybody temperature of the Earth yourself. You will find that the Earth’s surface is much warmer than would be expected without the greenhouse effect. This answers your question about convection. For more specifics, you might start with Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896. As for direct empirical evidence, if the greenhouse effect is increasing, then we would expect that the surface and lower troposphere would warm, while the lower stratosphere would cool. And that is what we observe.

            There is a lot more evidence, but let’s start with the basics.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            You’ve cut and pasted all these arguments before and then spin, rinse, repeat… but you still don’t answer the basic question.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: you still don’t answer the basic question.

            We provided the basis for the hypothesis (Arrhenius 1896), and evidence supporting the hypothesis (warming surface and troposphere, cooling lower stratosphere). You have said “Is not!” several times. Feel free to suggest an alternative scientific hypothesis to explain the data.

      • Fargo says:

        Why does the stratosphere cool when the troposphere warms?
        Filed under: Attic — gavin @ 7 December 2004 – (Français)
        This post is obsolete and wrong in many respects. Please see this more recent post for links to the answer.

        14/Jan/05: This post was updated in the light of my further education in radiation physics.
        25/Feb/05: Groan…and again.

        but in 2005 the science was settled. All the answers were gleaned. Knowledge is truth.

        However when you go back to 2004-2011 the numbers posted by NOAA and UAH showed almost no cooling and in fact they showed a rise in temperature by .4 of one degree C. Once this was pointed out repeatedly to NOAA they took down their whole site for several weeks and when it emerged. The truth was known suddenly the Stratosphere was cooling and not warming.

        I mean after all they had to make their numbers jive with the science is settled meme so they could continue getting their funding, stipends and grants to verify a political position.

        The science is not settled. For every post you point to all I see is a beleagured scientist with his fingers in all the wholes in his hypothesis like the little dutch boy about to watch the Dike collapse.

        • Zachriel says:

          Fargo: However when you go back to 2004-2011 the numbers posted by NOAA and UAH showed almost no cooling and in fact they showed a rise in temperature by .4 of one degree C.

          Climate science does not predict monotonic trends, so your claim doesn’t impact the hypothesis. In any case, you didn’t provide any specifics that can be examined.

  3. Jeffery says:

    From where does that extra heat released from the El Ninos come?

    • david7134 says:

      Who cares?

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Not sure what little jeffvcktard means by “extra heat” but this study is interesting.

      http://earthsky.org/earth/tropical-volcanoes-trigger-el-ninos

    • Zachriel says:

      The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a natural circulation pattern, a source of internal variability. The normal trade winds are easterlies, which push warm surface waters towards Asia. When exceptionally strong, it causes an upwelling of cool waters in the eastern Pacific, La Niña. When the easterlies weaken or reverse they push warm waters to the eastern Pacific, El Niño.

      When you add global warming, the hypothesis is that El Niño combined with warming temperatures will overly stress forests.

      • Rotterdam says:

        Executive Summary

        1. The main mechanisms by which forests modify weather have been identified.
        They are the surface albedo, transpiration and evaporation of water vapour,
        aerodynamic effects, and emission of hydrocarbons whose oxidation can form
        aerosol particles.

        2. Different mechanisms are dominant for each class of forest. Boreal forests affect
        local weather and climate via their low albedos, causing a local warming.
        Temperate forests modify weather via the albedo and transpiration of moisture,
        but their exact impacts on climate are the least certain. Tropical forests cool
        climate via their very high transpiration rates; the moisture transferred to the
        atmosphere forms large clouds which reflect incoming solar energy and cause a
        further cooling.

        Noted here is that El Nino’s actually cool the planet using heat build up. Not warm it. El nino’s kick up tremendous amounts of water vapour increasing cloud cover which creates a cooling effect which offsets any heat build up. That is basic science.

        3. Forests have a cooling impact on global climate via the uptake of carbon dioxide.
        Deforestation releases the carbon back to the atmosphere causing a warming.
        Tropical forests absorb the largest amounts of carbon dioxide.

        Anyone getting this here>? The clear cutting of the tropical rain forests are having what kind of effect on the warming/cooling of the planet?

        This report is from the EU forests_annex1.pdf. I only point out what most people understand to be relevant to the deforestation of the rain forests all over the world not just In Brazil but in Indonesia, central Africa as well as basically along the equator.

        Why is the planet warming. Because the world is defoliating the rain forests. Its not rocket science. Its hiding in plain sight. I just grow so weary of the communists going after the West’s strength. Energy using bogus science to deflect the real issues facing this planet.

        • Jeffery says:

          El nino’s kick up tremendous amounts of water vapour increasing cloud cover which creates a cooling effect which offsets any heat build up.

          And yet each El Nino significantly WARMS the entire Earth for a year or two after the event. And the overall trend is that the Earth is warming, even after the El Nino has done your magic to “cool” the Earth. The truth is that El Ninos/La Ninas and other phenomena are superimposed on the continual warming of the planet driven by the greenhouse effect.

        • Zachriel says:

          Rotterdam: 1. The main mechanisms by which forests modify weather have been identified. They are the surface albedo, transpiration and evaporation of water vapour, aerodynamic effects, and emission of hydrocarbons whose oxidation can form aerosol particles.

          Gosh. What will those climate scientists come up with next?!

          Rotterdam: Noted here is that El Nino’s actually cool the planet using heat build up. Not warm it. El nino’s kick up tremendous amounts of water vapour increasing cloud cover which creates a cooling effect which offsets any heat build up.

          The global surface temperature is higher during El Niño, cooler during La Niña. That does mean the Earth is emitting more heat energy though, not because of clouds, but because a warmer object radiates more energy.

          Rotterdam: Why is the planet warming. Because the world is defoliating the rain forests.

          Yes, that’s one cause of global warming, as is the manufacture of concrete, as is the burning of fossil fuels.

          • Rotterdam says:

            Zachriel your sarcasm does not go unnoticed. You write exactly like Jeffery which I am assuming this is another Pseudonym for him.

            Cherry picking my post.

            Let me repeat for even a fake scientist like you to understand.

            Tropical forests cool
            climate via their very high transpiration rates; the moisture transferred to the
            atmosphere forms large clouds which reflect incoming solar energy and cause a
            further cooling.

            The slow rise in mean Global temperatures can be summarized in one short sentence.

            AGW is the result of the clear cutting of massive co2 sinks and global cooling mechanisms. The Rain forests.

            El nino’s and La nina’s have been with us for at least 2.5 million years. 125,000 years ago it was 1-2 degrees Celsius warmer then today and mankind began to thrive. A warmer planet is only bad for communists who want to extort trillions of dollars from them by shaming them into thinking they are responsible for a global catastrophe.

          • Zachriel says:

            Rotterdam: You write exactly like Jeffery which I am assuming this is another Pseudonym for him.

            Hardly. We even noted where he may have been wrong. In any case, we directed addressed your claim about tropical forests,

            Rotterdam: Tropical forests cool

            True.

            Rotterdam: AGW is the result of the clear cutting of massive co2 sinks and global cooling mechanisms. The Rain forests.

            False. The amount of CO2 emitted by deforestation is subject to measurement (which accounts for roughly 15% of total emissions, and includes more than just the wood), and is not sufficient to account for the increase in atmospheric CO2. See Harris et al., Baseline Map of Carbon Emissions from Deforestation in Tropical Regions, Science 2012.

            Rotterdam: El nino’s and La nina’s have been with us for at least 2.5 million years.

            True. ENSO is a natural internal climate variation. It results in a warming and cooling cycle with the oceans acting as a capacitor, resulting in no overall net change to the global temperature over time.

  4. Jeffery says:

    TEACH: You imply that the El Nino are causing the Earth to warm. Where do the El Nino get their heat?

    El Nino release significant amounts of heat into the atmosphere. Then the oceans reheat and release more heat to the atmosphere. Why do the oceans keep warming and releasing heat into the atmosphere? Or, why is the Earth warming?

    And no, African volcanoes are not causing the Earth to warm.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      And no, African volcanoes are not causing the Earth to warm.

      No one wrote or implied they did.

      From where does that extra stupid in your comments come from, huh, little jeffvcktard?

      • Rotterdam says:

        Actually take the time to read this.

        An article written in the UK Telegraph. Hardly a right wing newspaper.

        How razing the rainforest has created a devastating drought in Brazil
        Twenty million people in Sao Paolo now face severe rationing due to the disruption of the far-away Amazon’s rain-making machine

        But population growth and other environmental factors are also to blame. Climate change is believed to have had an effect. So is the way that cities burn so much energy they become ‘heat islands’, sucking up moisture. But perhaps the biggest and most alarming factor behind the drought is deforestation in the Amazon basin to the north.

        Study after study has now shown that the vast Amazonian forest generates its own rain, with the trees continuously recycling moisture blown in on easterly winds from the Atlantic. The rain-laden winds go on traveling west until they hit the high barrier of the Andes, and then turn south and east, dumping rain over the agricultural lands that form Brazil’s breadbasket and Sao Paolo itself. This giant rain making machine is now breaking down as its constituent parts disappear.

        What does this have to do with El Nino’s? Nothing other than to say you AGW communists who want to extort guilt money from the west for trying to make us all believe we are at fault for destroying the world are no more at fault then is the countries that are destroying all of us.

        Truly destroying all of us. The clear cutting and burning of the LUNGS of the world is a severe danger to the entire world that cannot be overcome by taxing gasoline or oil or driving battery cars or building windmills.

        Its why my true mission, job and life long work has been consumed by conservation, and the protection of the one thing in this world that cant be fixed. The rain forests.

        And people like you Jeffery have set back our work a 1000 years with your bemoaning of fossil fuels as the culprit because you want to turn the world to communism. The problem is by the time you succeed there wont be a world left to give a care about.

        • Jeffery says:

          Rot,

          Although you exaggerate our influence, you raise a valid point – we should all be working to save the world’s tropical rain forests.

          To be clear, scientists disagree with your position that the reduction in the rain forests are the primary driver of global warming.

          Would you stop corporations from cutting the forests?

          Would you stop/compensate the small farmers trying to scratch a living out of the rain forests?

          Is it possible to save the rain forests AND slow greenhouse gas emissions?

          Cheap shot: Have you taken up arms to confront those in the jungles of Amazon who are cutting down trees?

          • Rotterdam says:

            We are always hiring.

            Objectives

            1. New collective territories and conservation units (e.g. national or regional parks) established and management of existing areas and territories consolidated as result of participatory planning processes, zoning and resource management plans, analysis of conservation effectiveness, and organizational strengthening of the local community.

            2. Ethnic territories engaged in sustainable forest management and sustainable agricultural production activities validating traditional and local knowledge, with concrete benefits distributed equitably according to gender. Support and training will be provided as part of territorial planning processes, and assistance for forest certification as a market mechanism to improve commercialisation opportunities.

            3. Local communities and grassroots organizations influencing national, regional or local policies and processes regarding development and resource use as a result of training in negotiation skills and citizen participation.

            4. Community-based organizations and NGO partners are strengthened and demonstrate improved institutional capacity to execute projects both individually and in alliance with other organizations through training provided in administrative systems and other aspects of organizational strengthening.

            5. A more favourable policy/legislative framework for the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources is strengthened and consistent with the objectives of key international conventions (Conventions on Biological Diversity and Climate Change, and Intergovernmental Forests Panel).

  5. Jeffery says:

    Anyone? Why is the Earth rapidly warming?

    • Gregg says:

      Most likely due to the big furnace that provides most of our warmth. Hint, it’s a big burning ball that you can see during the day.

      • Jeffery says:

        Most likely due to the big furnace

        We have a winner! Yet, the amount of energy hitting Earth has not increased over the past century as the Earth has continued to warm. The increase in heat retention is from the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases.

    • Rotterdam says:

      So once again from the comfort of your little office type out how the earth is warming and that the communists must seize control of the power on this planet or risk annihilation, yet you yourself ignore some of the real problems and as I hear you drive a small car.

      Warming is most likely the result of many things, Volcanoes, the heat in the pacific rim which is rapidly escalating over the course of the last century. By some estimates you have 72 billion animals belching methane every year. Volcanoes spew methane and co2 as does the entire pacific rim fires below the ocean.

      The sun provides about 85-90 percent of the warming. Forest fires burning around the globe burn off an enormous amount of co2 which adds not only to the co2 count but the massive heat alone could contribute by themselves an estimated .01 Celsius rise in earth temperature each year.

      From what Ive read but by no means is it my field of study is that the earth about 750 million-530 million years ago was almost completely frozen over. A giant ice ball. 125,000 years ago temperatures may have been 1-2 degrees warmer then today and the oceans were 5-13 meters higher then they are today.

      Another theory as to why we had great extinction level events is that the massive strikes by meteors actually was so hot that it caused an enormous burn off of coal beds. Resulting in coal being burned on the planet for nearly 200,000 years.

      But moving back to today. What are you doing about it. You seem to be the one that is the most worried by global warming. Why have you not sold off all your property and given it to foundations who are actually down in Brazil, Central and South America attempting to make a difference? How many protests have you attended in the USA at all those nuclear meetings to try and fix the expulsion of co2.

      Were you one of those who gave to the fund to stop the use of Yucca Mountain after it was built by Harry Reid who then stopped it from being used to store your nations nuclear fuel rods?

      What exactly is your purpose in life, other then to whine about police defending themselves from the 57,000 assaults they were subjected too last year alone protecting You? Or calling Trump names because he dares to try and fix your infrastructure, tax imbalance, return jobs from a globalist economy and instill pride in your own nation?

      What is your purpose Mr. Jeffery? Other then to claim co2 is the sole cause of rising temperatures in the world?

      You will simply deflect everything I just wrote and ask of me the same question. So let me cut that one off at the beginning.

      Me? My purpose? Is to expose communism and communists when I find them and to remind everyone how truly, truly evil communism was and is. It is so evil that if you never lived through its effects you have no idea what is in store for this world when America finally falls to the third column within.

      America must fight this third column. It is why Trump and his nationalists are so hated by the left. It stops cold in their tracks their agenda for the destruction of the USA from within.

      • Zachriel says:

        Rotterdam: Volcanoes, the heat in the pacific rim which is rapidly escalating over the course of the last century

        Heat from volcanoes is negligible, but they can cause significant changes to the atmosphere, primarily particulate pollution, which tends to cool the climate over the short term. Over geological timescales, volcanoes also add CO2.

        Rotterdam: The sun provides about 85-90 percent of the warming.

        Virtually all heat in the climate system comes from solar irradiation. However, the question concerns *changes* to global surface heat. Solar irradiation has been relatively stable, so does not account for the observed global warming. Nor would it explain the cooling of the lower stratosphere.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Nor would it explain the cooling of the lower stratosphere.

          Simply put, stratospheric temperatures are maintained by concentrations of ozone. If ozone levels decline, temperatures fall.
          Certainly, the IPCC recognizes the connection between declining ozone and stratospheric cooling. Various reports establish this link, including a 2005 report, ‘Safeguarding the Ozone Layer and the Global Climate System,’ which notes: “Stratospheric ozone depletion has led to a cooling of the stratosphere. A significant annual-mean cooling of the lower stratosphere over the past two decades (of approximately 0.6 K per decade) has been found over the mid-latitudes of both hemispheres.”
          This helps explain why, even as increased solar activity was driving a rise in surface temperatures, declining ozone was leading to a progressive cooling in the stratosphere.

          https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/14/is-ozone-recovery-warming-the-stratosphere-and-adding-credence-to-solar-variability/

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: Simply put, stratospheric temperatures are maintained by concentrations of ozone.

            Thank you for attempting to address the evidence.

            Ozone has less effect at higher altitudes, but higher altitudes show greater cooling trends, consistent with greenhouse warming. See Randel et al., Stratospheric Temperature Trends over 1979–2015 Derived from Combined SSU, MLS, and SABER Satellite Observations, Journal of Climate 2016.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            And thank you for ignoring the hypothesis.
            Randel et.al doesn’t dispute the ozone hypothesis put forward.

            Mid-and upper-stratospheric temperatures show larger cooling over the first half of the data record (1979-97) compared to the second half (1998-2015), reflecting differences in upper-stratospheric ozone trends between these periods.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: Randel et.al doesn’t dispute the ozone hypothesis put forward.

            We didn’t say ozone didn’t have an effect, but that the effect is attenuated at higher altitudes; hence seeing an increase in the cooling effect is consistent with greenhouse cooling.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Actually,

            This helps explain why, even as increased solar activity was driving a rise in surface temperatures, declining ozone was leading to a progressive cooling in the stratosphere.

            That is not “consistent” with the “greenhouse theory”.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: That is not “consistent” with the “greenhouse theory”.

            How so? We have a cooling of the stratosphere, some of which is due to ozone depletion, but some of which is not. Nor does your hypothesis explain surface warming.

          • Zachriel says:

            According to NASA, cooling due to ozone depletion is about 2% of greenhouse warming.

    • Why is the Earth rapidly warming?

      It’s not. It sees fits and starts of gradual warming. Nothing to freak out about, mostly has nothing to do with Mankind, just the natural cycle of the Earth.

      • Jeffery says:

        TEACH is incorrect. The Earth’s avg surface temperature has increased 1C over the past century, now likely exceeding the greatest temperature of the entire Holocene. This is rapid in geologic terms, warming 10 times faster than when Earth came out of the last glacial period.

        ABout 5000 years ago the Earth started to cool gradually with the mean global surface temperature decreasing about 0.6C until the end of the Little Ice Age. So in 5000 years the Earth cooled 0.6C and the following 100 years it warmed 1C (and continues to warm).

        It’s possible that the Earth increases a degree C or three over a century and just as rapidly cools, but the temperature record doesn’t reveal this happening.

        What are these other typical Holocene warming periods you reference?

        What natural cycle can you identify that caused this abrupt warming?

  6. Jeffery says:

    Rot,

    You are obsessed with the notion that an imaginary communist movement is trying to take over the US, if not the world. Keep fighting comrade! But if you actually believe that the 65% of Americans who find tRump and his performance unsatisfactory are closet communists you’re insane. John McCain trashed tRump and Bannon last night – is John McCain a communist?

    Another commenter previously claimed that secret volcanoes were warming the planet. That commenter blamed the direct release of heat by the undersea volcanoes. You say the volcanoes are releasing CO2 and methane sufficient to cause warming (other commenters here deny that greenhouse gases can cause warming – why do you believe otherwise?), without any evidence to support that claim (pro tip – there is no evidence to support that claim, as the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is from burned fossil fuels).

    Of course the Sun is the source of the warming (even in this cool phase), and the increased greenhouse gases are causing the Earth to retain more heat, which distributes between the oceans, the land and the atmosphere. This heat redistributes between the oceans and atmosphere as El Ninos, La Ninas, PDO etc.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Another commenter previously claimed that secret volcanoes were warming the planet. That commenter blamed the direct release of heat by the undersea volcanoes.

      Except you’re lying again, little jeffvcktard.
      You made it up just like man-made global warming and you joining the Army in 1971.

      Where does all your extra stupid come from?

    • david7134 says:

      Good attempt at one more lie jeff. We claimed that the reason for ice melting was volcano’s, not atmospheric heat, a claim that has been proven. But, never let you reshape words to your own benefit. And Yes, the whole climate religion is based on a desire for global government with a communistic core.

      • Zachriel says:

        Rotterdam: Warming is most likely the result of many things, Volcanoes, the heat in the pacific rim which is rapidly escalating over the course of the last century.

    • Rotterdam says:

      Pretty much nothing about your post makes a bit of sense. You asked a question.

      Anyone? Why is the Earth rapidly warming?

      I put forth many reasons as to why the earth could be warming more quickly then in centuries past. No where did I claim a single source was the cause but rather multiple sources could be the source.

      I have claimed from the beginning that I believe the planet is warming. You claim it is exclusively from CO2. Yet how do you explain that 125,000 years ago when man was non existent, that the earth was 1-2 degrees Celsius warmer then today? Additionally you do realize that this warmer period is what set mankind on its beginnings.

      Regardless of Why the planet was warmer. The fact is that it was warmer and mankind not only survived but flourished as best he could given his primitive nature.

      But again I ask you what have you done to solve global warming? Other then bash skeptics and assault them personally? Why are you not down in Brazil stopping the crazy South Americans from destroying the planet? Or even better since you most likely love Muslims. Why are you not in Indonesia stopping the rain forests there from being clear cut?

      What have you done? I bet I have done more for the AGW movement then you have and I dont spend time bashing people for being deniers or skeptics. You make the movement sad. Your nothing but a blow hard and your words most likely betray who you claim you are. (Pro-tip? Seriously? I had to ask my grandson what that even meant and its a term used by online gamers.) So most likely your a High School or College student claiming to be something else brainwashed by your liberal, crazed professors or teachers into Antifa like antics to get your way.

      Now if you’ll excuse me I have to leave Germany and head back to the Netherlands so I wont be able to respond anymore for a couple days.

      • Zachriel says:

        Rotterdam: You claim it is exclusively from CO2. Yet how do you explain that 125,000 years ago when man was non existent, that the earth was 1-2 degrees Celsius warmer then today?

        What will those crazy climate scientists come up with next?!

        In any case, climate scientists point to a variety of mechanisms that affect historical climate, including solar irradiance, volcanism, orbital variations, continental drift, mountain building, variations in sea currents, changes in greenhouse gases, even cometary impacts. However, the current warming trend only makes sense when including anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

        • david7134 says:

          z,
          No, it does not make sense that a minor increase in a trace gas is an influence of such magnitude, especially since your computer models consistently fail. Now, most of your “scientist” are being paid by government grants and the discourse is that climate is associated with CO2, so to get paid they come up with what the payer desires to here. You know, like when some one has any different opinion they must be on the take from Exxon (which I don’t understand as Exxon is milking this as well). I consistently use a parallel in medical science with Jeff associated with the cholesterol myth. For 50 years scientist told us that cholesterol causes heart disease, now it is found to have nothing at all to do with any disease, and the mechanism is a little known inflammation of the arteries that has nothing to do with blood fats at all (Juniper trial).

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: it does not make sense that a minor increase in a trace gas is an influence of such magnitude

            Keep in mind that if there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average temperature would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is.

            Monatomic and homonuclear diatomic molecules are virtually unaffected by infrared energy; consequently, nitrogen, oxygen and argon are not greenhouse gases, so can be ignored. Greenhouse gases, those that absorb and emit infrared radiation, include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone, each with its own thermal footprint. Carbon dioxide constitutes about a fourth of the greenhouse effect. Consequently, small changes can have a significant effect on global mean surface temperature.

            david7134: Now, most of your “scientist” are being paid by government grants and the discourse is that climate is associated with CO2

            The basics of Earth’s greenhouse effect were discovered over a century ago, and the discovery had nothing to do with anthropogenic emission. See Arrhenius, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, London, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1896.

          • david7134 says:

            Nice string of lies z.

            If that is the quality of your debate society, you suck.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: Nice string of lies

            Are you saying the Earth atmosphere does not exhibit a greenhouse effect? Or that monatomic and homonuclear diatomic molecules are not virtually unaffected by infrared energy? Or that greenhouse gases, those that absorb and emit infrared radiation, do not include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone, each with its own thermal footprint? Or that the basics of Earth’s greenhouse effect were not discovered over a century ago, well before concerns about anthropogenic emissions?

          • david7134 says:

            z,
            You actually referenced an ABC report. What a dumb a–.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: You actually referenced an ABC report.

            We cited Arrhenius 1896.

          • david7134 says:

            Z,
            I have noticed that when pseudo-intellects can’s respond in a satisfactory manner, they either turn to statics or some conglomeration of scientific terms that they think will not be understood. Unfortunately I have more than a college education. I am not in any way going to go through the process of dissecting out your bull. Just suffice it to say you have not proven any given point on your precious CO2.

          • david7134 says:

            z,
            sorry on my end something is screwed up on replies deal with it.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: I am not in any way going to go through the process of dissecting out your bull.

            But you will go out of your way to say you won’t go out of your way.

            All our claims above are well-substantiated.

    • Bob spelled backwards says:

      “is John McCain a communist?” – his end stage brain cancer may explain why he sees things your way.

      • Jeffery says:

        boB,

        We’re not sure Senator McCain sees things our way, but it’s clear he doesn’t see thing tRump’s way. Are you saying that everyone who opposes tRump is a communist???

        Did you read Senator McCain’s speech? It was better than anything the cretin tRump has said, ever.

      • Bill589 says:

        McCain is now certainly fighting for the communists and against our Republic.

        • david7134 says:

          If you look up McCain’s record you will find that he helped the communist as a prisoner. Not much of a hero.

          • Zachriel says:

            The reason why other service members think so highly of McCain is because he could have been released from imprisonment early, but there was a rule among the prisoners that those held the longest would be released first. McCain refused to take release before his turn, and for that, he was repeatedly tortured.

          • david7134 says:

            Z.
            That is incorrect or obfuscation. The details of McCain’s activities are well documented and many do not accept the fact that he was so great.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: The details of McCain’s activities are well documented and many do not accept the fact that he was so great.

            John McCain

        • david7134 says:

          z,
          An ABC report?? If you are going to play with men, come up with a better, neutral reference. McCain was and is a POS.

          • Zachriel says:

            Ad hominem is a form of handwaving. You don’t contest any of the details of the report, but reject it because of the source.

            We understand that the right-wing has sent its flying monkeys after McCain for criticizing Trump. That McCain was tortured, refused early release, then was tortured some more, is a matter of record.

          • Jeffery says:

            We disagree with Senator McCain on most of his political positions, but there is little question that he has served this nation honorably, both as a pilot and as a Senator. Even President Obama’s campaign did not denigrate Mr. McCain the way his so-called “friends” have.

            What we’re seeing now is a broader symptom of tRumpism, neither conservative, nor libertarian, but rather authoritarian white nationalism pure and simple. tRump is no idiot and has played the far-right to get his 15 min, hr and months of adoration and validation. Anyone that opposes him must be destroyed. tRump does not understand or appreciate America – he knows little of our ideals and principles.

            tRump is not just a bad president, but is also a bad, bad man.

          • david7134 says:

            z,
            I have been trained in critical thinking. I go to journal clubs and multiple topics are discussed all with critical analysis. The very first thing that you look at is the source of the information you are presented with. About 80% of the time you can dispense with the assertions on analysis of that along. You presented information on McCain from Stars and Stripes, that is an immediate discount. Then once you have determined that the information or article is coming from a legitimate source or authority, then you look at why the article was written, by whom and what was the purpose of the author in writing the article (Jeff writes articles, his are for monetary gain, so this is taken into consideration with a great degree of skepticism). I have seen many medical article that are out right lies. Then you look at the stats used and finally the weakness of the articles assumptions. Only then do you accept the information as an authority. You have never presented a thing that makes it to that level nor has Jeff.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: You presented information on McCain from Stars and Stripes, that is an immediate discount.

            Apparently, the only sources you accept are the ones who agree with you. In any case, this is more evidence than you have provided, which so far amounts to a brisk wave of the hand.

            Here’s a confirming account from, Phillip Butler, who was a POW who didn’t think McCain would be suitable as U.S. President: “John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity. More than 600 of us did the same… Senator John Sidney McCain, III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who ‘Returned With Honor.'”

          • david7134 says:

            Z,
            Jeff is a fool for labels such as you just provided with the concept that I will only accept an authority that agreed with me. Now, provide evidence of such a concept or be a fool like Jeff. As I have said, your choice of references is really bad and clearly indicative of just what you accused me. Now you present a single testimony which is the absolute worst reference.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: Now you present a single testimony which is the absolute worst reference.

            An eyewitness account, especially one observed over a long period of time, as well as media accounts, is far stronger evidence than “Is not!” even if you keep repeating yourself.

            http://valor.militarytimes.com/recipient.php?recipientid=23680

          • david7134 says:

            Z,
            You are officially a fool. Your so called scholarly attitude is debunked.

  7. Fargo says:

    Keep in mind that if there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth’s average temperature would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is.

    Of course this is true. However about 65 percent of all greenhouse gas is Water Vapor. Now as I understand this, water vapor does not control warming, but rather warming controls water vapor.

    Therefore according to the American Chemistry Society:

    There is also a possibility that adding more water vapor to the atmosphere could produce a negative feedback effect. This could happen if more water vapor leads to more cloud formation. Clouds reflect sunlight and reduce the amount of energy that reaches the Earth’s surface to warm it. If the amount of solar warming decreases, then the temperature of the Earth would decrease. In that case, the effect of adding more water vapor would be cooling rather than warming. But cloud cover does mean more condensed water in the atmosphere, making for a stronger greenhouse effect than non-condensed water vapor alone – it is warmer on a cloudy winter day than on a clear one. Thus the possible positive and negative feedbacks associated with increased water vapor and cloud formation can cancel one another out and complicate matters. The actual balance between them is an active area of climate science research.

    What does that mean? Well according to them, the hotter it gets the more likely it will lead to more water vapor creating more cloud cover which will create colder temperatures.

    So there. Now you can go buy that ski equiptment and snow parka you have always been wanting and not feel bad about yourself.

  8. Zachriel says:

    Fargo: However about 65 percent of all greenhouse gas is Water Vapor. Now as I understand this, water vapor does not control warming, but rather warming controls water vapor.

    Water vapor is involved in a feedback mechanism. If the Earth warms from any of various causes, water vapor in the atmosphere will tend to increase, amplifying the warming. If the Earth cools from any of various causes, water vapor in the atmosphere will tend to decrease, amplifying the cooling. The relationship is encapsulated in the term, “climate sensitivity”. A doubling of CO2 will lead directly to a 1°C increase in surface temperatures. Using a variety of different methods, scientists have converged on a value for climate sensitivity of 2-4°C per doubling of CO2, but with significant uncertainty on the upper limit. Here’s a smattering:

    Volcanic forcing
    Wigley et al., Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research 2005.

    Earth Radiation Budget Experiment
    Forster & Gregory, The Climate Sensitivity and Its Components Diagnosed from Earth Radiation Budget Data, Journal of Climate 2006.

    Paleoclimatic constraints
    Schmittner et al., Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum, Science 2011.

    Bayesian probability
    Annan & Hargreaves, On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity, Climate Change 2008.

    Review
    Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.

    Fargo: What does that mean? Well according to them, the hotter it gets the more likely it will lead to more water vapor creating more cloud cover which will create colder temperatures.

    Actually, they indicate that the increase in water vapor has both a positive and negative effect. The exact amount of each effect is still uncertain, which is one reason why climate sensitivity still has such a large range of possible values. Note that this is an active area of research in climate science.

  9. Fargo says:

    Actually, they indicate that the increase in water vapor has both a positive and negative effect. The exact amount of each effect is still uncertain, which is one reason why climate sensitivity still has such a large range of possible values. Note that this is an active area of research in climate science.

    Exactly. Which is why no one believes all of these scientists who claim that the science is settled. Way too many variables involved to make such stupid claims.

    • Zachriel says:

      Fargo: Which is why no one believes all of these scientists who claim that the science is settled.

      Climate science is a very active field of study, as is the study of gravity and quantum phenomena. However, we do know some things with reasonable certainty; that gravity waves are real, that the Higgs boson exists, and that human activities are contributing to the warming of the Earth.

      • Rotterdam says:

        Climate science is a very active field of study, as is the study of gravity and quantum phenomena. However, we do know some things with reasonable certainty; that gravity waves are real, that the Higgs boson exists, and that human activities are contributing to the warming of the Earth.

        I will grant you one thing. Certainly human activities are contributing to the warming of the earth. There can be no doubt of this. As I understand the position of most skeptics they rarely deny the earth is warming. The debate always seems to be centered around why?

        Naturally. I suspect this is the main reason.
        CO2. Certainly scientific evidence can point to co2 as a reason for heat retention. But then the question must be asked, why is there such a rapid spike in co2 and for those of us in a certain field we can tell you that it directly correlates to the cutting of the rain forests around the world.

        Let me repeat. The spike in co2 is in direct correlation to the beginning of the clear cutting of the rain forests.

        A side note would be that during this time the Chinese government began building 1000’s of dirty coal plants and burning coal at alarming rates which contributed greatly to co2 upsurge.

        What I find funny in the entire debate among Americans over AGW is not that your having the debate but that everyone of you have clearly failed to grasp a very simple fact.

        Princeton University researchers have also found that the shriveling of the rainforest would mean significantly less rainfall for North America’s coastal northwest region and approximately 50 percent less snow for the Sierra Nevada. That’s less water for the folks who live there, not to mention the animals and crops they eat [sources: Schiffman, Tuthill, Butler].

        The rainforest’s trees also help remove harmful carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it into oxygen. Fewer trees equal more of the gas that experts believe is behind global warming [source: American Institute of Physics].

        If the impact on the environment isn’t enough, consider what losing the rainforest could do to your immediate well-being. The Amazon currently produces up to 25 percent of the plants used in modern medicines

        Right now Global warming is being blamed for the massive drought in the USA NorthWest when in reality your own research by your own prestigious university shows that its actually being caused by the clear cutting and razing of the Amazon Rainforest. As of now 20 percent of the Amazon has been destroyed. Another 20 percent of the rainforests around the world have also been destroyed.

        The world is well on its way to self destruction while people like you continue to deflect the debate in the wrong direction and turn ambivalent people into JEFFERIES. By that I mean if Jeffery says the sky is blue everyone in the room calls him a liar. If Jeffery says that AGW is real everyone calls him a liar.

        The facts are pretty simple. Cutting the rain forests cannot be undone by taxing fossil fuels or driving battery cars or building windmills. None of that provides drinking water.

        It is people like you who have destroyed the real struggle to deal with the real culprit of what is driving the earth into the ground. Yes it is partially fossil fuels but in the long run with the destruction of the rainforests it will not matter how much money youve extorted or how communist the world has become. You wont survive either because we will all be dying of thirst and starving to death.

        Great Job.

        • Jeffery says:

          Rot,

          The increase in atmospheric CO2 correlates with many things including the amount of CO2 emitted by our burning of fossil fuels. The amount of CO2 emitted each year by burning coal, oil and gas is a known quantity.

          Your hypothesis that the carbon cycle is disrupted, that the great forests normal ability to release O2 and capture CO2 is responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 is worthy of discussion.

          Can you support your hypothesis with an arithmetic model of CO2 sequestration by trees that demonstrates the forest loss is sufficient to cause a 40% increase in atmospheric CO2?

          It’s known that only about 1/2 of the total carbon emitted by fossil fuel burning in the past 100 years or so remains in the atmosphere, and it’s also known that much of that “missing” CO2 has been sequestered by the oceans (dropping ocean pH worldwide).

          If the rain forests had the excess capacity to sequester all this excess CO2… If cutting down some of our rain forests is responsible for this huge increase in atmospheric CO2… why hadn’t the intact rain forests drop the steady state level of CO2 before the industrial revolution to zero?

          Check you math to see if the rain forests have the capacity to absorb the CO2 you think they do.

          • david7134 says:

            Jeff has yet to understand that correlation is most often not associated with cause in the world of science. Despite the fact that he cured cancer, he does not seem to understand scientific systems. Once again, he is the party guy for the drug industry.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: Jeff has yet to understand that correlation is most often not associated with cause in the world of science.

            No, but climate science is not based on mere correlation, but a causative model that is consistent with observations.

        • Zachriel says:

          Rotterdam: why is there such a rapid spike in co2 and for those of us in a certain field we can tell you that it directly correlates to the cutting of the rain forests around the world.

          Deforestation releases CO2, not only from the wood, but from degradation of the soil. However, deforestation does not account for most CO2 emissions, nor is CO2 the only anthropogenic greenhouse gas.

          Global Creenhosue Gas Emissions by Gas

          Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Economic Sector

        • david7134 says:

          Rotter,
          Jeff and Z have only one and only one solution to what they perceive as the problem of CO2 excess of a trace gas. And that is total global government with a communistic system. When told that this likely will not occur, they can not come up with any other system of control, even to the point of organizing the other members of their religion to sacrifice and make voluntary efforts on control. Thus, they have a different agenda from helping the environment.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: And that is total global government with a communistic system.

            Quite the contrary. Robust markets are essential for human economic and social progress, while total global government would almost certainly be oppressive. Any reasonable plan to address climate change must entail market forces to ensure the development of the new technologies required, while also allowing more of the world’s people to enjoy the fruits of industrialization.

          • Jeffery says:

            dave,

            Do you consider all taxation to be communism?

Bad Behavior has blocked 3220 access attempts in the last 7 days.