Bombshell Claim: Scientists Find "Man-made Climate Change Doesn't Exist In Practice"

[Geoff.D]

The earth and life on it can handle a bit of an increase in average temperature. It can't handle low CO2 levels and more CO2 is good for plants which is the basis of all life on earth. So CO2 is good as long as we plant more and halt the massive deforestation. Farmers even pump CO2 into their greenhouses to 3 or 4 times the atmospheric level by burning fossil fuels to increase crop yields but not many are aware of this.

A study of the last 35 years shows how CO2 has made the planet greener:



https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth


Also here's the CO2 levels for the last 800k years. There is a cycle and the low point was always about 180ppm. Apparently this is because once CO2 goes too low, the plants start dying and can't grow as well so less CO2 is then absorbed from the atmosphere, resulting in CO2 levels increasing again. Once it gets high enough the plants thrive again and it caps out and starts dropping until the plants start dying again.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page4.php

Life on earth was actually at it's peak back when the CO2 levels were about 2000 to 3000 ppm during the Triassic period (currently around 400ppm). We are now left with only the toughest plant species that evolved to survive in a low CO2 environment.

Surely the above graphs/plots have been updated since 2011?

 

[SaiyanZ]

Surely the above graphs/plots have been updated since 2011?

Yeah they might be. The first article is from 2016 though. I just posted the ones that get the point across clearly.

 

[rietrot]

Surely the above graphs/plots have been updated since 2011?

Do you expect 8 year will make a significant difference?

 

[Techne]

The earth and life on it can handle a bit of an increase in average temperature. It can't handle low CO2 levels and more CO2 is good for plants which is the basis of all life on earth. So CO2 is good as long as we plant more and halt the massive deforestation. Farmers even pump CO2 into their greenhouses to 3 or 4 times the atmospheric level by burning fossil fuels to increase crop yields but not many are aware of this.

A study of the last 35 years shows how CO2 has made the planet greener:



https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth


Also here's the CO2 levels for the last 800k years. There is a cycle and the low point was always about 180ppm. Apparently this is because once CO2 goes too low, the plants start dying and can't grow as well so less CO2 is then absorbed from the atmosphere, resulting in CO2 levels increasing again. Once it gets high enough the plants thrive again and it caps out and starts dropping until the plants start dying again.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle/page4.php

Life on earth was actually at it's peak back when the CO2 levels were about 2000 to 3000 ppm during the Triassic period (currently around 400ppm). We are now left with only the toughest plant species that evolved to survive in a low CO2 environment.

Oh f off with your common sense.

 

[cerebus]

This thread is such a perfect embodiment of confirmation bias.

"Scientists are lying about climate change, you can't trust scientists"
"Look these scientists say climate change is a hoax, why are you ignoring the science?"

 

[RaptorSA]

Please explain to me how you don't see the wild fluctuations in the climate going back forever.

Oh jesus, I didn't even see those!
Consider my mind changed.

Oh, wait...

"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual."

 

[rietrot]

Oh jesus, I didn't even see those!
Consider my mind changed.

Oh, wait...

"As the Earth moved out of ice ages over the past million years, the global temperature rose a total of 4 to 7 degrees Celsius over about 5,000 years. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed 0.7 degrees Celsius, roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.

Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual."

Read your own bold bits it's is consistent if you exclude the fearmongering models.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

This thread is such a perfect embodiment of confirmation bias.

"Scientists are lying about climate change, you can't trust scientists"
"Look these scientists say climate change is a hoax, why are you ignoring the science?"

for good measure you can add:
"don't trust biology, a person's feelings determine their gender"

 

[Geoff.D]

So here is a list of the "facts" as contained in the latest "fake news" article.

Please, anyone, challenge any of the statements and tell us why any of the statements are wrong.

Scientific facts:

1. CO2's heat absorption capacity diminishes logarithmically: -- doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere from 0.04% to 0.08% will take 200 years. And add no more than 1 deg C.
2. CO2 concentrations constitute 0,038% of earth's atmosphere, accounts for only 3.6% of greenhouse gases.
3. Anthropogenic CO2 helps to green the planet and increases biomass - needed to feed us and animals.
4. Manmade CO2 has added 15% to global biomass in the past decades, more than activists are able to by planting trees. NASA agrees with this statement. DAVOS WEF admitted to this fact.
5. A fundamental flaw in IPCC's fundamental hypothesis: Nature treats natural CO2 differently from manmade CO2 emissions. Nature balances natural CO2 but does not balance manmade CO2. - Violates the Equivalence principle.
6. Human CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and 15% will remain permanently.
7. Natural CO2 has a half-life of 2.8 years and is reabsorbed.
8. In fact, nature can't tell the difference between natural CO2 and human CO2.
9. IPCC claim: Increase from 280ppm (1750) to 410ppm is all human CO2.
10. Science says: the ratio of human CO2 to natural CO2 is 4.6%.
11. Calculated values suggest that human CO2 since 1750 is just 18ppm of the 410ppm.
12. Nature is therefore responsible for the balance of 392ppm.
13. Humans stop all emissions, then the falloff would be 18ppm only, or 4.4%.
14. Another breach of the Equivalence Principle.
15. IPCC estimates are an error of fundamental physics. Human COs emissions are not a danger to the planet and cannot cause runaway global warming.
16. Global efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will reduce the temperature by a mere 4.4% or 0.11 deg C. Less than Lomborg's estimates of 0.17 deg C

Scientific Principles.

1. The Equivalence Principle. If data cannot distinguish between two things then the two things are identical.

 

[ShaunSA]

for good measure you can add:
"don't trust biology, a person's feelings determine their gender"

It's a pity that doesn't work for race. I could finally claim some white privilege

 

[Cray]

So here is a list of the "facts" as contained in the latest "fake news" article.

Please, anyone, challenge any of the statements and tell us why any of the statements are wrong.

Scientific facts:

1. Anthropogenic CO2 helps to green the planet and increases biomass - needed to feed us and animals.

Overly simplistic, if you read the following, increased CO2 affects different types of plants differently and it changes over time, you should read the whole thing to understand the difference between C3 and C4 plants but will quote the final paragraph.

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

But, as we know, C3 plants waste a lot more resources at higher temperatures, so any increase in photosynthesis from rising CO₂ levels seems likely to be at least cancelled out by the effects of the global warming it will cause. And that's without factoring in changes to rainfall patterns such as more frequent droughts. Solutions that seem to be too good to be true generally are – and, for the moment, that still seems to be the case for the idea that CO₂ enhanced crop yields will feed the world

 

[Cray]

So here is a list of the "facts" as contained in the latest "fake news" article.

Scientific Principles.

1. The Equivalence Principle. If data cannot distinguish between two things then the two things are identical.

Please quote another source that describes the Equivalence principle in anything like those terms?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

In the theory of general relativity, the equivalence principle is the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass, and Albert Einstein's observation that the gravitational "force" as experienced locally while standing on a massive body (such as the Earth) is the same as the pseudo-force experienced by an observer in a non-inertial (accelerated) frame of reference.

So that Equivalence principle only applies to gravitational and inertial mass as described by general relativity, where else (apart from Ed Berry) has this Principal ever been sited/user in a scientific sense or even as some kind of inviolable principle?

 

[Gordon_R]

Please quote another source that describes the Equivalence principle in anything like those terms?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle



So that Equivalence principle only applies to gravitational and inertial mass as described by general relativity, where else (apart from Ed Berry) has this Principal ever been sited/user in a scientific sense or even as some kind of inviolable principle?

I posted the fake-news article as an example of mumbo-jumbo masquerading as science. I didn't think anyone would take it seriously, but this whole thread indicates I was wrong.

Edit: The article appeared in my news-feed this morning. Google seems to think I am that way inclined.

Edit: For the record, almost every statement in that article which @Geoff.D has listed is false or misleading, and copied from the denialist play-book. I don't have the time or energy to go through each point, but if you can't see the logic-gaps, then I can't add much to this thread...

 

[Geoff.D]

Overly simplistic, if you read the following, increased CO2 affects different types of plants differently and it changes over time, you should read the whole thing to understand the difference between C3 and C4 plants but will quote the final paragraph.

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

So we can conclude that while the greening effect is probably reasonable true, it is not completely accurate that this will lead to increased crop yields. As in these debates, some truth on both sides. The reference above leads one to further research about the crop yields under controlled and "normal" conditions.

Thanks for your contribution.

 

[Geoff.D]

Please quote another source that describes the Equivalence principle in anything like those terms?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle



So that Equivalence principle only applies to gravitational and inertial mass as described by general relativity, where else (apart from Ed Berry) has this Principal ever been sited/user in a scientific sense or even as some kind of inviolable principle?

Yes, absolutely correct. The writer of the article goes and finds or knows of a principle and then uses that to justify an argument in a completely unrelated field of Science. I have not been able to find a "generic" version of the principle or any other places where the principle has been applied. So it is another fallacy committed by the writer - (forget which one). Ed Berry is the reference the writer is referring to.

 

[Geoff.D]

I posted the fake-news article as an example of mumbo-jumbo masquerading as science. I didn't think anyone would take it seriously, but this whole thread indicates I was wrong.

It is absolutely the right thing to do!. This guy is a consultant to our government after all. We "should" be taking these things seriously and analyse articles properly to show up where science is being used to prop up potentially influential publications.
In this case, can you see our Politicians challenging anything a writer or advisor says who quotes Einstein? Hardly likely. It is the very essence of pseudoscience.

 

[Gordon_R]

It is absolutely the right thing to do!. This guy is a consultant to our government after all. We "should" be taking these things seriously and analyse articles properly to show up where science is being used to prop up potentially influential publications.
In this case, can you see our Politicians challenging anything a writer or advisor says who quotes Einstein? Hardly likely. It is the very essence of pseudoscience.

He is right in one narrow sense, that the total greenhouse gas emissions of the SA economy are negligible compared to the rest of the world. But by that logic everyone can claim that their contribution is "small", and by this logic nobody takes responsibility. The long term risk is that climate "outlaws" will be subject to economic and political sanctions, as well as tariffs on exports such as coal, so business-as-usual is not a winning strategy.

 

[SaiyanZ]

Overly simplistic, if you read the following, increased CO2 affects different types of plants differently and it changes over time, you should read the whole thing to understand the difference between C3 and C4 plants but will quote the final paragraph.

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

Whilst this may eventually be true, 35 years of satellite data from the article I posted above shows that there is significant biomass increase due to CO2. Lab studies do not always mimic real life conditions so it may also be flawed.

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth


Something we may have to ultimately do is genetically engineer plant species that can absorb more CO2 than the current species which are adapted to low a CO2 environment. Though this might not be necessary as even if we burn all fossil fuel reserves we won't reach the CO2 levels that many greenhouses use for increased crop yields.

 

[lumeer]

These studies still don't take into account the the more data points in recent history, makes climate change in recent history appear more volatile.

This is really basic stats. With more data points your graph is going to jump around more and we don't have data for most places going 100 years back.

To convert me to a "climate change believer" I just need one long term study that use stats properly and work on a reasonable term moving avarerge to show how fast the climate in increasing compared to previous times the climate also increased and that it is at an accelerated speed now.

Hey, Thumbelina, you never answered my earlier question: what's your scientific training?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Please quote another source that describes the Equivalence principle in anything like those terms?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle



So that Equivalence principle only applies to gravitational and inertial mass as described by general relativity, where else (apart from Ed Berry) has this Principal ever been sited/user in a scientific sense or even as some kind of inviolable principle?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_of_indiscernibles

The identity of indiscernibles is an ontological principle that states that there cannot be separate objects or entities that have all their properties in common. That is, entities x and y are identical if every predicate possessed by x is also possessed by y and vice versa; to suppose two things indiscernible is to suppose the same thing under two names. It states that no two distinct things (such as snowflakes) can be exactly alike, but this is intended as a metaphysical principle rather than one of natural science. A related principle is the indiscernibility of identicals, discussed below.

A form of the principle is attributed to the German philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. It is one of his two great metaphysical principles, the other being the principle of sufficient reason. Both are famously used in his arguments with Newton and Clarke in the Leibniz–Clarke correspondence. Because of its association with Leibniz, the principle is sometimes known as Leibniz's law.

What is being argued is that because there is no way to distinguish between natural or artificial CO2, it is not reasonable to conclude that the system treats natural and artificial CO2 differently.