[N_Fiddledog]

BTW, speaking of "recent plummeting temperatures" have we all heard this one?

English vineyards report 'catastrophic' damage after severe April frost

$1:

English winemakers are reporting “catastrophic” crop damage after the worst frost in a generation wiped out at least half of this year’s grape harvest.

Chris White, the chief executive of Denbies Wine Estate in Surrey, said up to 75% of its crop was damaged by last week’s sub-zero temperatures: “The temperature dropped to -6C and at that level it causes catastrophic damage to buds,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... x-burgundy

Quick somebody needs to alert Bill Nye!

Bill Nye the not-really-Science Guy was on Tucker Carlson tonight. Tucker tried time after time to get Nye to say how much of the change was due to humans … and time after time, Nye refused to say what his opinion was.

So Tucker got him to agree that the climate has always been changing.

Then, in response to the question as to “what the climate would be like if humans weren’t involved right now”, Bill Nye said (according to my own transcription):

NYE: “The climate would be like it was in 1750. And the economics would be that you could not grow wine-worthy grapes in Britain as you can today because the climate is changing.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/27/ ... -the-plot/

[N_Fiddledog]

Climate changes and when it does you know what you get?
Weather. It was true when the Romans brought winemaking to Britain 2000 years ago and it's true today.

[BeaverFever]

Still waiting in you to answer my last pic.

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Still waiting in you to answer my last pic.

Didn't see it. Hang on. I'll go back and have a look.

OK I'm back, and huh? What pic?

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Still waiting in you to answer my last pic.

Didn't see it. Hang on. I'll go back and have a look.

OK I'm back, and huh? What pic?

Sorry, typo. Meant post.

[Tricks]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Oh it's time to get nasty is it? Is that admitting defeat? Oh well...if you must take your ball and go home then you must. I'm going to stay and explain further why you're wrong.

The fact that you can't understand basic fact means I'm not wrong.
CO2 reflects IR.
There is more CO2 in the atmosphere to reflect it.
We know it's man made because of a change in the carbon isotopes that make up CO2.

That's it. It's actually pretty simple.

$1:

Concerning the cherry picking claim for instance, sure it is, but why does that mean it can't be considered?

Because that's not how science works. That's not how anything works ever. You can find the data to support your conclusion, and then say "welp that's it" and turn your brain off.

Example, say we are doing a test to measure gravity's acceleration. So we create a vacuum so as to not be affected by air resistance and drop some objects. 99 times out of 100, it gives a reading of 9.8m/s^2. Do we include the one time it didn't coincide with the rest of the data, thereby skewing the measured acceleration of gravity, or do we draw the reasonable conclusion that the equipment malfunctioned, or that the vacuum was unsealed or air was in it, or any other number of issues. Outliers happen because of mistakes, or outside influence, and need not be considered to make a conclusion.

Statistics have built in metrics to rule out outliers all the time, that's why when we try to determine accuracy of something, we don't go to "100%" because that would include outliers to skew data. That same graph that Cruz showed, start it in 2000. What happens? No "warming pause" Because it takes out the massive outlier that skews the average. And before you freak out, yes, that warming was natural, yes warming and cooling can be natural, no one disputes that. What is disputed is that the current state of warming is natural, the current trend upwards for the last 160 years. Key word there: trend.

$1:

If it can't then we can't pay a lot of attention to the cherry picked period the alarmist want to pee their pants over that begins at the end of the era known as the little ice age. About 1850. A cooling period was coming to an end. It did so naturally. CO2 increase wasn't really kicking in until about a hundred years later.

Got your dates wrong. From 1750 to 1875 CO2 increases were going at 10 times the cumulative anthropogenic emissions.

Lastly, to add to Beav's point in his post. Why should we NOT try to reduce carbon emissions? Do you like breathing more poison? Do you enjoy oxygen levels in the atmosphere going down? You down with the ocean becoming more acidic and killing significant portions of aquatic animal and plant life?

What is the downside to reducing carbon emissions, on the probable chance that virtually all of science is right and Tucker Carlson is wrong?

It's like lead in gasoline all over again.

[DrCaleb]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

It might also be asked what data was used to establish the zero degree baseline.

It depends on the data used in the study. Generally, the most accurate data that exists and represents the largest dataset will be used. For many studies, this will be records from 1850 to 1900, as that's before the industrial revolution was in full swing, and when measurements were being taken world wide.

Some will rely on European data from the 1750's, or 1800 - 1850 and some will use satellite data starting in the 1970s. But they generally don't use multiple sources, as the statistics can get messed up and become meaningless. In order for multiple datasets to be used together, some manipulation of the data must occur so that accuracy and error rates don't skew the resulting answers.

Thorough, not thoroughly fabricated: The truth about global temperature data

[Tricks]

Because I've already determined this to not be worth the time, I have one question Dog. What would make you change your mind? What would make you take up the banner of man made climate change?

[DrCaleb]

You know he's just going to say he always believed in it, it's just the intensity of CO2 that he debates - right?

[Tricks]

That's better than nothing. At least he recognizes it as an issue, just a low risk one vs a high risk one. I feel like that's an easier gap to bridge than a no isk to high risk.

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

Why should we NOT try to reduce carbon emissions? Do you like breathing more poison? Do you enjoy oxygen levels in the atmosphere going down?

It doesn't work that way.

More CO2 means plants flourish and there ends up being more O2 in the atmosphere. Increased levels of vegetation both on land and at sea mean that the pace of plant filtration of the atmosphere is increased and we're getting to breathe cleaner air than we would in a colder climate or in a climate with less available CO2.

Total biomass increases with higher levels of CO2 and...you trust NASA right?

Well, NASA says so, too.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Featu ... balGarden/

$1:

Leaving aside for a moment the deforestation and other land cover changes that continue to accompany an ever-growing human population, the last two decades of the twentieth century were a good time to be a plant on planet Earth. In many parts of the global garden, the climate grew warmer, wetter, and sunnier, and despite a few El Niño-related setbacks, plants flourished for the most part.

Numerous small-scale studies over the past twenty years suggested that patches of the garden were getting greener, but that trying to paint a global picture would be a monumental project. A team of eight scientists from across the country worked for almost a year and half to pull together satellite data on vegetation and ground- and satellite-based climate observations. Their results show us not only how vegetation productivity has changed during two of the warmest decades in the record books, but they also reveal which of the many factors that influence plant productivity have been most important in those changes.

When scientists talk about productivity they are specifically talking about how much carbon ends up stored in the living biomass—roots, trunks, and leaves of plants—after they tally up carbon gains through photosynthesis and carbon losses through respiration. This tally of gains minus losses is called “net primary production.” Scientists estimate net primary production by observing how leafy vegetation is and how much sunlight it is absorbing, which can both be measured by satellite. Combined with climate data on rainfall, temperature, and available radiation, the satellite observations reveal where carbon intake increased—and biomass grew—across the globe.

But I still support cleaning up non-CO2 pollutants for their own sake. Keeping lead and Sulphur out of the air is worthwhile for its own reasons.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Total biomass increases with higher levels of CO2 and...you trust NASA right?

Do you? Further down in that article:

$1:

That unpredictability means that in all likelihood, we shouldn’t be dismissing our worries about carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or congratulating ourselves on our green thumb just yet. “Humans claim about half of all the net primary production on Earth,” says Myneni. “Productivity may have increased 6 percent in the last 18 years, but human population has increased by over 35 percent over that same time. One half of a 6 percent increase in the net productivity compared to a 35 percent increase in population means that these net primary productivity changes have not improved global habitability in any significant way.”

[BartSimpson]

Malthus is still wrong.

[Thanos]

The "it's good for plants" argument only works if the biggest eater of CO2, the rain forests, weren't getting annihilated at the same time emissions are increasing.

[DrCaleb]

Thanos Thanos:

The "it's good for plants" argument only works if the biggest eater of CO2, the rain forests, weren't getting annihilated at the same time emissions are increasing.

It only works short term for them too. Experiments have shown that increased CO2 results in increased growth - until soil nutrients are depleted. Then the plant dies, releasing CO2 back in to the atmosphere, along with some methane from decomposition.