[MoreCarbonOK]

BC says

more greenery does not trap heat

henry@BC

deforestation causes cooling, see here

<personal blog removed (again) - posting scientifically unsupported rhetoric - last warning >

and more greenery causes warming,
look at my results for Las Vegas and northern Namibia (big increase in greenery)

ergo

more carbondioxide promotes more greenery

hence

more carbon is OK!

[MoreCarbonOK]

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4rLRObEhC4I


(Ian Plimer, in England, gives a very nice summary about the carbon dioxide that everybody can understand)

[peppercorn]

(Ian Plimer, in England, gives a very nice summary about the carbon dioxide that everybody can understand)

...but is fraudulent.

"Plimer has become the go-to guy for Australian deniers and authored a book, Heaven + Earth, critical of climate science. Most of his objections consist of long refuted talking points about solar cycles and bad models. Ian G Entings's lengthy analysis of Plimer's book ran to an impressive 64 pages of errors, misrepresentations and other such fudges. Impressively, the book misrepresents the content of cited sources 43 times, the nature of recreated graphs twice and recorded data at least 10 times.
However, he did come up with an original talking point that has become popular in denialist circles: Underwater volcanoes. Plimer argues that volcanic activity releases more CO2 than all of humanity combined. This was quickly refuted by actual climate scientists who noted that humans released over 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes. Like any good crank, Plimer has continued to put forth these debunked arguments over and over. "
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

And,
Plimer is a director of seven mining companies

[MoreCarbonOK]

henry@peppercorn

Perhaps I should inform you that an attack on the person (ad hominem) instead of anything in particular that he said (in the video) shows your poor character.

[MoreCarbonOK]

pepper corn (?) says
<personal blog removed (again) - posting scientifically unsupported rhetoric - last warning >

henry says
ehh, ehh, scratch my head,
this is an observation from data, rather supported by data, i.e. supported rethoric,
that shows that in the south of Argentine, where they hacked all the trees away,
the difference between maxima and minima is increasing,
whereas in other places that saw large increases in greenery the difference between maxima and minima  is decreasing.
please put that link back?
this is daft.

[imatfaal]

MoreCarbonOK

You have received your last warning (twice) stop linking to your blog and stop moaning about it when you are pinged by the moderators. 

I have shrunk your last post.  There is plenty of peer-reviewed and well-sourced data out there - give links to that, not to your blog.

For your guidance - critiquing the motivation and expertise of person put forward as an expert is not technically an ad hominem.  An ad hominem argument is fallacious due to unsaid proposition that the personality/nature/characteristics of this person, unrelated to the matter at hand, causes his or her argument to be incorrect. 

Peppercorn is advising the membership of the site that the supposed expert has been found to have misrepresented the facts about climate change in the past, has a personal motivation for dissembling in this area, and thus might not be a fair advocate to explain the science; it is a subtle but important difference. 

On the other hand "shows your poor character" - is an insult.  Stop it. 

[Bored chemist]

BC says

more greenery does not trap heat

henry@BC

deforestation causes cooling, see here

<personal blog removed (again) - posting scientifically unsupported rhetoric - last warning >

and more greenery causes warming,
look at my results for Las Vegas and northern Namibia (big increase in greenery)

ergo

more carbondioxide promotes more greenery

hence

more carbon is OK!

Citing your own blog doesn't tell us anything.
Please explain how the process of evaporating water (as done on a big scale by plants) doesn't cool the surroundings.
Alternatively, accept that it does.

[damocles]

Henry, it might interest you to know that Plimer's previous target was literal interpretations of the Old Testament. His life was made a misery by pious defenders of a young earth taking out legal actions against him, but then he was rather waving a red flag in front of a bull when he took out his own legal action -- forget what exactly it was but something to do with Noah's flood and being "misled" by their claims.
Plimer is an Aussie.
***
(so much for the "ad hominem")
***

I have not listened to the whole of Plimer's address/submission, but it is inappropriate for him to claim rapid CO2 change in the recent or remote geological past, because the present rate of increase -- 1.5 ppm/yr, or 100ppm in 150 yr (the increase has been roughly exponential)-- simply is beyond the resolution of any of the proxies. It could be true or false, there simply cannot be any evidence either way.

(later ...) OK I decided that that was a rather lazy post. Here is the full detail, which was easy to find on a google search:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

[MoreCarbonOK]

Henry@BC
Plants extract energy from the sun via photosynthesis and use it to grow and live.  When ever we eat a vegetable we are using energy that a plant has got from photosynthesis.  The calories in things like starchy potatoes , like bread, and sweet sugary fruit come from photosynthesis.  Even when we eat meat we are getting energy from say beef or chicken or lamb - but the animals in turn got the energy from grass and grain - which originally got its energy from photosynthesis.  All the energy you will every use in your body will most likely (I cannot think of an exception) have come (maybe via long route) from the Sun via a plant and photosynthesis.

So, clearly, before we eat this energy, it is still there,
that is how the heat gets trapped?
It is not much though, according to Roempps, but a little bit.

Anyway, my results clearly that show that heat is being trapped by advancing greenery by looking at the decreasing difference of Tmin - Tmax and there where the trees were hacked down you see the difference between Tmax and Tmin rising.

[MoreCarbonOK]

Sorry, Damocles,
I stop here again with this subject
after one of my comments here has been removed
we cannot have an open discussion here

[imatfaal]

The comment which was shrunk was a entirely unwarranted complaint against moderation.  You have been told ad nauseam that links to your blog are both unacceptable as evidence and contrary to our forum acceptable usage policy.   You continue to link to your blog - these are deleted by staff.  When you complain on the forum about these deletions we will shrink your posts that moan. 

Please do not play the lone sane voice whose views are censored by the thought police - you have been given greater leeway and more chances than any previous member of this site.   The fact that you can still post after receiving multiple final-warnings shows the tolerance of the moderators and our desire to maintain a plurality of opinions and outlooks even in the face of personal insults.

[yor_on]

There is a reason for noticing the 400 ppm CO2
A historic one.

"The last time CO2 levels at Mauna Loa were this high, Homo sapiens did not live there. In fact, the last time CO2 levels are thought to have been this high was more than 2.5 million years ago, an era known as the Pliocene, when the Canadian Arctic boasted forests instead of icy wastes. The land bridge connecting North America and South America had recently formed. The globe’s temperature averaged about 3 degrees C warmer, and sea level lapped coasts 5 meters or more higher...

At present pace, the world could reach 450 ppm in a few short decades. The record notches up another 2 ppm per year at present pace. Human civilization developed and flourished in a geologic era that never saw CO2 concentrations above 300 ppm. We are in novel territory again and we show no signs of slowing to get our bearings, let alone stopping." http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/05/09/400-ppm-carbon-dioxide-in-the-atmosphere-reaches-prehistoric-levels/

And you Carbon seem to take the denier discussion one step further here. From denying it to arguing that it will be 'good for you'

Wouldn't surprise me if there's a sponsor or two waiting in the bushes somewhere, but I'm not sure if it is us on TNS that should be the ones, paving that road, for you? Why not fight it out at that blog of yours instead?

[Bored chemist]

Henry@BC
Plants extract energy from the sun via photosynthesis and use it to grow and live.  When ever we eat a vegetable we are using energy that a plant has got from photosynthesis.  The calories in things like starchy potatoes , like bread, and sweet sugary fruit come from photosynthesis.  Even when we eat meat we are getting energy from say beef or chicken or lamb - but the animals in turn got the energy from grass and grain - which originally got its energy from photosynthesis.  All the energy you will every use in your body will most likely (I cannot think of an exception) have come (maybe via long route) from the Sun via a plant and photosynthesis.

So, clearly, before we eat this energy, it is still there,
that is how the heat gets trapped?
It is not much though, according to Roempps, but a little bit.

Anyway, my results clearly that show that heat is being trapped by advancing greenery by looking at the decreasing difference of Tmin - Tmax and there where the trees were hacked down you see the difference between Tmax and Tmin rising.

You are now arguing against yourself here.
Since the energy of the sun is converted into stored energy in the form of carbohydrates and such, that same energy isn't available to heat the surroundings so as we now both have shown, plants make the place cooler.

That's the thing with arguing against the laws of physics: you lose.

[yor_on]

By the way. I'm still surprised over the amount of 'hits' that Carbons musings procured? Soo many people reading if you check those 'hits' None interacting though, except us being at TNS before?
=

And yes, we've passed the point of no return as I see it. We have two immense fields of ice on earth, slowly starting to react to a global warming. As they do a lot of things will change, streams will change, winds will change, farming and your local weather too. People seems to think we will fix it anyway They also think that it doesn't really matter if we continue to spew out man-made CO2? As that is what we continue to do, each year. If we thought otherwise I would expect us to stop, but we don't.

I hope they are right.  http://www.skepticalscience.com/pliocene-snapshot.html

[MoreCarbonOK]

Henry@inmatfaal

listen to me carefully as I am only going to tell you once
If you had read all my posts here you would realize that I am saying exactly as what Ian Plimer is saying in the video. So what do you have against me? I am making money out of this? How? Where?
I am just trying to educate you so that one day when we have to do terra forming some place in the universe, on another planet, we actually get it right.

You are what we call in Dutch a "snotkop"
A snotkop, as opposed to a slimkop (somebody who is clever in the head) ,
is somebody who thinks he is clever, but he lacks the experience...
We let such people sometimes make the mistakes that we made in the past,
(if it does not affect the corporation too much), just to teach him a lesson.
Me quoting from Roempss (tests!) rather than WIKI should already made you realize that I could probably be your father, and I will become a granddad soon...
So whatever I say, you treat me with respect.
I have no problem with you or anyone disagreeing with me, with whatever I say,
but you DO NOT DELETE anything I say

If you do not put it back you can just carry on listening to the complete nonsense like yor_on from the SS in the previous comment is trying to put across to you.
Have a great day!

[peppercorn]

Henry@inmatfaal

listen to me carefully as I am only going to tell you once.

O' ho ho! Chance would be a fine thing if you only 'told' any of us anything once. Sadly, the reality is you return time and again to spout more of the same unsubstantiated* nonsense that is then repeatedly challenged, dissected and disproven by long-suffering educated members here.

In your 'universe' respect may be a factor of age, or 'experience' (so-called), but on this forum all that is respected is good science.  And you have been shown lacking heartily in that area.

* - NB. here we mean scientifically unsubstantiated.

And I don't think you will do what remains of you arguments any good by stating that you are 'agreeing with Ian Plimer' - as he has previously been shown to be a charlatan by a number of well respected sceptical commentators, ie. science journalists and academics.

The moderators' job is to enforce both the guidelines and the spirit of this science forum (that is primarily, a question and answer 'space').  As we have laid out in both PMs and replies, your rhetorical use of 'personally gathered' data is not permitted under any circumstances when stating an argument on the 'boards here; and likewise posts going after the moderators personally will be shrunk.

[yor_on]

Think it's high time someone stood up against those repressors of real science (naturally only referring to such science as done by real men, following their vision, lone and proud of it), as those pesky moderators. Hopefully we now at last can correct science into what it should be. Not that corrupted excuse for a word called peer review, and those even worse called 'consensus by ones peers'. A reality where a man at last can speak freely, without hiding from the the naked scientists 'thought police'.

And I think you have that possibility in reach Carbon, at your blog.

[MoreCarbonOK]

peppercorn accuses moreCarbonOK:
the reality is you return time and again to spout more of the same unsubstantiated* nonsense that is then repeatedly challenged, dissected and disproven by long-suffering educated members here.

MoreCarbonOk says
Fine, let us just recap for the records?

On the issue if CO2 is a poison:

In the case of rabbits, they found that the animals would not die if they went to 65%, as long as they kept O2 up at normal 21%. On these results I quote from roempps: (translated from german)
"The conclusion from this (i.e. the results as mentioned above) is that as such we can hardly regard CO2 as a poison. This is further proven by the fact that we consume CO2 in large quantities in our bodies with carbonated cooldrinks, without any disadvantage, and that in the human BODY (not plants only!!) CO2 circles around in the blood at comparative high levels (50-60 vol. % in the blood of veins) of which we daily breath out about 700 grams. Human can breath for hours in 2.5% CO2 without any damage."

1-0

On the issue whether the earth is cooling

All data sets, including my own,  show we are cooling from 2002
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2013/plot/rss/from:2002/to:2013/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2014/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2002/to:2014/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1987/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2002/trend

if it carries on - and unfortunately my own data set says it will -- we will face serious challenges of climate change, especially in the Great Plains of the USA, namely droughts. Nothing to do with the CO2!!!

2-0

On the issue whether 100 ppm's of CO2 causes more warming, I said, that looking at the current results for global cooling, that seems very unlikely.  I asked whether anybody can show me a balance sheet which shows how much warming and cooling is caused by an increase in 100 ppm of CO2 and nobody could direct me to the balance sheet with actual test results.

3-0

Sorry,
looks to me I am bit ahead of the Naked Scientists, but you are all entitled to believe whatever you want, what was it again, the 98% consensus?

LOL

maybe you did not get that. maybe one day you will.

[Bored chemist]

"On the issue if CO2 is a poison:

In the case of rabbits..."
Which matters if you are a rabbit.
However if you are human, it's plainly toxic- the only room for debate is whether that's at 2%, or 5% or so.
1- 0 to Science.

"On the issue whether the earth is cooling
All data sets, including my own,  show we are cooling from 2002"
But nobody takes such a short snapshot seriously so your conclusions are not valid. (and the data might be questionable too, but that's not the real issue)
 2-0 to Science.
"On the issue whether 100 ppm's of CO2 causes more warming, I said, that looking at the current results for global cooling, that seems very unlikely.  I asked whether anybody can show me a balance sheet which shows how much warming and cooling is caused by an increase in 100 ppm of CO2 and nobody could direct me to the balance sheet with actual test results.

"On the issue whether 100 ppm's of CO2 causes more warming, I said, that looking at the current results for global cooling, that seems very unlikely.  I asked whether anybody can show me a balance sheet which shows how much warming and cooling is caused by an increase in 100 ppm of CO2 and nobody could direct me to the balance sheet with actual test results."
Nobody can give an exact figure for 100 ppm will cause x degrees more warming, but they can show that warming will take place (and a simple experiment can show the same thing)
So, as you say, the score is 3-0 ,
Against you, and in favour of science.

Before you post anything arguing  against this, please sit in a room with 80% CO2 and 20% O2 for an hour or so.

[peppercorn]

OKC:  Aww, thank you - I did enjoy your 'scoreboard' lay out; most entertaining *grin*

...as is your stoic abilities for selective amnesia when it comes to all this.
It's almost magnificent in the face of being so repeatedly 'challenged, dissected and disproven'... and to be able to put all that out of your mind and 'go round on the ride again' is sort of strangely innocent. Lovely

A point of order, for those enjoying this gentle spiral into the ridiculous, if one is challenging conventional wisdom in science, one needs to find one own -peer reviewed- analysis to overturn accepted views.  Whether anyone did bother to supply OKC with 'a balance sheet which shows how much warming/cooling is caused by a 100 ppm increase in CO2' is really very kind of them but he ultimately needs to do his own 'peer review homework', then maybe he can really (to use his analogy) get a bit closer to 'a shot on goal' (at the opponents end, anyway).