Today I posted material one calls science. Why did that anger you to the point you engage in such pissing matches?
I'm not angry. And you are the one being rude. You post videos and don't summarize the main points. If people are going to have a discussion with you, they should know that you can even make a point. You post a video, then say you posted science....haha, really? "Science", eh? Just admit it...you never read or watched amd don't understand those videos or articles. You googled for agreeable headlines and titles and copypasted. And that's it. And then you act as if you made a point and others should challenge it....come on....
More today to try a bit to catch up to her, her studies and studies by other scientists. https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/19/the-most-amazing-greening-on-earth/#more-24382 This comes to us from Patrick Michaels. " The most amazing greening on Earth Posted on September 19, 2018 by curryja | 61 Comments by Patrick J. Michaels We’ve long been fond of showing the satellite evidence for planetary greening caused by increasing carbon dioxide, particularly the work of Zhu et al.(2016): Figure 1: Trends in Leaf Area Index around the planet. Note the units are in hundredths (10-2) of meters per square meter. An increase of 25 (Purple, right end of scale) is actually an annual change of .025 square meters per year. Note that the largest greenings are in fact over the South American, African, and Australasian tropical rainforests. The variable usually shown is the Leaf Area Index (LAI), an interesting measure of vegetation density. A value of 1.00 means that one square meter of the sensed vegetation, if the leaves were spread out, would entirely cover a square meter. Plants with exceedingly dense vegetation (think of your over-fertilized tomato plants by the end of summer) have LAI values far in excess of 1.0, and some, such as sparse grasslands, may be quite a bit less than 1.0, indicating the presence of a lot of bare ground. A new paper by Simon Munier, of France’s Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques, and several co-authors, segregates satellite-sensed LAI data into different vegetation types, taken over the period 1999-2015. This allows the researchers to quantitatively determine the amount of greening that is taking place over time, depending upon the vegetation type. A note on LAI: when applied to crop plants, it doesn’t necessarily directly correlate to the yield or productivity of the plant. Think about those over-fertilized tomatoes again. Gardeners often complain that they have huge vegetation masses (i.e. large LAI’s) but few fruit. However, if the vegetation in question is in fact consumed entirely as an agricultural product (think lettuce, for example) the LAI in fact is a direct measure of agricultural productivity. The most common vegetation type on earth—grassland—is often agricultural in usage. Many are either directly grazed, or, as is the case for the most productive ones, harvested for hay which is then consumed when pasture is no longer growing enough to support cattle or sheep. Rapidly increasing grassland LAI values are therefore a very useful greening of the earth. Munier’s team divided the satellite data into that sensing broadleaf (deciduous) forests, evergreen forest types, summer and winter crops, and grasslands. Their 17-year time series provides average LAI values as well as temporal trends. The cool part of the paper is its Figure 8, showing mean and trend values worldwide for the LAI in six vegetation types: Figure 2: Average LAI value for the six vegetation types (given quantitatively in the lower left corner of each map) and the trend in LAI per year, on the right. The +/- is the spatial standard deviation, which is generally large because soil, terrain, and weather difference clearly influence LAI and vegetation health. Nonetheless, all the trend values are significant at the p-value<.01 These seemingly arcane figures reveal a spectacular greening of the world’s grasslands. See text for details. The details are in the numbers. The average (1999-2015) grassland LAI is 0.55, meaning its ground cover worldwide averages less than complete. The trend, of 0.0279 square meters per year, is a remarkable 5.0% per year. Over the 17-year period of record, this means that grassland LAI increased by 85%. According to Munier et al., grassland, as the most common vegetation type, covers 31% of the global continental surface measured (Antarctica was not sampled). This is a remarkable greening. The aforementioned Zhu et al. study performed a factor analysis to determine the causes. According to the paper, Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. In other words, 78 [70 + 8] percent of observed planetary greening is caused by carbon dioxide and its effect upon climate. We have repeatedly demonstrated (within here, for example) that about a half of a degree (C) of observed planetary warming is ascribable to anthropogenerated changes in the atmosphere. The main result appears to be a planet that is becoming so much greener that it is readily apparent from space.
Patrick Michaels Patrick J. ("Pat") Michaels (born February 15, 1950) is an American climatologist. Michaels is a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute.
Here is the thing. I have a son that is brilliant who is also 10 years your senior. He is retired living off his investments. The way you talk down to me is as if I was 14 and you my senior. I am 80 and in college studied engineering plus business and law and other things. i try to help this topic and forum. I am accustomed to seeing videos by others and studying them myself. I do not like being told first what they show me. I am smart enough to figure it out without their help. i presume, now it seems wrongly, that my readers on this forum are adults who do not want me to tell them what my videos show them. I consider it a sign of being lazy to be blunt about it for them to tell me that for them to read it, I must nurse them along.
OK, you don't know the topic so I must nurse you until you finally catch on. If you noticed, you would have noticed that planet earth is greener. Since you do not understand any of this, what it tells you is the carbon dioxide is doing a lot of good. See my problem is I am used to dealing with posters who have at a minimum knowledge of climate and weather. They understand what Carbon Dioxide does to this planet. So now you want me to explain both videos and text to you. So i hope you got the help you so dearly need.
Why is that "greener", "better"? And since warming is accelerating, how does that benefit outweigh the costs? Hint: it isn't much better, and the costs far out weigh this, basically, symbolic benefit you have presented. We don't eat all plants. Deserts are not suddenly fertile. And the new greenery is not nearly enough to sink the extra carbon we add to the atmosphere. And we don't really want our arctic to get greener, we need the ice caps for albedo to combat warming. And the melting permafrost where hearty plants can now grow is releasing even more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Now weigh that against the benefits of a greener earth in the short term. Tell us those benefits, since you understand the topic so well . You see, Robert, i have actually read about this. You googled for an agreeable taking point and then read me the caption of the image you found. What we are seeing is a short term effect of a quickly changing climate on plants not really meant to live in high co2 conditions like we are giving them. And the co2 is rising. Also: how is it you turn to scoentists when you perceive a positive effe t of climate change, and then you dismiss the scientists (which are the same scientists who collected the data on that image) when they warn of the negative effects? You are not only cherry picking, you are arguing to the very authority that you swear is lying and incompetent the rest of the time. It is absurd, and you embarrass yourself to do it. You are on the wrong side of science and on the wrong side of history.
You are in your latter 40s. Back when I started studying this topic, you were a child. You puzzle me why you want to try to trash me? I never heard of you until fairly recently. So you also read on this. I have been reading on this topic since 1980. So how old were you at the time I started? You act as if warmer is bad. I simply act as if this small nudge does not matter. I figured when you first confronted me you thought you have an answer for all of it. I had a powerful belief your aim is not good, but not wise.
What! Horse power relates to the acceleration capabilities of an engine on a given weight. Your post is nonsense
More copy & paste! BTW you said that you will summarize your other copy & paste articles in just a few sentences so still waiting for that
I am not wrong on what sort of person talks to me like that. I noticed you did not supply proof I am not correct. Or proof that you are correct.
And yet you appear to know less than nothing about it. Hey old man...in a discussion, you may be asked to make a point once in a while. Maybe they didn't do that in 1980...? You couldn't summarize the points of your videos or articles if your life depended on it. That is because you did not want to or read them. But you act as if you made a point. You made no points. Now, if you have gotten it all out of your system, maybe you can now explain why that "greener planet" should make us all stop worrying about climate change. And...go!
I am per you, a person that knows less than nothing, yet you constantly badger me to learn about climate. So ironic.
Just about this topic. As I said. And testing your knowledge does not imply in any way that I need to learn anything from you. And it is fair and should be expected that people would be your knowledge, especially when you do and prance around as if you have made points that ithers have to challenge. When you have not. Anyhoo, Robert, I'm not trying to pick on you. But the fact that you can't summarize any of the points you ostensibly claim to have presented should embarrass you.
Mamasaid Please end your attacks on the OP. Discuss the topic of climate change and end discussing the person that created the OP.
Sure will, and you can take your own advice as well. But I advise you that nobody should read your linked articles or watch your videos, when you can't summarize any of the arguments contained within. I asked you quite a few times why you posted an article, or why, for instance, the information that the earth is greener is relevant. You ignore these questions and all similar requests. So don't be surprised when people imply or outright state that you appear not to know what you are talking about. It's not personal.
Back on topic: There is overwhelming consensus anong climate scientists that mankonds actions are the cause of the current, rapid warming trend. And there is overwhelming consensus among all other fields that this is not good for our own species or the ecology if the planet to change it's clinate so rapidly. There has not been posted a shred of evidence or even one valid argument to the contrary in this thread. Nor is any denier producing any science which contradicts the accepted theories.
You were given a scientific article. You are able to contact the scientist. Stop wasting the time trying to bait me.
Any you cannot comprehend any of it. This is a forum where topic discussions are supposed to take place. If we wanted to read articles you post we would go straight to the site from where you keep copying and pasting
