The sun is blank, NASA data shows it to be dimming

None of this really matters anymore as the damage is already done as we note regularly in our planetary climate fluctuations becoming more extreme and regular. This incremental change will become much more pronounced as methane seepage gets added to the mix which is in no way controllable or remedied.

 

Well at least you have alarmist nonsense to repeat.

 

And as global warming is observed in both nature and lab, what's the problem?

And experiment confirms climate science, so all is still good.

And that claim is obviously false, given how heat flow in and out of the earth are measured, and we measure more heat coming in than going out. If you'd like to see the data, you can find it here for download.

https://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/radiation-budget

The conclusion is that you're remarkable ignorant of the actual science.

The observed data contradicts your claims. We directly observe stratospheric cooling, an increase in backradiation, and a decrease in outgoing longwave in the GHG bands. None of your "natural cycles" theories explain that directly observed data. So according to Feynman, your "natural cycles" theories are thus wrong.

 

There are many true believers that say it's too late and damage done is just getting started and will keep going for hundreds of years. Better just relax and enjoy being warm I guess.

 

I didn't act like my numbers are sacrosanct. I used your 3% figure. I just happen to think it was close enough to illustrate the point. Remember, that's your number...not mine! And you're the one that misrepresented it.

So tell me...how am *I* manipulating data? Be specific.

Then it should be easy to back up your statements with evidence.

Once again you misrepresent reality. The evidence does not support this statement at all. And besides you totally omit the fact that forests release CO2 into the atmosphere as well through the flux of litterfall decomposing and getting absorbed into the atmosphere.

Unlike bloggers I don't think you're meaning to be fraudulent. I just don't think you're as in tune to AGW and all of it's complexities as you let on. You're the one glossing things over.

 

Fat lot-a good that link's gonna do. I promise you Inquisitor will not read any of it. He completely tunes out the hundreds of experiments demonstrating CO2's EM spectrum behavior and falsely claims that we can't even measure the global mean temperature even though multiple people have given him the math that proves it's possible. He not only denies climate science he wholesale denies all science.

 

I can't or should I day won't respond to Gish gallop post except to pick the low hanging fruit.
Paris Accord is 27 pages long while deforestation gets two paragraphs. Deforestation is glossed over in favor of attacking industrialization.

 

He didn't make a Gish Gallup. It was more like responding to your Gish Gallup.

That's not evidence. That's something between and anecdote and an argument from incredulity. It doesn't even make sense logically. If deforestation is not the primary CO2 source, then it makes perfect sense not to devote a long section to it. You're essentially declaring that non-support of your conspiracy theory is further proof of the conspiracy theory.

Evidence would be more like the scientific research saying the deforestation is a primary cause of CO2 increase.

Me, I'll point to history. When European diseases in the new world and plague reduced the human population by a third, vast areas of farmland went back to forest and jungle. That reduced atmospheric CO2 concentrations by about 7 ppm, and was one contributing factor to the Little Ice Age, along with volcanoes and low solar output.

That is, a global reforestation event changed things by 7 ppm.

The current change has been on the order of 120 ppm, without any global deforestation event.

Hence, your theory is not supported by the historical data.

 

I am sorry, I went too fast.

Let me try to do it slowly, step by step, word by word.

Let me start from a simple question:

Do you understand what does one ( uno, un, 1, ein, jeden) mean?

(For the public to see and to agree or disagree:

There are 4 choices to answer this question:

1. Yes.

2. No.

3. Spew long worded diatribe reflecting work of primitive feelings and no brain present.

4. Run away as a variant of 4.

Let us see.)

 

......

 

It looks like I went too fast.

Let me try to do it slowly, step by step, word by word.

Let me start from a simple question:

Do you understand what does one ( uno, un, 1, ein, jeden) mean?

(For the public to see and to agree or disagree:

There are 5 choices to answer this question:

1. Yes.

2. No.

3. Spew long worded diatribe reflecting work of primitive feelings and no brain present.

4. Run away as a variant of 4.

5. "Depends on definition of "Yes"''

Let us see.)

 

In order to pull off the condescending act, you have to actually be intelligent. That's why I can do it, and why the other rational posters here can do it, and why you can't pull it off. Given your constant ongoing failures at basic science and basic logic, you only look petulant and evasive when you try it.

Instead of humoring your tantrum, I'll now do what flusters you most, which is return to the topic that you were trying to deflect attention away from.

You made a demonstrably false claim that there are no experiment or observations about CO2's effects on the net heat flow in and out of the earth. I pointed you to the results of those measurements. At this point, even you know your claim is false. An honest person would admit to making a mistake. You won't do that. Instead, you're standing behind your claim, even though you know it's nonsense. Why do you think that doesn't crater your credibility? After all, if you'll knowingly push a falsehood there, it means you have no compunctions about peddling falsehoods on every topic.

This illustrates one of many reasons why it's so good to be on the rational side. We haven't sworn fealty to a political-religious cult that declares any admission of an error is weakness in the face of TheEnemy, and is therefore absolutely forbidden. If we make a mistake, we just say so. Everyone makes mistakes, so that's not a problem. The refusal to admit a mistake and the following coverup is what destroys a person's credibility.

 

No global deforestation event?


"Deforestation is a particular concern in tropical rainforests because these forests are home to much of the world’s biodiversity. For example, in the Amazon around 17% of the forest has been lost in the last 50 years, mostly due to forest conversion for cattle ranching."

https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/deforestation

"According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), an estimated 18 million acres (7.3 million hectares) of forest are lost each year. In the last two decades, Afghanistan has lost over 70% of its forests throughout the country."

"If you want to see the world’s climate changing, fly over a tropical country. Thirty years ago, a wide belt of rainforest circled the earth, covering much of Latin America, south-east Asia and Africa. Today, it is being rapidly replaced by great swathes of palm oil trees and rubber plantations, land cleared for cattle grazing, soya farming, expanding cities, dams and logging.

People have been deforesting the tropics for thousands of years for timber and farming, but now, nothing less than the physical transformation of the Earth is taking place. Every year about 18m hectares of forest – an area the size of England and Wales – is felled. In just 40 years, possibly 1bn hectares, the equivalent of Europe, has gone. Half the world’s rainforests have been razed in a century, and the latest satellite analysis shows that in the last 15 years new hotspots have emerged from Cambodia to Liberia. At current rates, they will vanish altogether "


https://www.theguardian.com/global-...nforests-quickly-gone-100-years-deforestation


Question: If you wanted to change the Earth's climate how would you do it?

Answer: Cut down all the trees.

 

Yep. In terms of forestation change, none of the anecdotes you listed come close to that old reforestation event that changed things by 7ppm. So, it's much less than 7 ppm. So, it doesn't even come close to being the main driving force behind the 120 ppm change.

Your theory doesn't just fail for that reason. It also fails because the 13C/12C isotope ratios demonstrate that the CO2 increase is coming from fossil fuels, and not from biomass burning.

Believe it or not, the very smart people have considered all of your claims, investigated them very thoroughly, and rejected them because the data says they're not true.

 

Who said anything about bio mass burning? It's about half the forest being gone and more going away every day. This has effects known and unknown well beyond C02 levels that the AGW crowd is so obsessed with. If we wanted to effect Earth's climate the first thing we would do is change the composition of the environment by getting rid of forest.

 

No one is saying that cutting down forests isn't bad. We're saying that deforestation is a relatively small component of the carbon cycle imbalance because burning fossil fuels has an effect that is almost an order of magnitude higher.

 

Trees gather and store a hundred years (sometimes more) of sunlight/carbon and lock it into position. Fossil fuels release millions of years of this from millions of creatures in a day.

 

Okay to keep it simple let's focus just on this one aspect of deforestation. In reality deforestation has much more effect on climate than just C02 but since the AGW crowd is C02 obsessed let's just focus on that for now. You say deforestation is " relatively small component of the carbon cycle" yet it's right there with cars and trucks in the equation. Cars and trucks get all the attention all the time from true believers and the push to go to electric cars and even trucks is front and center while once again deforestation gets a brief mention. This makes my point about how AGW is more about politics than science. It's PC to blame industrial first world countries in general and America in particular for man's C02 contribution when in reality it's the third world doing most of the "damage". Deforestation is continuing in the third world as we speak and will negate any effects of us going to an all electric fleet.

"By most accounts, deforestation in tropical rainforests adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world’s roads. According to the World Carfree Network (WCN), cars and trucks account for about 14 percent of global carbon emissions, while most analysts attribute upwards of 15 percent to deforestation."



"The reason that logging is so bad for the climate is that when trees are felled they release the carbon they are storing into the atmosphere, where it mingles with greenhouse gases from other sources and contributes to global warming accordingly. The upshot is that we should be doing as much to prevent deforestation as we are to increase fuel efficiency and reduce automobile usage."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/


Next subject will be rice production in third world countries. We can save that for later though.

"Methane is the second major greenhouse gas, after carbon dioxide, and agriculture accounts for 40% of these emissions. Although farm animals are a major source, flooded rice paddies emit as much as 500 million tons, which is around 20% of total manmade emissions of this gas."



"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that rice cultivation is a major contribution to global warming. When rice is grown under puddled transplanted conditions, paddy soil becomes anoxic − depleted of dissolved oxygen − and then, in the absence of oxygen, microbes that break down plant matter produce methane."

https://climatenewsnetwork.net/rice-puddling-raises-methane-threat/

Oh and don't get me started on population control and what effect it would have on C02 levels! LOL

 

Saying AGW is obsessed with CO2 is like saying general relativitity is obsessed with gravity. You're not wrong. It's just that it is what it is.

Yes, we should. Deforestation has implications beyond global warming.

 

The obsession with C02 leads to ignoring other factors in the environment that are arguably more important. You can find voluminous information on C02 but extremely little on other potential causes for a changing climate and that's due to the spotlight being focused on C02 as a myriad of other things are in the peripheral darkness. You have to dig through papers to find mentions of effects of forest on climate beyond C02 and when you do even they say there has been a lack of study on these effects. The C02 obsession sucks up all the oxygen in the room. Here's a tiny sample but this link has some good info on potential of climate change from forest removal well beyond the C02 factor. You have to dig through it between C02 paragraphs but it's there.

"Although the main mechanisms by which forests modify climate are known,
feedbacks between these mechanisms and the local climate are less well
understood. These feedbacks often occur on small spatial scales which cannot
be resolved by climate models, and have only been studied over limited areas
with very high resolution (mesoscale) models.
5. Many modelling studies have been published in the scientific literature to assess
the potential impacts of deforestation and afforestation. In boreal regions,
afforestation would cause a local warming but deforestation would cause a
cooling. The impacts in temperate regions are unclear, with poor agreement
between the various studies, which are caused by the simulated response by
different models to deforestation, the way in which physiological processes of
forests and other vegetation are represented in the models, and the numbers and
types of vegetation that are modelled. Other reasons include differences in
modelled soil moisture amounts. Deforestation in tropical regions would produce
a drier climate which may be impossible to reforest."

6. Rainfall in some regions could be enhanced if areas cleared for crops are
intermingled with remaining forest. Small-scale circulations can occur which form
convective clouds and rainfall above the deforested areas.
7. Feedbacks between the ocean circulation and climate appear to be important in
south-east Asia following deforestation, but model results do not agree on the
sign of changes in circulation and rainfall.
8. Climate change will impact on forests and climate, but the exact effects are
unclear in many regions owing to poor agreement between global climate model
projections of future climate, especially changes in rainfall and atmospheric circulation.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIERAB&usg=AOvVaw2dHiUbKGkYLVzTnLT0TIpd

 

Carbon obsession on display. There's more to a forest than it's effect on carbon.

 

Actually expressing facts on an internet forum in reply to a discussion is usually not considered an obsession by anyone of minimal intellect not being purposefully ignorant and biased.

 

Carbon obsession on display. There's more to a forest than it's effect on C02 levels

When the subject is about forest and all their effects on climate an obsession with C02 forces you to myopically see only that aspect and ignore the rest such as how they effect rainfall and wind patterns which in turn effect climate.

 

If the discussion was about how trees can effect weather that would make sense...alas it was not until you just took it there.

 

You obsessed with CO2 no less than other CO2 crowd.

But also you are obsessed with tree hugging and with methane.

CO2 crowd actually does not mind, if you have not noticed, it is not really important from which obsession one starts counting to 3.