A Startling New Discovery Could Destroy All Those Global Warming Doomsday Forecasts

Interesting new science for all those claiming the science is settled. Real science is seldom if ever settled and you always have to be open to new findings that turns current thinking on it's head. I'm sure the cult will cry blasphsmy and false prophet but here it is anyway for your reading pleasure.

"Climate Change: Scientists just discovered a massive, heretofore unknown, source of nitrogen. Why does this matter? Because it could dramatically change those dire global warming forecasts that everybody claims are based on "settled science."
"The researchers, whose findings were published in the prestigious journal Science, say they've determined that the idea that the only source of nitrogen for plant life came from the air is wrong. There are vast storehouses in the planet's bedrock that plants also feed on.

"This is potentially huge news, since what it means is that there is a vastly larger supply of nitrogen than previously believed."

"In the wake of the latest findings, Ronald Amundson, a soil biogeochemist at the University of California at Berkeley, told Chemical and Engineering News that "If there is more nitrogen there than expected, then the constraints on plant growth in a high-CO2 world may not be as great as we think."

In other words, with more nitrogen available, plant life might be able to absorb more CO2 than climate scientists have been estimating, which means the planet won't warm as much, despite mankind's pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

A Stunning Finding
Houlton has been exploring this possibility for years. Back in 2011, he reported that forest trees can tap into nitrogen found in rock.

At the time, he said "the stunning finding that forests can also feed on nitrogen in rocks has the potential to change all projections related to climate change," because it meant there could be more carbon storage on land and less in the atmosphere than climate models say.

The question is whether any climate scientists or environmentalists — who are entirely wedded to the idea that industrialization is destroying the planet — would ever admit this.

That's why that word "paradigm" is important.

As we've noted in this space, the idea of "settled science" peddled by environmentalists and politicians defies the history of science, which has seen repeated upheavals of previous forms of "settled science."

Thomas Kuhn studied this phenomenon in his 1962 book "The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions." He explained how scientists develop a theory — or paradigm — based on available evidence — to explain what they're seeing.

Once that paradigm takes hold, scientists are often loath to give up on it even if evidence piles up that it might be wrong. Eventually, however, faulty paradigms do give way, ushering in a new scientific paradigm. Examples of such paradigm shifts in the past: heliocentric solar system, continental drift, Einstein's theories.

A Coming Paradigm Shift?
That same thing might be happening right now with climate science.

As we've said many times, evidence continues to show weaknesses in climate models used to predict future warming. They failed to predict a decade-long pause in global temperatures. Nor have various calamities that were supposed to have occurred by now materialized. And a recent paper published in Nature concluded that the planet is less sensitive to increases in CO2 than the computer models say."

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-computer-model-nitrogen-rocks/

 

Expecting or believing that plant life, let alone nitrogen will counteract what is happening is rather silly and a fools hail Mary pass. This is certainly NOT a game changer and actually pretty stupid.

Nice to know plants get enough Nitrogen though.

 

As I said "blasphemy, false prophet, heretic" lol
It's called science and science changes as new discoveries are made. This new finding doesn't really threaten your religion though because it still says man's C02 may indeed effect climate. What it does do is soften the doomsday scenario your religion pushes. Add that to my previous thread on glaciers merely melting to pre LIA levels and you should be breathing a sigh of relief instead of desperately clinging to your end of world prophecy.

 

Science was well aware of the role of nitrogen and its effect on climate change (which was and is minimal) and my pointing out the relative irrelevancy of your "Contribution" is hardly the hyper cry of blasphemy you want to make it seem. Please do not use me as your pawn in this plea to ignorance.

 

I find it hilarious that you spend your days claiming Climate Change and Global Warming is a complete hoax - then post a thread where scientists agree that CO2 is causing global warming and climate change - but the effects might be somewhat mitigated by other factors. So what is it? A hoax or the truth - just not as bad as predicted?

 

I have repeatedly stated that few if any of us deny man's C02 may have some effect on climate. The debate is whether or not it's a significant factor or an irrelivent contribution or somewhere in between. The alarmist say it's Armageddon if we don't make massive changes and make them fast. This recent study should calm you down a bit and goes along with my estimation of global warming that man's a bit player in a huge climate drama and anything we do will be swallowed up and swept aside by natural factors. We don't know what we don't know but this new study is a good example of something we didn't know mitigating irrational fears of alarmist.

 

You are heavily vested in your doomsday predictions and I wouldn't expect this new study to change that. It may however be of interest to people with open minds that are interested in science not dogma.

 

Yeah, but the question is...do YOU believe it? Afterall, you've said on multiple occasions that all climate scientists are frauds. And if you do believe it can you show us through the abundance of evidence that this researcher's position is correct and represents the consensus?

 

Feel free to show me where I said "all climate scientist are frauds". You really need to stop making these lies up. I try to consider you one of the few warmers in here with a brain but you are of late dissapointing me with lies and insults like so many of your brethren.

 

Fair enough. I retract my statement and apologize. Maybe you can tell me which branches of climate science you think are fraudulent and which ones you agree with. That way I don't have to guess.

 

Easiest way to say it is that I reject any and all climate scientist that have an agenda they want to prop up instead of conducting an unbiased search for the truth wherever that leads. I have no dog in the fight and merely want unvarnished facts but what I so often get is the pushing of an agenda and facts that get manipulated to fit the agenda.

 

So, you reject people that only exist in your cult's imagination.

If you disagree, list three _specific_ scientists and their _specific_ work that you reject as fraudulent. Show the data you used to conclude that. Primary sources only, no cut and paste from conspiracy writers.

Obviously, you don't have to do that, but if you don't, everyone will take it as your admission that you're just parroting your cult's propaganda points. You claimed to be well-informed, so prove it.

 

Name me a single climate scientist that does not have an agenda he/she want to prop up instead of conducting an unbiased AND SCIENTIFIC search, if you can.
So far know of none and I am very curious, do you?

 

You know that's a good point. It seems like all so called climate scientist are more interested in proving AGW is a valid hypothesis rather than trying to disprove it which is the way science is supposed to work.

 

I read some coverage about how man staved off the onslaught of the Sahara for half a millennium or so, as the axial tilt of the planet shifted, inducing the decline of the Sahara humid cycle. The loss of the Sahara grasslands as a result of planetary shifts.. who in the AGW world would even contemplate this kind of influence.......

 

More actual scientific studies... You know, the kind that uses actual observations, not models to predict...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09...ng-felt-in-our-atmosphere-cooling-trend-seen/

Seems that the sun isn't behaving the way models are designed to indicate that it will. With UV radiation significantly down, the atmosphere is responding, and getting down right cold these days.. Trending indicates it will only continue to do so.

Are there additional impacts to this phenomenon? Not sure. But hey, science is like that.

 

So let me get this straight. You'll happily accept the observations of a satellite that works by inference and on the same principal that makes CO2 a greenhouse gas as it measures the thermosphere, but you won't accept a directly sensed measurement of the troposphere?

Both the Sun and thermosphere are behaving as expected. The thermosphere unlike the troposphere is very sensitive to incoming solar flux. That's why the temperature changes are dominated by solar cycles. Both CO2 and NO contribute to temperature change. In the case of CO2 it is putting longterm pressure on the thermosphere to cool similar to what it is doing at the stratosphere. This is actually the smoking gun evidence for GHG warming. CO2 is trapping the outgoing IR radiation in the troposphere which reduces the radiation flux in both the stratosphere and thermosphere from below. Ironically, the SABER satellite is exploiting the exact same principal that makes CO2 a GHG to measure the temperature of the thermosphere. If CO2 were not a GHG then SABER would be useless.

Maybe. That's one reason why scientists are studying it. The other reason is because they needed to test their hypothesis. Their hypothesis predict that the thermosphere should have a slight cooling tendency, but still be dominated by solar radiation flux. So far the SABER results are consistent with these predictions and the prediction that CO2 is a GHG which will cause warming in the lower atmosphere and cooling in the upper atmosphere.

 

Basically all of them. Why did you think that was a tough question?

Don't assume that we are like you. We won't lie for money or political gain.

Then name some of these biased scientists, with links to hard proof of their bias. If you're not just peddling a conspiracy theory, that should be easy for you. Joseph didn't want to do it, but maybe you're braver than he is.