The CAGW Handbook

Below is a CAGW-skeptical handbook I recently made on Infogram if anyone is interested in reading it (or even using it in debates).

 

Nice effort, it would help if you provide LINKS to the sources you posted.

Here is a nice chart based on ice core data:



LINK

=====

c3headlines website is loaded with historical charts, LINK

 

I have provided sources, but links are gonna hard on an image. I wouldn't know how to do that.

 

1. Trees and plants collect CO2, release oxygen. Over 2 centuries of global deforestation on the major land masses has more than a negligible effect on the climate

Deforestation has driven up hottest day temperatures, study says | Carbon Brief

2. And then there's urbanization:

Thecontributionofcitiestoglobalwarming.pdf

 

You could attach the links to the number of the chart?

 

To gain a better understanding of the Church of Global Warming, I would recommend reading and understanding the Global Warming Mythology Reference Manual.

https://politiplex.freeforums.net/thread/2/global-warming-mythology-reference-manual


Global Warming Mythology is, simply put, an outright denial and/or ignorance of logic, mathematics, and science.

 

Greenland Fall Temperatures Unchanged. Proxy Data Show No Warming At 8 Of 9 Antarctic Peninsula Sites Since 1830!
By P Gosselin on 29. December 2020

 

Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All ...
www.amazon.com › Apocalypse-Never-Environmental...

Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All Hardcover – Illustrated, June 30, 2020. by. Michael Shellenberger (Author)

 

False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs ... - Amazon.com
www.amazon.com › False-Alarm-Climate-Change-Trilli...

"Bjorn Lomborg's new book offers a data-driven, human-centered antidote to the oft-apocalyptic discussion characterizing the effect of human activity on the global ...

 

To Promote Climate Alarm, Good News Is Regularly Portrayed as a Disaster

Guest Blogger

Guest essay by — H. Sterling Burnett Dishonesty has seemingly become the hallmark of reporting on climate research. In 2020, the dishonesty reached new heights as multiple studies which actually presented…

 

Here's what all the "scientific" corporate lackeys against the reality of climate change can't handle:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-cagw-handbook.582955/#post-1072328162

you've got to be a new type of foolish to think that massive deforestation and urbanization in less than 3 centuries won't have a detrimental effect on the natural progression of earth's climate.

 

Inconvenient Study: CO2 fertilization greening the earth
is more CO2 in the air, and this is called CO2 fertilization. ... "We were able to tie the greening largely ... coal and wood for energy releases CO2 in to the air. The amount of CO2 in the air has been increasing since

 

deforestation is only a problem if we stop farming. the corn belt across the midwestern US is the most photosynthetically active place on earth, and the bulk of the rest of it occurs in the ocean (and that is lessening because of ocean pollution, with China as by far the leading culprit)

I'm fully on board with reversing urbanization... not necessarily because of the environment, but if thats what it takes to get it done, sweet.

 

Umm, NO! Farming DOES NOT REPLACE THE FANTASTICALLY INTRICATE ECO-SYSTEM OF CENTURIES OLD FORESTS THAT HAVE BEEN PUTTING OXYGEN AND REMOVING CO2 FROM THE ATMOSPHERE. No amounts of cornfields in the world replaces the millions of acres of rainforests destroyed throughout the world, much less prime forests in the USA destroyed for farming, housing and mining. And yeah, urbanization is another major factor in the pollution of the planet and climate change (industrial smoke stacks, water run off from tons of insectiside and such for all those suburban lawns, garbage dumps, etc.). This is in conjunction with ocean pollution....and yeah, we can demonized China NOW but that doesn't excuse our role, Europe's role, Africa and Asia's role over the years. It is what it is.

 

Ahh, but the devil is in the details, as they say:

Even more remarkably, the plants have been scrubbing the same fraction of carbon dioxide out of the air even as our emissions explode.

“Every year we build more power plants, and every year the plants take out more CO2,” Dr. Campbell said.

But that isn’t cause to celebrate. It’s a bit like hearing that your chemotherapy is slowing the growth of your tumor by 25 percent.

Despite global greening, carbon dioxide levels have climbed over the past two centuries to levels not seen on Earth for millions of years. And the carbon dioxide we’ve injected into the atmosphere is already having major impacts across the planet.

‘Global Greening’ Sounds Good. In the Long Run, It’s Terrible. - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

 

Debunked:

NYT: Global Greening, Faster Plant Growth, is Bad
‘Global Greening’ Sounds Good. In the Long Run, It’s Terrible ... “Global greening” sounds lovely, doesn’t it?

". . . That “small” benefit is lucrative enough that commercial greenhouses burn tons of natural gas every year, discard the heat, and feed their crops with the CO2 produced by burning the gas, using devices like the Johnson CO2 generator.

Even the Canadian Government advises CO2 be elevated to 800-1000ppm in greenhouses, to increase photosynthesis by up to 50%.

To be fair to Dr. Campbell current atmospheric levels of around 400ppm are far lower than what the Canadian government advises for improved crop yields. So perhaps the natural effect is currently too small, we need to push a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere to realise the full benefits. . . ."

 

"advising" and what is actually happening are two wholly different things. One is a reality, the other a scientific philosophy: What you'd like to ignore from the article;

"...
Yes, we now get far more food from each acre of farmland than we did a century ago. But extra carbon dioxide only accounts for a small fraction of the increase.

“A 30 percent increase in photosynthesis does not translate into a 30 percent increase in strawberries off the land,” said Dr. Campbell.

While photosynthesis does pull carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, much of that gas goes right back into the air. The reason: At night, the chemical reactions in plants essentially run backward. In a process known as respiration, plants pump out carbon dioxide instead of pulling it in.
“Part of the story is that photosynthesis is going up, and part of the story is that so is respiration,” said Dr. Campbell.

While the increase in photosynthesis is greater than that of respiration, the ultimate benefit to crops has been small — and it doesn’t explain our modern agricultural revolution.

“The driving factor has to be the fertilizers, the seed varieties, the irrigation,” Dr. Campbell said.

 

Nice pics - good sign that AstroTurf Is involved somewhere

every single one of these “arguments” (and most are straw man fallacies) have been debunked over and over and over again

https://skepticalscience.com//

 

The original point was to answer your claim in #11 that deforestation was leading us destruction. My point was that enhanced greening counterbalances loss of forest. If you want to have a discussion about CO2 and crop yields, that's another topic.

 

After 100 years of climate change, ‘climate related deaths’ approach zero
CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS JANUARY 2, 2021

 

Your "point" was proven wrong, Jack. There is NO peer reviewed paper that proves that "greening" has replaced the destruction of rain forests. You tried twice to debunk the article I linked. You failed on both counts and are now trying to just regurgitate as if this wasn't already covered. Wondering Why Deforestation Is a Problem? Here Are the Facts (greenmatters.com)



Moving forward, we recommend that Earth system models be refined to include key human land-use practices identified by our work—such as crop rotation, irrigation, and fertilizer use, fallowing and abandonment of land, afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation—all of which influence atmospheric carbon in different ways. Humans Are Officially Greening the Earth. Is That a Good Thing? | The Brink | Boston University (bu.edu)

 

Sorry, but you're just ignoring the evidence.


New Study: Rising CO2 Drives Post-1980s Greening…Which Cools The Earth And Offsets 29% Of Human Emissions
By Kenneth Richard on 6. August 2020

About 70% of the Earth’s post-1980s vegetative greening trend has been driven by CO2 fertilization. More greening has offset or reversed 29% of recent anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Greening also has a net cooling effect on surface temperatures. Earlier this year we highlighted a study (Haverd et al., 2020) asserting rising CO2 and warming are the […]



Earth Is Greening Due To Rising CO2…A Growing Greening Sink Offsets 17 Years Of Equivalent CO2 Emissions By 2100
By Kenneth Richard on 19. March 2020

A new study finds rising CO2 concentrations (and warming) have driven the rapid increase in Earth’s photosynthesis processes, or greening. CO2-induced planetary greening leads to an enormous expansion of Earth’s carbon sink. By 2100 this greening-sink effect will offset 17 years of equivalent human CO2 emissions. This easily supersedes the effect of Paris Agreement CO2 […]



New Paper: CO2 Rise + Warming Are 91% Responsible For The Earth’s Accelerated Greening Trend Since 1990
By Kenneth Richard on 12. August 2019

Satellite observations indicate the Earth has become much greener in recent decades. According to scientists, the overwhelming majority of the “significant increases in tropical forests and the forests of North America, Eurasia, and China” since the early 1990s can be attributed to the combination of CO2 fertilization (56%) and climate change (35%). Image Source: O’Sullivan […]



New Study: The Recent CO2 Increase Has Had An Even Greater Earth-Greening Impact Than Previously Thought
By Kenneth Richard on 22. April 2019

The Earth has been rapidly greening in recent decades, and CO2 fertilization may explain 70% of the trend (Zhu et al., 2016). A new study finds models have significantly underestimated the greening effect of rising CO2. Image Source: Winkler et al., 2019 CO2 is a pollutant? In recent years, carbon dioxide (CO2), an essential ingredient […]

 

Sorry Jack, but your boy has LONG been exposed for the agenda driven wonk that he is....scientific pedigree non-withstanding. Here's a LONG list of his errors...bon appetite! Lomborg Errors (lomborg-errors.dk)

 

Which is simply a way for you to deflect from the topic.

 

All you're doing is just repeating the SOS which ignores the crux of the articles I posted. Again and again, for some insane reason to defend "business as usual" industrialization and urbanization, folk like you love to pretend that removal/replacement of an ecosystem that took way over a millennium to develop with crops is a reasonable substitute.

It's not. The ecology that produces oxygen/absorbs CO2 from forests/rainforests does a hell of a lot more than you think: