Plant a tree, make global warming worse ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

---

Plant a tree, make global warming worse ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

Trees!!!!!! :) You may already know how fond I am of them :) so fond in fact I made quite a few posts in the Climate Change Acceptance thread and had a long chat with Major Kong about them :)

The short answer to this problem is that we should not be cutting down our trees... we should be drastically cutting our nitrogen-oxide emissions instead.

...AND planting trees... :)

I know what Nadine said in her opinion post... but she didn't seem to address the above... which I couldn't help thinking was quite a glaring omission... so I might have to have a poke about to find out a little bit more about her :)

Now to other matters... :) I've been having a look at how this thread has been panning out :/ and think it's about time I popped in again very soon with some more responses :)

Good read Gary but however all it shows is how facts are distored buy climate deniers . Talk about being alarmist .

No links to prove what is said in the article so to me it's garbage , by the deniers own criteria .

NO FACTS OR LINKS

The thing about the Amazon being a closed loop ...mmm so where does all the O2 go if there is a easterly wind ....OVER THE OCEAN , ..what about a cyclone does that mix the O2 into the atmosphere ,....how about a strong southerly wouldn't the wind blow the O2 north over the ocean ...

So the Amazon is not as closed as is portrayed in the article
And the gasses that tress give off are dangerous !!!!! ..only because we have tech that interacts with those gases , naturally they are not a problem but only become a problem because we use tech otherwise we would not be here today

As i said talk about alarmist warmers , good case of alarmist DENIERS telling harf truths and crap science .

Is this article on the web pages of the UNI he works for ? , is the UNI backing his claims ?

it's a big clue as to weather it's crap or not

SUDO SCIENCE WITH A LITTLE BIT OF FACT to sound and look good to the dummy's

---

I haven't read everything since my last visit, someone mentioned damage to ozone layer.
AFAIK, there isn't a good explanation as why the 'ozone hole' is much bigger over Antarctica than it is over the north pole. Common sense would say the industrialization in the 19th century was almost exclusively northern hemisphere so north pole should show more damage.
Just a quick anecdote.
About 33 yrs ago, I was going out with a girl who's mother was from Falkland Islands in south Atlantic.
She told us that when she was a kid (6~7) they had what they called 'glarey days'
when they kids were basically not allowed out as they would get severe sunburn very quickly (20~30 min)
So the point of my story is, at least 62+ yrs ago there was probably a problem with ozone layer
Any thoughts?

---

I'm not a complete idiot, but, I'm working on it.
I have an opinion and I'm not afraid to use it

Plant a tree, make global warming worse ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0

Trees!!!!!! :) You may already know how fond I am of them :) so fond in fact I made quite a few posts in the Climate Change Acceptance thread and had a long chat with Major Kong about them :)

The short answer to this problem is that we should not be cutting down our trees... we should be drastically cutting our nitrogen-oxide emissions instead.

...AND planting trees... :)

I know what Nadine said in her opinion post... but she didn't seem to address the above... which I couldn't help thinking was quite a glaring omission... so I might have to have a poke about to find out a little bit more about her :)

Now to other matters... :) I've been having a look at how this thread has been panning out :/ and think it's about time I popped in again very soon with some more responses :)

Her CV isn't hard to find.
http://environment.yale.edu/content/profiles/docs/nadine-unger-cv.pdf?1410806565
Seems very qualified and with a number of peer reviewed publications and conference invitations.

Sounds like a person who would run the numbers and not knee jerk an answer. It may be a surprising result, but that happens sometimes. Conventional wisdom isn't always right.

The climate is far more complex that warmist Gore's version and the fix will be even more complex yet but it may boil down to reduce human population to a manageable number as we won't be able to implement anything else with assurance of getting a fix.

---

... AFAIK, there isn't a good explanation as why the 'ozone hole' is much bigger over Antarctica than it is over the north pole. Common sense would say the industrialization in the 19th century was almost exclusively northern hemisphere so north pole should show more damage.

We have an atmosphere the circulates around the entire planet, and we have two poles that are literally poles apart due to very different geography and atmospheric influences...

See section 7 on "Ozone Depletion FAQ Part III: The Antarctic Ozone Hole" for further detail.

No mystery there at all.

... So the point of my story is, at least 62+ yrs ago there was probably a problem with ozone layer
Any thoughts?

So people back then were aware of the effects of sunburn. That has to be even more the case today! Note the skin cancer problems for Australia...


Note also a supposed "Skeptik" denier Fred Singer who also denies due to 'economic concerns' that the ozone hole is any problem... And reality be damned for the sake of a dumb greedy quick profit.


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Thanks for the link
I can understand the polar vortex part but not how the chemicals causing the ozone depletion got there, particularly when article states the antarctic air mass is pretty much isolated from outside air?
The anecdote wasn't to say people were aware of sunburn but the fact they could recognise the difference in sunlight when the ozone depletion area was over the Falkland Islands

---

I'm not a complete idiot, but, I'm working on it.
I have an opinion and I'm not afraid to use it

This is good.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

The Author:

Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama's first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.

Now, I know many will poo-poo Dr. Koonin because they might claim he is in 'Big Oil's' pocket. But give it a read, Dr. Koonin might just surprise ya.

The essay is a good description of many of the problems in climate science.

Nice link, I like articles written for idiots like me
culled this from it
Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%.

Looks like we need even bigger faster computers that 'understand chaos theory to get good enough models to work with
A crucial measure of our knowledge of feedbacks is climate sensitivity—that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration. Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.

---

I'm not a complete idiot, but, I'm working on it.
I have an opinion and I'm not afraid to use it

Yep we know all about the ozone and what it's effects are . That is why it is very important when you come here to

SLIP
SLOP
SLAP

Slip into some protective cloths
SLOP on a hat and sunglasses
SLAP on some sunscreen

you will burn in less than 15 mins here without sunscreen from Spring to Autum more so in the south of the country than the north so remember to .

SLIP
SLOP
SLAP

Pj there are some good sites out there that will explain the ozone but it is compilecated to understand . We are still destroying the ozone just not as much and it is repairing but slowly as we are still destroying it . chlorine is bad for the ozone and we still use plenty of than it just does not destroy it as much as the CFC gasses did which where 1,000-100,000 times worse . The ozone does replenish it's self but slowly so we can do both destroy parts of it and it can repair it's self so long as the damage is not more than what the ozone can repair it's self

---

His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.

Now, I know many will poo-poo Dr. Koonin because they might claim he is in 'Big Oil's' pocket. But give it a read, Dr. Koonin might just surprise ya.

The essay is a good description of many of the problems in climate science.

For those that have forgotten Caltech owns and operates JPL for NASA.

The idea that "Climate science is settled" runs through today's popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.

An excellent summation of the huge range of unknowns. Why the error bars are bigger than the predicted changes. Why the models are not much more than wild guesses. Why we may never have the computational power to future model more that a very short time.

---

His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.

Now, I know many will poo-poo Dr. Koonin because they might claim he is in 'Big Oil's' pocket. But give it a read, Dr. Koonin might just surprise ya.

The essay is a good description of many of the problems in climate science.

For those that have forgotten Caltech owns and operates JPL for NASA.

The idea that "Climate science is settled" runs through today's popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.

An excellent summation of the huge range of unknowns. Why the error bars are bigger than the predicted changes. Why the models are not much more than wild guesses. Why we may never have the computational power to future model more that a very short time.

Well, I mentioned 'Big Oil' because Dr. Koonin was a chief scientist for BP (British Petroleum), even though he DID concentrate on the more 'Green' side of things.

... Why the error bars are bigger than the predicted changes. Why the models are not much more than wild guesses. Why we may never have the computational power...

Whoa!...

Those are some pretty broad sweeping claims that fly against the face of reality...


Got any good quotes/refs for those?...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

If you go to N.A.S.A i think it's Florida there is a big screen of the map of the world . The screen is split in 2 .
The top shows the current satellite pictures of the worlds weather
Underneath it is another satellite pictures of the worlds weather .But it is solely based on computer models

Guess what it shows ?

THE SAME BLOODY THING cloud for cloud warm front for warm front , cold front for cold front cyclone for cyclone

so computer models are not as inaccurate as they are reported

---

... Why the error bars are bigger than the predicted changes. Why the models are not much more than wild guesses. Why we may never have the computational power...

Whoa!...

Those are some pretty broad sweeping claims that fly against the face of reality...


Got any good quotes/refs for those?...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

Martin, you COULD try reading the link I posted. Dr. Koonin states the case quite nicely.

Let me repost the link:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

If you go to N.A.S.A i think it's Florida there is a big screen of the map of the world . The screen is split in 2 .
The top shows the current satellite pictures of the worlds weather
Underneath it is another satellite pictures of the worlds weather .But it is solely based on computer models

Guess what it shows ?

THE SAME BLOODY THING cloud for cloud warm front for warm front , cold front for cold front cyclone for cyclone

so computer models are not as inaccurate as they are reported

Glenn,

As many people here have said quite a number of times, Weather is not the same as Climate.

Models of Weather (used in Weather forecasting -- an hour, a day, a couple of weeks in advance) have gotten a lot better than they were in the past, that is true. BUT they are still not 100% accurate. The Weatherperson still gets things wrong from time to time.

Climate models are a LOT more complex. Reasons? Read Dr. Koonin's essay I linked.

Weather computer models may be somewhat more accurate now than a couple of decades ago, but Climate computer models still have a LONG way to do.

KWSN - MajorKong

The same thing i am talking about can also show climate . Actual and computer model'd and it shows the same thing . Maybe you don't know about it as it is new .
I can't give you a link as i saw it in a doco not that long ago ..

You mite find it at the 3d resources at N.A.S.A web site the links i have for that changed and i haven't made new one's yet sorry

---

Screaming Screaming Screaming Nature 'is' SCREAMING

I could Use A Nice Hit of CO2 Right Now.

Man 'O Live. Ole Stone Face said so. Did ya Hear dat Riveting SCREAM Speech? Yeah, pretty Darn Extreme.

Ho Hum, 'is' 'it' Over Yet?

You Know, All dat Screaming and Carrying On. Ho Hum. Anyone Notice All Da Fuss?

''

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Screaming Screaming Screaming Nature 'is' SCREAMING

I could Use A Nice Hit of CO2 Right Now.

Man 'O Live. Ole Stone Face said so. Did ya Hear dat Riveting SCREAM Speech? Yeah, pretty Darn Extreme.

Ho Hum, 'is' 'it' Over Yet?

You Know, All dat Screaming and Carrying On. Ho Hum. Anyone Notice All Da Fuss?

''

This is Art my friend!:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

... Those are some pretty broad sweeping claims that fly against the face of reality...


Got any good quotes/refs for those?...

Martin, you COULD try reading the link I posted. Dr. Koonin states the case quite nicely.

Let me repost the link:
http://online.wsj.com/articles/climate-science-is-not-settled-1411143565?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

Phew! That makes for some good reading and scores 100% for pseudo-science bullshit bingo. The article looks to be very carefully constructed to say nothing other than to mislead into FUD.

So... Note for my personal critique:

It is written like an "opinion piece" and with no references. The one strength of the article is that of the supposed credibility of what looks to me to be an oil sponsored stooge who has sold his career to oil money.

There are no references to the real world. There is only the author's opinion and vague overly grandiose language and pseudo-science babble that still says nothing other than somehow it all must be 'far too complex' and that somehow we can't possibly know.

And for me, what I consider to be the killer criminally misdirection there is the claim that our CO2 pollution has only DOUBLED the effect of natural CO2 and that is supposedly so small as to not bother about! Yea!! Well... Get real???

We have long known that the effect of CO2 is amplified for whatever heating effect from the CO2 itslef by that heating effect then being amplified by the increase seen for water vapour. Just like you apply a small amount of force from your foot on the gas pedal for your automobile... And that is then amplified to throw you into the back of your seat as you roar into the distance with amplified force (by the power of more gas powering the engine). In our case, water vapour and clouds act as the engine amplifying the effect of the heating from industrial CO2 pollution.


Shame such people cannot be sued for criminally deliberately misleading the public. My personal opinion is that is a form of deliberate fraud.


Thank you for an excellent example of what looks to be sponsored FUD: All carefully timed to counter the world news for all those marching against such FUD and pollution?...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)