Climate Change and Conservatism

[ARGOSY]

3 hours ago, dhchristian said:

You think that when millions of dollars are involved in research for an agenda of climate change, that scientists are not going to alter the facts to maintain their funding? The System is rigged to produce the results the globalists want. A Pay to play system. 

My faith is in the Word of God, not in science, how about you?

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/warming-temperature-measurements-polluted-by-bad-data-research-confirms

Interesting article. Growing urban areas have increasing temperatures and co2 levels. Any weather station based anywhere near a growing urban area will reflect increasing temperatures and co2 levels over time. 

Scientists have duped themselves 

Edited October 25, 2019 by ARGOSY

[ARGOSY]

19 hours ago, dhchristian said:

https://i1.wp.com/gregladen.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Facebook_meme_Global_Cooling_11.gif?resize=509%2C340

https://thetruthpeddler.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/big-freeze.jpg

https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/screenshot-2015-12-30-at-01-57-11-am.png?w=640&h=768

There Are forces at work trying to rewrite history and until you wake up to the fact that this is nothing more than a power struggle, You will continue to be duped into believing the Lie of man made global warming. The Fact is that what has been shown to have the greatest impact on weather is not CO2, but dust particles in the atmosphere, and cloud cover. So for example, when there is a large volcanic eruption that places particles into the upper atmosphere there is cooling, and when we go through a cycle of less volcanic activity, we go through a cycle of warming. The same can be said of dust via dust storms, and as a matter of fact the cloud cover that is created by Con trails of jet flight result in cooler temperatures, because these clouds block the suns radiation from reaching earth. So Jet flight is causing global cooling if any thing, as is the particulate pollution in general. Although none of these things are good for our health. 

http://www.climate4you.com/images/LowCloudCoverVersusGlobalSurfaceAirTemperature.gif

https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Kauppinen-and-Malmi-2019-cloud-temperature-correlation.jpg

This last chart is an older one from 2008, after 2008 there was an increase in volcanic activity around the world, though not all eruptions place particulates high into the atmosphere like Pinatubo did in that chart, But what we saw was a period of global cooling from about 2010-2016 from that increase in volcanic activity. which led to that great movie known as the "Day after tomorrow" which promoted a global ice age. 

Basically, It is all just Hype to get you scared so you give up your sovereignty and power to global governance so that they can tax the very air you breath (out), and to enslave the population to the new Elite hierarchy of Bureaucrats and oligarchs. 

As you can see here, cloud cover has a direct influence on the global temperatures globally, reducing man made pollutants thus will result in global warming, not global cooling. So the solution will make the problem worse, and the snowball will roll until all human life is viewed as a burden to mother nature and must be exterminated. I as a Christian cannot accept this sort of conclusion, and I as a man with common sense, cannot accept this kind of false claims that says that man is the direct cause of global warming. It is nothing more than a lie driven by greed and the lust for power. CO2 is the Lifeblood of the plant world, the more CO2 the more the plant world thrives, and the greater the yield agriculturally. This is how God created the earth to sustain an increasing population. Global periods of warming lead to drought, and the increase in particulates in the atmosphere via dust storms which in turn leads to global cooling and the restore equilibrium. There is some suggestion that volcanic activity is also correlated to periods of global warming as well, https://newatlas.com/climate-volcanic-activity-link/25520/

All that being said, Is this not a marvelous world God has created for us? 

Aah natural cycles that correct themselves. Interesting. Now we want to intervene, creating a mess. 

In the meantime the instruments are merely detecting urbanization, the increased co2 and temp levels in localized urban areas (3% of earth). Humans are breathing higher co2 levels in cities. Does that influence the other 97% of the landmass? I would like to know. 

[dhchristian]

6 hours ago, one.opinion said:

You follow up “My faith is in the Word of God” with a link. The Bible does not deny climate change. Why are you attempting to use the Bible as evidence in an argument when it is no such thing? I would suggest “faith in the Bible” for arguments where it is actually relevant.

Your right, the Bible predicts climate chaos and there is nothing the global (beast) government can do about this as this will be the Work of God through the two witnesses and the first six trumpets to prove the fact that God is in control. Take some time to read those things from revelation 8-11. You see, man saying climate change is "man made" is what I disagree with, and the Hubris of man to think that he can alter what God has made and foreordained to happen, is a joke, and in fact what they are proposing will have the opposite effect especially AOC's restrictions on flights in the green new deal. 

The created order is broken because of man's sin... original sin. Only God can restore that but before that there will be climate chaos. And many will curse God and hate the two witnesses because of it. 

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

Sure grains are where most people get their calories, me too really. But most of us get the test of our nutrients from vegetables. That is why the one article says only 150 million are vulnerable to a drop in minerals. Very grain based diets. You talk about bedding plants to overcome this... How about simply eat vegetables, it's the grains that they claim are vulnerable to the projected increases in CO2 levels. 

Problem is, vegetables like potatoes also have nutrient decreases.  It seems to be a general response by all plants.   Every one so far tested shows nutrient decreases.   We've identified 150 million people at risk so far.   The report doesn't say that's only the ones at risk.

 

6 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

I don't think they are lying, it's just they themselves use speculation. They use words like could, possibly, speculate. There's uncertainty in their own wording. 

No, "speculation" is when you don't have any evidence, and just guess.   What scientists have is facts, which support their conclusions.   Speculation would be saying "well, it only affects grains, so we don't need to worry about it."

6 hours ago, ARGOSY said:

And due to evidence being misinterpreted because climate change is currently the cool topic, this leads to confirmation bias. The tendency to jump to favorable conclusions too quickly. So no I do not accept "scientists say" as a conclusive argument

Nor does anyone who recognizes the fact of man-causes warming.  It's the data that matters.   And the fact that Hansen's model accurately called the warming trend thirty years out (when deniers were predicting cooling) makes it compelling.

 

 

[ARGOSY]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Problem is, vegetables like potatoes also have nutrient decreases.  It seems to be a general response by all plants.   Every one so far tested shows nutrient decreases.   We've identified 150 million people at risk so far.   The report doesn't say that's only the ones at risk.

 

No, "speculation" is when you don't have any evidence, and just guess.   What scientists have is facts, which support their conclusions.   Speculation would be saying "well, it only affects grains, so we don't need to worry about it."

Nor does anyone who recognizes the fact of man-causes warming.  It's the data that matters.   And the fact that Hansen's model accurately called the warming trend thirty years out (when deniers were predicting cooling) makes it compelling.

 

 

What data?  Urban weather stations which reflect local urban trends? You haven't yet given me the source of their so called data. Just "scientists say". 

 

[The Barbarian]

13 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

What data?

Start here:

An updated documentation (Hansen et al. 2010) compares alternative analyses and addresses questions about perception and reality of global warming; various choices for the ocean data are tested; it is also shown that global temperature change is sensitive to estimated temperature change in polar regions, where observations are limited. A multi-year smoothing is applied to fully remove the annual cycle and improve information content in temperature graphs. Despite large year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Niño-La Niña cycle of tropical ocean temperature, the conclusion could be made that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the 21st century, new record heights being reached in every decade.

GISS Homogenization (Urban Adjustment)

One of the improvements — introduced in 1998 — was the implementation of a method to address the problem of urban warming: The urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped. This preserves local short-term variability without affecting long term trends. Originally, the classification of stations was based on population size near that station; the current analysis uses satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations are located in urban and peri-urban areas.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

 

13 minutes ago, ARGOSY said:

Urban weather stations which reflect local urban trends?

Funny you should mention that.  Deniers brought that up as a factor.  Increasing urbanization, they said, was making stations inaccurate.  But they didn't realize...

Climate skeptics are once again proven wrong, and this time even Koch money can't skew the facts.
 
Have you heard the one from climate deniers that the “Urban Heat Island” effect has ruined all the weather stations and made the data they collect completely useless? The deniers claim any warming trend seen from these temperature recordings is from concrete buildings and asphalt roads – and that climate change is therefore a myth?
 
That would be false. Says whom, you ask?  How about a new Koch-funded scientific study?
 
An investigation by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project released yesterday once again thoroughly dispatches the skeptic myth about the “Urban Heat Island” (UHI) effect.

Many global warming skeptics have long claimed that the urban heat island effect is so strong that it has skewed temperature measurements indicating that global warming is happening. The skeptics argue that efforts to curb global warming pollution are therefore unnecessary, citing their pet theory that surface temperature stations were swallowed by, or moved closer to, cities, thus skewing surface temperature records on the whole.
 
The BEST papers – which still must go through rigorous peer review – confirm what climate scientists have correctly stated previously, demonstrating without doubt that “very rural” temperature stations miles from any new “UHI” towns or cities have also recorded warming at 0.9 degrees Celsius over the last century. 



...

It now appears that the BEST effort confirms again what the, ahem, best climate scientists have told us repeatedly in the peer-reviewed science published on this issue over the past 20 years - that UHI is negligible and certainly doesn’t skew the conclusion that surface temperatures are rising.  In fact, a 2010 study indicated that stations identified by Watts and others as exaggerating warming actually indicated a cooling trend on closer examination.

...

As Richard Muller writes in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece today:

“When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

https://www.desmogblog.com/urban-heat-island-favorite-skeptic-myth-debunked-again-time-koch-funded-science
 

Edited October 25, 2019 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

Independently, the HADCRUT data shows the same thing:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/

[ARGOSY]

7 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Start here:

An updated documentation (Hansen et al. 2010) compares alternative analyses and addresses questions about perception and reality of global warming; various choices for the ocean data are tested; it is also shown that global temperature change is sensitive to estimated temperature change in polar regions, where observations are limited. A multi-year smoothing is applied to fully remove the annual cycle and improve information content in temperature graphs. Despite large year-to-year fluctuations associated with the El Niño-La Niña cycle of tropical ocean temperature, the conclusion could be made that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the 21st century, new record heights being reached in every decade.

GISS Homogenization (Urban Adjustment)

One of the improvements — introduced in 1998 — was the implementation of a method to address the problem of urban warming: The urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped. This preserves local short-term variability without affecting long term trends. Originally, the classification of stations was based on population size near that station; the current analysis uses satellite-observed night lights to determine which stations are located in urban and peri-urban areas.

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

 

Funny you should mention that.  Deniers brought that up as a factor.  Increasing urbanization, they said, was making stations inaccurate.  But they didn't realize...

Climate skeptics are once again proven wrong, and this time even Koch money can't skew the facts.
 
Have you heard the one from climate deniers that the “Urban Heat Island” effect has ruined all the weather stations and made the data they collect completely useless? The deniers claim any warming trend seen from these temperature recordings is from concrete buildings and asphalt roads – and that climate change is therefore a myth?
 
That would be false. Says whom, you ask?  How about a new Koch-funded scientific study?
 
An investigation by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project released yesterday once again thoroughly dispatches the skeptic myth about the “Urban Heat Island” (UHI) effect.

Many global warming skeptics have long claimed that the urban heat island effect is so strong that it has skewed temperature measurements indicating that global warming is happening. The skeptics argue that efforts to curb global warming pollution are therefore unnecessary, citing their pet theory that surface temperature stations were swallowed by, or moved closer to, cities, thus skewing surface temperature records on the whole.
 
The BEST papers – which still must go through rigorous peer review – confirm what climate scientists have correctly stated previously, demonstrating without doubt that “very rural” temperature stations miles from any new “UHI” towns or cities have also recorded warming at 0.9 degrees Celsius over the last century. 



...

It now appears that the BEST effort confirms again what the, ahem, best climate scientists have told us repeatedly in the peer-reviewed science published on this issue over the past 20 years - that UHI is negligible and certainly doesn’t skew the conclusion that surface temperatures are rising.  In fact, a 2010 study indicated that stations identified by Watts and others as exaggerating warming actually indicated a cooling trend on closer examination.

...

As Richard Muller writes in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece today:

“When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections.

https://www.desmogblog.com/urban-heat-island-favorite-skeptic-myth-debunked-again-time-koch-funded-science
 

I don't doubt that temperatures have risen by 0.9 percent in the last 100 years, they rose more than that from 1700 to 1800. World temp is always up and down from natural causes. 

However the study you have quoted from, is still subject to peer review. 

 

Back to the grains, they seem to brush over the fact that some important  vitamins IMPROVE with more co2 in these same grains :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/fionamcmillan/2018/05/27/rising-co2-is-reducing-the-nutritional-value-of-our-food/amp/

[high CO₂ affects the plants ability to build molecules containing nitrogen. B vitamins, which contain nitrogen, tended to decrease while nitrogen-free carbon-rich compounds, like vitamin E, increased.] 

 

So the studies specifically focus on grains which actually improve with some vitamins, without giving us info on non-grains, which probably improve with all vitamins. Why don't they give us non-grain stats? Carrots, lettuce, avocado, apples. How do they do under high co2, any studies? 

And like I keep saying, the Carboniferous was pretty successful with CO2 levels astronomically higher than today, over 2000ppm. Huge insects, massive trees, it actually seems more luscious than todays world. 

 

[ARGOSY]

Okay I have found a study that refers to fruit, not grain. Not only did the biomass/fruit size increase with increased co2, but in addition after 78 days after bloom (DAB) the concentration of minerals was also higher in pears:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00380768.1999.10409352&ved=2ahUKEwidisCx5rflAhUTfMAKHckqDrQQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw19MKGtTByd8KoqWsk6lXIH

[ CO2 enrichment had no significant effect 
on the fruit mineral contents until 78 DAB but higher N and K contents have maintained 
thereafter, particularly K content, compared to the control.] 

So grains will be down in minerals but up in vit E

Fruit seems to be generally better off. Higher N and K. 

[The Barbarian]

So forest apes might live off fruit, but our species depend on grains.   And that means we have a crisis if the carbon levels keep rising.    "Let them eat Japanese pears" is not a very good reply.

Agronomists are now seeking ways to overcome this problem by breeding forms of crops that are adapted to the increasing levels, but it's unlikely to happen fast enough to deal with the lack of nutrition in staple foods used by humans.