In a previous article I said: “Global Warming – the debate is over – the sceptics won!” because either alarmists have shut down comments, or where they do the sceptics dominate. Searching this morning I finally found an article that might be worth commenting on in the Washington post:
Sorry, “skeptics”: Global warming may not be so great for plant life after all
But the comments amply demonstrate my point that sceptics have won. To put that “newspaper” in context for none US readers, the Washington post is a notorious alarmist paper and even a few years ago, the comments would have be filled to the brim with alarmists. Any sceptic daring to comment would be relentlessly & personally attacked. And if you dared to make similar comments about the alarmists, you would get banned as per the Guardian tactics on their comments.
But just look now … it’s a sea of sceptics and a few isolated alarmists … and I’m not sure what I personally can add.
Latest Comments
(note: I’ve bolded the alarmists comments so you can find them)
Hal Guernsey
7:08 AM GMT
The title of the article is wishful-thinking of “global-warming” activists who are desperate to prop up their failed movement. The article presents unproven claims based on seeming mischaracterized data, cherry-picked, to fit a political agenda; and erroneously presented as a solid position. The claims are without merit and nonsense.
Senior Memberdad
7:05 AM GMT
Duke University, some years ago set up CO2 generators in a large section of forest, and conducted a live actual cause and effect study of the impact of higher CO2 concentrations . . . their findings? . . . levels at 500 ppm greatly enhanced the tree growth, no adverse effects. In fact I can observe trees in my city appear to have accelerated growth compared to 20 years ago.
Allen Thomas
4:31 AM GMT
The plants will do fine. After all, they will enjoy the extra CO2 (plant food) and the daily effluence of bilge (fertilizer) from scaremonger AGW propagandists.
ConstanceUnderfoot
4:06 AM GMT
Did the author miss the class on the “Superflora Period?” CO2 was 900-3,300 ppm or so, little more than the elevated levels pumped into greenhouses to increase food output.
Maybe they could find some other talking head to predict that the increased temperate zone and elevated CO2 levels won’t increase food on Earth like its done every other time it has happend for the last 570 million years? I’m sure if they reach out to some other agendized fraud pushers, they can do it.
Frankok
3:32 AM GMT
Losing 200 growing days? This study is as bad as the one that predicted about eight years ago there would be no snow. Refs. below – We the USA taxpayers pay $22 billion/year for global warming. Why? NOAA data shows warming is slowing over last 18 years even with large rise in CO2. It is mainly methane and water vapor and wonderful MAMA Nature and her cycles with her honey Mr. Sun, and with water vapor, oceans and volcanoes when she blows her top, and either opens methane holes or blows wind causing a polar vortex or dust storms when she has gas, all as her home the Earth tilts on its axis.
See website for Lordmoncktonfoundation
Refs. Search:
“NOAA Scientists Can’t Find The Heat, So They Start A Fire”
Looks like a cooling trend – see plot in “antarctic-sea-ice-sets-new-high-in-may”
“Isn’t It About Time Climate Scientists Confessed?’
“Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic”
“Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat”
“study-climate-models-wrong-global-warming-slowed-natural-variability”
“Duke University study looked at 1,000 years of temperature records“
“A Reagan approach to climate change“
“U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare”
“Was 2014 the Warmest Year on Record? No, It Wasn’t”
“Scientist Confesses: “Global Warming a $22 Billion Scam””
“Natural tilts in earth’s axis cause ice ages, says Harvard geophysicist”
“republicans-to-investigate-climate-data-tampering-by-nasa”
“Climate Alarmists Grasping at Icicles”
“bad_news_for_warmists_sun_has_entered_weakest_solar_cycle_in_a_century”
“scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues”
3
catch2too
4:41 AM GMT
There was no study predicting ‘no snow in 8 years’. As usual you are just repeating false talking points from WUWT, like all the rest of your spiel.
‘Cooling trend’ LOL. On what planet do you make this also false claim for?
[Truth: the “no snow” meme was commonly quoted by alarmist academics such as the notorious University of East Anglia quotes that “children won’t know what snow is” in the Independent]
dalyplanet
3:08 AM GMT
If those neutrino scientists has “adjusted” the speed of light they would have found their faster than light particle.
1
John E. Harrington
2:54 AM GMT
Please don’t call them “skeptics”. They’re denialists. The distinction is crucial.
[Note the failure to make an argument but instead an ad hom attack]
1
eric654
3:01 AM GMT
Instead of researchers we can call them record-straighteners.
2
dalyplanet
5:37 AM GMT
They are the trend setters.
They may have gone too far…
Hal Guernsey
7:20 AM GMT
Ah, another thoughtless “global-warming” cultist who thinks that anyone cares about the term they use to try and stifle debate and demean those who disagree. There is nothing wrong with either term: skeptic or denier—a much better position that that of a mindless lemming so easily deceived by the “global-warming” exploiters.
kevin jorgensen
2:25 AM GMT
So a geography professor is now an esteemed botanist? Really? Why not just quote an artist? Or a musician? Pathetic, reckless and silly.
1
RMer
2:01 AM GMT
All climate change/global warming propaganda is based on models, flawed models, that are both inaccurate and manipulated. There is no story here. Move along. Enjoy the weather. Wear sunscreen.
3
dalyplanet
12:06 AM GMT
There are thousands of actual field studies on the effects of CO2 enrichment on plant growth but the Warmies cherry pick a study that does not even look at plants but rather modeled scenarios of impossible modeled scenarios. It is amazing how dangerous these scenarios find the building block of all life on the planet to be.
2
Tenmile1
2:01 AM GMT
Yeah, and there are thousands of studies that prove water is beneficial to plant life. I suppose that you think that means there cannot be too much water. Well all I can say is: don’t drown yourself.
[I think this one is drowning in a sea of sceptics]
eric654
3:00 AM GMT
Like water there can be too little CO2. The C4 plants evolved to fill flourish under those conditions. Hope you like sugar, corn, millet and sorghum because that’s what will grow the best in the CO2 starved world that you want to return to. I’ll keep my wheat, rye, oats and barley. OTOH the C4s do better in heat so I might be stuck eating that too.
1
Odin3
3:58 AM GMT
We are not even close to having too much CO2 at approximately 400 ppm.
During the last ice age CO2 levels fell to 180 ppm and plants started to shut down. If CO2 levels had reached 150 ppm or lower, plants would have died off and all animal life on the planet would have died too. Green houses regularly keep CO2 concentrations at 1000-1200 ppm because the plants grow better. In the past, CO2 levels have been at several thousand parts per million and plants and animals thrived. US submarines try to keep CO2 levels below 8,000 ppm. Federal OSHA standards set CO2 maximums at 5,000 ppm. When you exhale, your breath contains more than 40,000 ppm CO2. The most predominant greenhouse gas is water vapor and increased CO2 levels are greening the planet.
We are much closer to being CO2 deprived than we are being threatened by too much atmospheric CO2. Plants thrive on more CO2- that is a good thing. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a weak greenhouse gas that is colorless and odorless which comprises only .04% of the atmosphere (naturally occurring CO2 + CO2 emissions). A 2007 IPCC report estimated that CO2 emissions were only .03% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. So, CO2 emissions make up only .0012% of the atmosphere. That is why blaming global warming on CO2 emissions is like having “the flea wag the dog”.
eric654
6/10/2015 11:24 PM GMT
Like many biology and related science papers, this is silly. They run old climate models that are way too warm for the planet as a whole and have no accuracy for any local area.
Will tropics losing half their growing days? There’s a reason the all time high in Miami is from 1942 and all states except NY and New England and Hawaii and Alaska have all time highs that are higher than Florida’s. Florida will continue to be a fine place for growing plants for centuries. A lot of the rest of the tropics and subtropics will be fine for the same reason. The interior sections (Sahara, Sahel, Amazon) will vary. But nobody really knows what the patterns will do, some areas will get greener and some will get browner.
1
Mujokan
6/10/2015 11:51 PM GMT
CMIP5 was used for the IPCC AR5 report, it is fine. In 85 years’ time under the business as usual scenario, you can expect Florida will look different to today.
dalyplanet
6/10/2015 11:56 PM GMT
RCP 8.5 assumes CO2 levels above 1200 ppm. This will never happen.
So if you model the worst case based on another worst case scenario that can never happen you can imagine anything can happen. It’s climate fiction. Where is that scribbler guy by the way.
2
eric654
1:35 AM GMT
Scribbler is writing weather forecasts. I quote: “In the Northern Hemisphere, the North Atlantic sees the greatest counter-trend cooling influence in atmospheric regions due to glacial melt. Meanwhile, Arctic regions continue to see (somewhat slowed) warming conditions. The result is a shift of the center of cold air to an off-set zone more toward Greenland and a screaming storm track running oblong over the polar zone and centering over a trough in the North Atlantic. Amazing temperature differentials between the continents, the Polar zone, Greenland, the North Atlantic, the equatorial Atlantic and Africa result in the potential for continent-sized storms packing the strength of hurricanes according to a recent study by Hansen.”
The “recent study by Hansen” looks like a blog post from 2012 and it says: “Such a slowdown in the rate of sea level rise would be little consolation to humanity, however, as the high latitude cooling would increase latitudinal temperature gradients, thus driving powerful cyclonic storms (Hansen, 2009)”
Nothing about the size and strength, but that’s probably from the 2009 study.
1
catch2too
5:08 AM GMT [Edited]
Not even a nice try eric654 LOL once again. Scribbler was not reporting weather forecasts as you claim with your partial quote. Scribbler was talking about what happens in the 2nd phase of human caused climate change in his article “When The Great Ice Sheets Start Going Down – The Age of Storms”.
Writing about what happens during long periods of climate change is not weather forecasts, as your childish cherry picked little put down trys to claim. Climate change is thirty year + periods of global weather, not weather forecasting which is by definition a daily forecast of the weather.
View More Replies
felix jury
6/10/2015 11:02 PM GMT
Chelsea , get your facts sorted , tell the tomatoe growers who in crease their CO2 ppm to 1200 inside glass or plastic houses that this is a non productive action , and what about the 6000 ppm inside submarines .
The more CO2 the better for all of us .
1
Tenmile1
2:05 AM GMT
The problem is that you are not getting an “all else equal” CO2 enrichment. Along with the increased CO2 you are getting changes in temperature and water availability that are just as crucial to plant life.
dalyplanet
4:27 AM GMT
But a warmer atmosphere holds more water I am told. Look at all that rain in Texas someone important said.
Steven Cohen
6/10/2015 9:55 PM GMT
The last paragraph in this article sums up why reducing carbon emissions is prudent. Why are so many posters against it? They are just fools who deny science.
[What Steven means is “deny the right of public sector academics to publish their personal political views as ‘research'”]
Peter Piasecki
6/10/2015 9:43 PM GMT
when you give 5 billion a year to find something, you will find it, and need more money to be 100% sure, so far they are only 97% according to false consensus, which in reality it is less than 5%, so they will need to more money to get to the 100%…..
2
Virgil Sandberg
6/10/2015 10:48 PM GMT
So who is paying off the Chinese and Russians to come to a false consensus?
3
eric654
6/10/2015 11:09 PM GMT
Last I checked, China was doing nothing about CO2. They built 100 times more coal electric capacity than solar.
1
Odin3
4:02 AM GMT
I hear the Russians are shutting down all of their oil and gas production facilities because they are convinced that CAGW is imminent. /sarc
[more]
