Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
New article in Nature says the Earth is getting greener, more plants sucking more CO2 out of the air.
The article mentions that elevated atmospheric CO2 explains some of the greening but carefully avoids linking CO2 levels to temperature. But if green plants suck CO2 out of the air, then shouldn’t global greening lower atmospheric CO2? And if global warming is caused by CO2, which more plants are now sucking out of the air, shouldn’t that mitigate global warming?
I wonder if the computer models used by climate scientists incorporate enough CO2 reduction due to global greening?
Joe Doakes
The models do what they’re told to do.
Climate skeptics can enjoy a movie tonight:
http://www.climatehustlemovie.com/
JD, you did not go far enough with your questions…
And if greening is a result of global warming, and greening leads to more food hence allowing less people to starve, why are environazis hate people so much?
Not a problem for them as long as the right kind of people starve.
My comment stands: if semiconductor companies used models as well constructed as climate models, we’d still be using mechanical calculators.
Seriously. I’ve actually consulted on those models in a past life and I have to say that climate “scientists” are, without almost any exception, completely clueless on computer model creation and deluding themselves and everyone else on their accuracy. Worse still, they’re so completely in denial that they’re ignoring the “herd effect” on expected results. That’s not completely unexpected and it happens in all fields (look at the history of the mass of the electron as determined by Millikan over time), but in most other fields they’re not trying to massively rearrange the world economy with their predictions.
Suppose you believe that it is absolutely true that the earth is warming catastrophically, and human use of fossil fuels is the cause, but you also believe that any conceivable government response to climate change would be an immeasurably greater catastrophe?
Are you a still a ‘climate change denier’?
What Nerdbert says, and in addition, we might add that in any endeavor, if a group of men circle the wagons around a hypothesis and argue consensus, they are simultaneously arguing (inadvertently) that their science isn’t very good. You lead, after all, with your best argument. So if your best argument is the fallacy of appeal to authority, you know it’s not data and logic.
Which is to respond to Bento: of course. DUH! If appeal to authority tells us it’s a political endeavor, it is the political solution that is most important, not the science. :^)
So what we do have from more CO2 is a verifiable, positive event rather than all the gloom and doom predicted by the alarmists that hasn’t come true, but rest assured they tell us, it will.
Wow! They are going to have one of the libidiot figure heads of gloBULL warming propaganda, Bill Nye “The um Science Guy” on the panel. They must have invited him for comic relief after such a serious movie. 😅
Hopefully Obama loaned AF1 to Nye for his trip! :^)
It’s an interesting thought that this does not in itself end the concern over the matter; we would have to demonstrate that the extra vegetation is beneficial–say it’s feeding us, it’s nourishing the soil and putting organic matter in there, etc..
Plus, the same areas not benefiting from this are the same deserts we’re concerned about already. So we can’t entirely discard the majority hypothesis yet–though we can say that the system appears to be a lot more complicated than the majority thought it was.