Josh writes: There’s been a lot of Twittering over an article in Nature Climate Change about the greening of the planet. It might not exactly be ground breaking science, it is after all something sceptics have been pointing out for some time, but it is great to see the story in Nature all the same.
But to get alarmists to admit this is good news will, I suspect, be like pulling hen’s teeth.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hilarious. Very funny
Latest model based scare mongering. Sheesh!
http://phys.org/news/2016-04-widespread-loss-ocean-oxygen-2030s.html
Perfect Josh.
A greener warmer planet capable of growing more food? Well. We can’t be having that now can we. We must be colder, thus dryer, with expanding deserts and far less rain. Water vapor? Forgeddaboutit. Greens don’t want no greening of the planet. Starving, cold humans? Way better.
Of course plants grow more under more CO2.
Ever wondered why your grandchildren are so much taller than you? Mine are.
Here is a growth curve:
http://www.geoffstuff.com/height.jpg
Te BBC of course have put their own spin on it-
“First, the many negative aspects of climate change are not acknowledged.
“Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatise to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilisation effect diminishes over time.” Future growth is also limited by other factors, such as lack of water or nutrients’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36130346
This site advertises itself as being a source for science, I couldn’t find one serious or knowledgeable comment on this thread to justify that assertion. Is this tongue-in-cheek parody? The PNL hypothesis shows greening is not a positive outcome as biogeochemical deficiencies will occur at faster rates leading to growth and crop yield declines. That alone should make one less sanguine despite a host of other negatives for extant’s habitat as a whole. On the bright side it is good to see another confirmation of AGW theory predictions. So I’ll take the win for science that human induced CO₂ is warming the planet.
Professor of what?
You do seem to be proclaiming your own ignorance and lack of reading skills.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to produce one measurement of an instance of manmade climate change.Please include the ratio of natural versus anthropogenic drivers.
Even better perhaps you could explain past changes in climate and how these might correlate with mankind’s production of CO2.
For future reference, I do not respond to scientifically illiterate comments and personal insults. There are a plethora of contrarian websites and blogs where you can satiate such perverse jejune imbecility.
John Robertson,
All I hear in response to your question is *crickets*
True.
Hot air has to be modified to produce sound and coherent speech.
So this Professor Lester Sea King is morose as well?
“For future reference, I do not respond to scientifically illiterate comments and personal insults. There are a plethora of contrarian websites and blogs where you can satiate such perverse jejune imbecility.”
About said its all.
And quite true,there are a number of “Contrarian websites”, where indeed one can observe the salient point.
The Alarmed Ones, cannot separate natural and anthropogenic “drivers” of climate.
Cannot tell us what “Climate Change” is.
Cannot define their terms and will faithfully refuse to do so.
I too would be morose if I was so conflicted.
Prof. Lester,
This thread is about a parody. There is plenty of science on this site — and it’s honest science, not your climate alarmism.
Next, the planet is measurably GREENING, due directly to the added CO2, which is completely harmless. You cannot identify any global harm due to the rise in beneficial CO2. All you’re doing is making assertions.
Finally, there is no such thing as “AGW theory“. AGW is a conjecture. It may well exist, but neither you nor anyone else has ever quantified AGW with empirical, testable measurements.
Without measurements, all you’re doing is giving your opinion. And you say this site has no serious comments. Well, this is a serious comment, pointing out that your opinion carries no weight without measurements quantifying what you’re trying to scare folks with.
+ one or two googalplexes
Judging from the sparseness and lack of robustness of your science heft, I must assume that your response is parody too. Besides your first paragraph of half truths spiced with rhetoric, the rest of your jeremiad is pure emotional nonsense or weak sarcasm at best. No response is required unless it was a genuine, albeit poor attempt, at parody or sarcasm.
For future reference, I do not respond to scientifically illiterate comments and personal insults. There are a plethora of climate alarmist blogs where you can satiate such perverse jejune imbecility.
Thanks,Vlad.
And I note that “Professor” Lester is still ‘Mr. Opinion’, with no measurements or other credible evidence to support his conjecture.
The “dangerous man-made global warming” scare is based on opinions, asserions, and eco-religious beliefs. On the other hand, there is a mountain of empirical evidence and observations showing that the rise in both CO2 and global temperatures has been entirely beneficial, with no downside.
The alarmist crowd got it wrong, that’s all. They just can’t admit it.
Mimicry is the highest form of flattery and adulation. Thanks, but you’d be better served spending your time educating yourself to avoid further humiliation rather than perfidious imitation.
Morose
Actually, I was making fun of you.
DB Stealey
Good luck with making fun of our comrade form Climatology ™ Inc.
If truly a C.C.C member there may be no sense of humour.
Parody and irony are usually wasted on the true believer.
John Robertson,
Thanks. Maybe ‘Morose’ didn’t respond because he’s also posting under the screen name “Prof. Lester C King”. Same-same.
..Mother Gaia is not impressed !!