by Gill 221 Replies latest jw friends
To agree with 'the scientists' makes a mind controlled non free thinking individual feel cool, intelligent, top of the heap etc. To disagree with top scientists opens one to ridicule and 'pity.
Agreeing with science = being under mind control? Really?
First, WE would have to be responsible.
That humans are not causing global warming is the faith-based belief and is anti-scientific.
Hey Besty, what is your scientific opinion on this? What are the implications regarding recent atmospheric CO2 levels?
CONCLUSIONS
Thus it is concluded that:
Being under mind control predisposes a person to believe and trust the man in the suit, uniform, the person wearing the 'label' ie scientist therefore makes a person more gullible and less likely to listen to something that may be true because the person stating 'the Emperor has NO Clothes' is not wearing the approved 'uniform.
I don't have to answer anything yes or no as the argument on whether CO2 is the cause of this 'terrible heat wave' we are all suffering from is not over with. Also, high CO2 levels encourages plant growth which produces oxygen which keeps us all alive so lets not knock it too much since it seems to not matter when China and India are producing it instead of us and we given them our money to produce even more CO2.
Some discerning souls might sniff out a scam here but not someone who needs to believe a uniform and not step out and believe in their own senses.
There is the problem of the big burning ball in the sky. Have you noticed it recently or have you been distracted by 'uniforms' spouting propaganda and pilfering the cash from your pockets and claiming that YOU are responsible for the 'HEAT' you also claim is destroying the planet.
We have a shortage of sunspots...............still.
Stomata CO2 proxy data. As you know, current levels are just over 380 PPM.
Which is the better proxy? If it is stomata, then perhaps current levels aren't that unusual after all.
BTS
Hey Besty, what is your scientific opinion on this?
Send me a link to the original published paper by the blogger David Middleton and we can go from there.
From his blog I gather he is an oil industry geologist with a certain point of view.
That's fine. He has several options with his opinions - he can attempt to get them published by a reputable journal and expose himself to peer scrutiny, or he can blog about them for the amusement of himself, his wife and the denier echo-chamber.
You tell me which route he has chosen to go down and why.
ye ok Gill
the reason you refuse to answer whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas is because the answer would expose your anti-science underpants :-)
Which is the better proxy? If it is stomata, then perhaps current levels aren't that unusual after all.
Ice cores are a direct measure, so your question about which is the better proxy doesn't make sense.
Stomatal density is an indirect measure. Experiments on stomata density showed that "the stomatal response to increasing atmospheric CO2 was identical to that induced by removing water from the plant roots" (here). In other words, stomatal index data may not be the able to measure the atmospheric concentration as precisely as its proponents would like.
Secondly, several different ice-core data sets are essentially consistent. Artifacts do appear in earlier ice core records - mainly the Greenland drill sites where CO2 was depleted through a chemical reaction - but there are no such indications of this in the Taylor Dome ice core. In any event, this is a known phenomena, and one that can be accounted for. These records all indicate the CO2 concentration from 260 to 280 ppmv during the preindustrial Holocene. Stomata data, on the other hand, do not show such agreement. For example Beerling et al (D. J. Beerling, H. H. Birks, F. I. Woodward, J. Quat. Sci. 10, 379 (1995)) report largely scattering proxy CO2 values from 225 to 310 ppmv between 9940 and 9600 14C-yr, in disagreement with the data presented by Wagner et al. In summary, the skeptics claim that stomatal data falsify the concept of a relatively stable Holocene CO2 concentration of 270-280 ppmv until the Industrial Revolution. This claim is not justified.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/plant-stomata-co2-levels.htm
Unless you can show me otherwise David Middleton is a blogger re-hashing an old paper that has been through peer review and found wanting.
Send me a link to the original published paper by the blogger David Middleton and we can go from there.
I see. Are you saying the data in the chart is false The blogger post is references the following published papers among others:
Rapid atmospheric CO 2 changes associated with the 8,200-years-B.P. cooling event
It thus may be concluded that leaf-based CO 2 data support a much more dynamic evolution of the Holocene CO 2 regime than previously thought. In effect, there seems to be every indication that the occurrence of Holocene CO 2 fluctuations is more consistent with current observations and models of past global temperature changes than the common notion of a relatively stable CO 2 regime until the onset of the Industrial Revolution.
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/19/12011
Another that shows more rapid and wider fluctiations:
A stomatal frequency record based on buried Tsuga heterophylla needles reveals significant centennial-scale atmospheric CO 2 fluctuations during the last millennium. The record includes four CO 2 minima of 260–275 ppmv (ca. A.D. 860 and A.D. 1150, and less prominently, ca. A.D. 1600 and 1800). Alternating CO 2 maxima of 300–320 ppmv are present at A.D. 1000, A.D.1300, and ca. A.D. 1700. These CO 2 fluctuations parallel global terrestrial air temperature changes, as well as oceanic surface temperature fluctuations in the North Atlantic. The results obtained in this study corroborate the notion of a continuous coupling of the preindustrial atmospheric CO 2 regime and climate.
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/33
Care to comment on these? There are others.
BTS
I see you have edited your post, Besty, and asserted conflict of interest. Above are some references. One wonders why such assertions are valid on the one hand, but not on the other (as if oil stains judgement).
From his blog I gather he is an oil industry geologist with a certain point of view.
By the way... Wagner, Van Hoof, Kouwenberg and the other botanists publishing papers on plant stomata & atmospheric CO2 are generally not "skeptics." They are looking for a pre-industrial coupling of CO2 & temperature. They aren't trying to debunk AGW.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/plant-stomata-co2-levels.htm
Ice cores are a direct measure, so your question about which is the better proxy doesn't make sense.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/plant-stomata-co2-levels.htm
The Antarctic ice cores are not "direct measurements" of global atmospheric CO2. They are direct measurements of gas that filtered into snow and were eventually trapped in ice. They are an indication of what the atmospheric CO2 was in the air, near the ground over Antarctica.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/plant-stomata-co2-levels.htm
Stomatal density is an indirect measure. Experiments on stomata density showed that "the stomatal response to increasing atmospheric CO2 was identical to that induced by removing water from the plant roots" (here). In other words, stomatal index data may not be the able to measure the atmospheric concentration as precisely as its proponents would like.
We don't see those jumps in the plant stomata data either over the last 50 years. The stomatal response is consistent with a steady increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 60 years...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/plant-stomata-co2-levels.htm
BTS
