Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

But have the CO2 levels risen as rapidly as measured in recent years from burning fossil fuels which took millions of years to accumulate?

 

But what's that got to do with the cause of coral bleaching and the rapid death of corals on the Great Barrier Reef?

 

Same as anywhere else on the GBR. You stop actions that put nitrates into surface and groundwater.

 

That's just your personal opinion, and I prefer to take notice of the scientific results of professional scientists and not amateurs who studied planetary physics including atmospheric physics and who know nothing about the current global warming and the causes.

 

It’s covered with snow in the winter.

 

Went wayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too far here. Conspiracy theory nonsense. There is so much evidence that it is undeniable. Please present youR creditable link that won't have a Media Bias Fact Check rating of QUACKERY or CONSPIRACTY THEORY.

 

That is a theory, not a fact.

Of course, you have to remember that I am a radical. And yet at the same time a "denier" according to what many people say.

But the CO2 levels are going to get a hell of a lot higher than they are now. But if you are so damned worried about human caused global warming, there is only one solution for that.

Eliminate about 75% of the population of the planet. Because short of that, absolutely nothing you or anybody else does will make any difference. The CO2 levels caused by humans is going to continue to grow.

That is the truth that most who scream "AGW" do not want to admit. That the best thing for the planet if they are all right is for COVID to have been as deadly as Ebola at the upper end, or at the extreme lower end Yersinia Pestis. Because the CO2 is directly related to the human population, and 8 billion people is not a sustainable population. Want to see CO2 levels reduced? Kill off half to three-quarters of the population. Then, you will make a start at reducing CO2 levels. Because if that is the cause as so many claim, than what is being done now is little more than using a bucket to try and bail out the Titanic.

That is the basic truth, and one most people do not want to admit to. But if you and so many others are right, nothing short of that will do any good.

 

So what!!!
The Antarctic Peninsula is still rapidly greening because it is becoming warmer.

 

That's just your personal opinion

 

What evidence do you have that nitrates are being put into surface and groundwater at Cooktown and Thursday Island?
And how do you fertilize food crops with nitrogen if you don't add nitrogen back to replace the nitrogen which is removed?

 

Correlation is not causation. The data from the Antarctic disproves the enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis. Models predict Antarctic warming. There is no Antarctic warming. Therefore models cannot be used to predict the future.

 

Your post is mere denial.

psychology : a defense mechanism in which confrontation with a personal problem or with reality is avoided by denying the existence of the problem or reality

Denial Definition & Meaning

 

Cooktown and Thursday Island are irrelevant. They have no agriculture activity there to speak of. Agricultural areas of Queensland are the source of surface and groundwater pollution I’m referring to. Here is another study I’ve not yet linked to….

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837717310311

If the nitrogen is “removed” it doesn’t go into surface or ground water. The best place to start is by applying only the amount of fertilizer that the crop will use.

It’s been common in most sectors of agriculture to overshoot nitrogen applications above crop needs. Cheap “insurance” so to speak. Especially in sandy soils that are prone to leaching or where excessive precipitation is a factor.

One good method of making sure crops have adequate nitrogen while minimizing runoff and leaching is split applications of nitrogen. Instead of traditional methods of calculating needs at the beginning of the crop season and applying the entire amount up front, smaller applications are made throughput the season based on weather and crop development. Tissue testing can be used to determine amounts needed as well as drone or satellite imagery for some crops.

There are also commercial N stabilization products that allow slow release throughout the season or part of the season. Some people avoid them as sometimes it appears “cheaper” to oversupply nitrogen than protect a lesser amount.

For crops like bananas and sugarcane that require a lot of nitrogen, another very effective mitigation is good buffer zones around fields. Typically a deep rooted grass should be well established in the buffer zone to trap and use any nitrogen in runoff.

The very best method of reducing leaching and runoff on land already in production is increasing soil organic matter and soil biological activity. Soils higher in organic matter and biological activity are able to resist erosion better than low organic matter soils. Also, they are able to supply nutrients to plants more efficiently so less total nitrogen needs to be added to the system. This often requires a paradigm shift in the agricultural producer mindset. Much of what we know about symbiosis of plants and microorganisms in soils is new information and not incorporated into mainstream ag education. Ag education is often linked to support from large fertilizer and agrochemical suppliers so practices that reduce sales of these products are disincentivized in mainstream formal education. But that’s another subject.

Incorporating cover crops is another way to ensure excess nitrogen doesn’t run off or leach into groundwater. Not only does the cover crop take up leftover nitrogen from the previous crop, it virtually eliminates erosion from water and wind. Also, cover crops greatly increase soil organic matter and biological activity.

And then the one nobody wants to hear. Sometimes we just have to leave land out of intensive ag production. We’ve been killing trees and other native vegetation to grow food for thousands of years. Sometimes we have to cease and desist. We can grow more food on less acres. It happens all the time. Incorporating many of the above practices can help accomplish that.

Australia is the only first world country that is still destroying forests on a large scale. We have to leave native vegetation sometimes.

When I was young and uninformed I was involved in taking a quarter section of hilly native grass and converting it to corn production. Yields were amazing. The stored carbon (organic matter) allowed for great yields with average fertilizer inputs. But that ceased in a couple years. And erosion began. Yields dropped. Inputs of commercial fertilizers increased. Today that quarter (I no longer lease it) requires above average fertilizer inputs. It has bad water erosion. The tenants don’t utilize cover crops.

It was something I should have never been involved in. I was young and was fresh out of formal ag education where commercial ag driven by inputs for maximum profit was the focus. You couldn’t entice me to do it again. Short term profit isn’t worth creating a perpetual problem. That land was best suited to what nature placed there—native grasses. I could have spent the time and money I spent on that quarter on improving soil quality on existing fields and had better ROI in the long term. Live and learn. There are things more important than short term profits. The GBR is one of them.

More nitrogen management practices that can reduce runoff and leaching.

1) cover in the form of mulch or crop residue
2) selection of nitrogen efficient genetics in the crop species
3) utilizing biological sources of nitrogen from “fixing” species instead of more volatile commercial products
4) crop rotation
5) strip farming
6) installing or utilizing existing wetlands to filter runoff
7) swales and terraces.

 

The alarmist narrative is built on dishonesty.
Climate Cooking: from Roger Pielke Jr.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/climate-cooking
“Steyer was focused on the question: ‘How do you make climate change feel real and immediate for people?’”

. . . The article details how the misuse of RCP8.5 has permeated scientific literature, with over 6,700 academic papers incorrectly referencing it as ‘business as usual.’ This misuse has skewed the scientific and public understanding of climate risk, magnifying perceptions of threat and urgency in ways that may not align with the most likely scenarios.

According to my search of academic citations (using Google Scholar) more than 6,700 academic papers have used “business as usual” and RCP8.5 together since 2011. If each paper is cited 15 times, that would mean that more than 100,000 papers have cited papers that mistakenly refer to RCP8.5 as “business as usual” and many of these papers improperly compare other RCP scenarios as policy options.

Further, not only did the USNCA adopted the flawed methodology of the Risky Business projects, but so too has the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, most notably in its 2019 Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. There is no doubt that climate science and policy have been profoundly influenced by the Risky Business campaign.

Of course, the Steyer-Bloomberg-Paulson investments were not entirely responsible for the misuse of scenarios in the scientific literature, but they are clearly an important part of the story.

Pielke Jr. notes the flawed (I would say ideologically corrupted) behavior of scientific institutions and media in the propagation of these exaggerated, to say the least, narratives of climate change threats.

The corruption of climate science occurred because some of our most important institutions have let us down. The scientific peer review process has failed to catch obvious methodological errors in research papers. Leading scientific assessments have ignored conflicts of interest and adopted flawed methods. The major media has been selectively incurious as to the impact of big money in climate advocacy on climate science, assessments, and policy.

Conclusion: The Imperative for Integrity in Climate Science

Pielke Jr. concludes with a call to restore integrity in climate science, highlighting the necessity of adhering to rigorous scientific standards irrespective of political or financial motivations. “We are going to need good science in the future—so it is best to keep it that way, no matter what cause it is enlisted to support,” he asserts.

Pielke Jr.’s article about RCP8.5 and the manufacturing of circular alarmist constructed narratives is not just about climate science; it’s about how science is used—or misused—to shape policy and perception. It serves as a cautionary tale of the power of narratives, the influence of money, and the critical need for vigilance in maintaining scientific standards.

Again, Pielke Jr.’s Substack is well worth a read.

 

You claim faceplants in two separate ways there.

First, it's just not true. You're making up a wild story. The facts say you're wrong, therefore you're wrong.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...cted-in-deeply-concerning-sign-for-sea-levels

And second, Antarctica is not the planet. AGW theory does not say the whole planet will warm at the same rate.

 

Follow the money.

All of the corrupting bribe money flows to the denier side.

Thus, all of the fraud and garbage pseudoscience comes from the denier side.

The ethical people, the mainstream climaste scientists, they refuse the bribe money that the deniers all depend on. They effectively take a pay cut to tell the truth, giving them even more credibility.

 

See my post above.

Antarctica is not warming at all despite CO2 increasing from 280 ppm to 420 ppm. The models predict warming.

Per the scientific method the enhanced CO2 effect hypothesis is disproven.

 

Let's go over the denier "logic" here.

High nitrates and low temps -- no bleaching.

Low nitrates and high temps -- massive bleaching.

Thus, deniers conclude ... nitrates are the primary cause!

And to think they wonder why they got laughed out of every normal venue, forcing them to retreat to a SafeSpace.

 

Facts don't care about your feelings.

You're just wrong, so nobody will pay attention to you.

 

The data doesn't lie or have feelings.

 

<yawn>

<yawn>

Where does the neutron come from?

<yawn>

"Spontaneous fission (SF) is a form of radioactive decay in which a heavy atomic nucleus splits into two or more lighter nuclei. In contrast to induced fission, there is no inciting particle to trigger the decay; it is a purely probabilistic process."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_fission

 

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

It's just a fact that Antarctica has not warmed significantly in ~200y. It is just a fact that arctic sea ice extent is not meaningfully different from what it was 80ya. It's just a fact that the coldest 500y period in the last 10Ky was accompanied by the lowest sustained solar activity in thousands of years, and it's just a fact that the return to more normal Holocene temperatures in the 20th century was accompanied by the highest. It's just a fact that adding CO2 to ordinary sea-level atmospheric air does not meaningfully alter its infrared absorption characteristics. And on and on: the facts conclusively refute the CO2 climate narrative, sorry. It's just your feeling -- and systematically dishonest climate nonscience like Michael "Piltdown" Mann's hockey stick graph -- that CO2 must be the major determinant of global surface temperature.

 

No, the climategate emails proved the conspiracy exists.

Yet every time I scrutinize that "evidence" closely, it turns out to be full of logical holes.

When I read Media Bias Fact Check reports on climate science sources, I see nothing but consistent dishonesty: deliberate misinterpretations of statements by climate realists to turn true statements into false ones, bald falsehoods claimed as facts, unquestioning acceptance of the CO2 climate narrative as established fact, and arrant question begging fallacies. Not credible in even the smallest measure, sorry.

 

If you read my posts on this topic, you will see that I provide incomparably more factual information about it than you.

 

Why would we want to do that? CO2 is increasing agricultural production and shrinking deserts.