My Glacier National Park Picture

Nonsense

http://www.plantsneedco2.org/

You cite a shonky graph from a Marcott climate model study thats at odds with almost every peer review study ever published to date then ask what I've been smoking ?

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

Here in detail is why such climate models cannot work

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi

 

So you support ending all the oil industry subsidies?

 

Well lets put it this way . Which form of energy production would still remain if all subsidies were withdrawn entirely and purely market forces allowed to determine the sourcing ?

 

SO according to you, the problem isn't the CO2 necessarily because that comes of the atmosphere originally anyway, but the speed at which it is returned is the problem... ROFL, brilliant...

Now please explain how it is that life here is CARBON based and not CO2 based... How about the fact CO2 is not an element and does not remain CO2 when it's abosrbed by a life form for instance.. It is broken down and reorganized to form other substances. Some of it even is broken down into it's more base elements like Carbon and Oxygen..

Sorry but the scenario you are portraying is the kind of thing taught to grade schoolers. CO2 is not CO2 forever, it get's broken down over time. Just as CO2 is not only made by actions like respiration and decomposition or burning of organic life forms, be they new or ancient. The earth itself creates CO2, and it is released through Volcanoes and any number of other processes that occur every second of everyday.. And in all of that, Carbon and Oxygen are the elements that remain.

You keep trying to pretend everyone in opposition to your claims are somehow ignorant, yet your own concept of the system, that you tell us is that of a child... Not exactly an afirmation of your pretense is it...

The video you posted was a fine example.. It was a TED talks video. Why not just go straight to Al gore for your science? The entire premise of the man's argument was that soot and other things are darkening snow packs on mountains in Colorado.. Not only is Colorado NOT a pole or an arctic or even antarctic region which was your original premise, but the fact is THAT snow pack is far more likely to melt than either arctic or antarctic, which makes my point all the more important... WHEN THE SNOW MELTS THE SOOT IS GONE FROM THE SURFACE OF THE SNOW.. and WHEN SNOW FALLS THE SNOW HAS A NEW WHITE SURFACE AGAIN... Also Colorado has extreme weather changes due to the topography, geography, and regional climate variation.. Meaning at any point he same snow pack could be gone or covered in redish dust from the more arid eastern regions, or any number of changes. And none of them are related to AGW...

But did you even know that? Did you check on it? Did you even think for one second that maybe there was more to it than the video of a guy wanting funding for his research? Of course not and that's the problem with so many people..You take your inormation from the same media that uses the motto "if it bleeds it leads."... Meaning bad news sells...

 

I keep hoping climate deniers will learn how to read -- read something, anything, even their own cited websites. And my hopes keep getting dashed.
Just to recap, here's what I said: the major bottlenecks to plant growth in nature are water, phosphorus, and fixed nitrogen.
Here's real science to back that up
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534796100550
Now here's what your non-science website, written by a non-biologist, said to refute that:



Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Which you would have known, if you had actually read your own source. Which you didn't. My point stands unrefuted.

Oh, so that's why you don't read the websites you cite -- it's because you're smoking? No wonder.
Just to recap, you said the current temperature rise was nothing unusual and not abrupt. I refuted that by citing three sources for global temperatures spanning the Holocene (the last 11,000 years): Marcott 2013, Anderson 2013, and HADCRUT4.

You responded with a website that doesn't have one single global temperature record. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch.
You responded with a website that doesn't have one single Holocene (11,000 year) record. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch.



Which you would have known if you had actually read the website you cited. Which you didn't.

And yet another website which contains no 11,000 year Holocene records. Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch.



Which you would have known if you had read it. Which you didn't.

Oh that's brilliant. Climate models can't work because they don't include plate tectonics?? I suppose next you're going to tell us that kitchen clocks can't work because they don't account for relativistic time dilation from gravitational fields.

Edit/Unnecessary comment/Stop

 

ROFL, are you serious?

Your Link specifies a specific type of plant and a specific type of study.. Did you happen to read that? Of course not, too busy cutting up quotes and editing your part of the discussion which led to the exchange out of it to be bothered to read...

From Your linked reference from your first pedantic editing of his post...

First the obvious part... Herbacious Vegetation.. Know what that is? Obviously not..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbaceous_plant

Soit's not ALL plants is it.. No not at all, but rather a specific type of plant that does not live past its own growing season..Which means your premise was incorrect, and you used something specific to try and make a broad claim, inaccurately..

The next part, it states; "Herbaceous vegetation under temperate climatic conditions generally shows nitrogen- or phosphorus-limited plant growth, which creates conditions for a high botanical diversity." Know what that means?

I'll leave that there for you, because you like to accuse others of not reading, and now we see in fact you are the one who didn;t read your own linked source...

Your quote editing will keep biting you on the behind..

 

Thanks gslack you saved me a lot of probably pointless keystrokes there

 

I suppose for some what it boils down to ultimately is this

 

I suspect that any man-made global warming had a lot more to do with deforestation.