Massive New CO2 Sinks Discovered Put Global Warming Models Out to Pasture...

polifrog




CO2, that gas ruled a poison by the EPA for regulation purposes,  is plant fertilizer. 

In fact, an increase in CO2 increases the amount of plant biomass on Earth.  Life is a CO2 sink and that should come as no surprise considering the amounts of CO2 found in fossil fuels and fossil fuels, as we all know, is decayed life. 

But plant biomass does not mean just trees on land, it also means plankton in our seas and massive amounts of that plankton have gone unnoticed until now.

Cranberratimes:

...

The scientists found huge and highly productive phytoplankton blooms that satellite sensors could not detect because they were hidden under Arctic Ocean ice, a phenomenon one said was akin to finding a rainforest in a desert. Their findings were published on June 7.

One of the blooms extended from the sea-ice edge about 100 kilometres into the ice pack. It was up to 70 metres deep in places. The phytoplankton under the sea-ice were extremely productive, doubling in number more than once a day. Blooms in open water grow at a much slower rate, doubling in two to three days.

The researchers estimated that phytoplankton production under the ice in parts of the Arctic Ocean could be up to 10 times higher than in the nearby open ocean. They believe that thinning Arctic sea-ice is allowing sunlight to reach waters underneath and that about a quarter of the Arctic Ocean now has conditions conducive to such blooms.

Does this mean that the global ecosystem has a self-righting mechanism and that as humans pump ever more CO2 into the atmosphere warming the atmosphere and sea, and melting ice, phytoplankton production will increase and absorb the surplus greenhouse gas?

The jury is still out.

" The jury is still out" .... not settled science.




out

Climate Models Called for an Increase in Water Vapor -- Didn't Happen -- Lex Alexander, 'Meh'....

polifrog




Among the many positive feedbacks assumed by climate "scientists" in their climate models is an increase in water vapor.  It is postulated that a small increase in CO2 will result in an increase in water vapor which itself is a "greenhouse gas". Models were created predicting an increase in not just water vapor but an increase in temperature as a result of increases in CO2.  What happens when those models are compared to actual real world measurements?

The "dots" represent CO2 which has gone up.
The blue line represents relative humidity ... falling.

This represents a failure of the climate science model but triumph of science in action.  Real science is up for  falsification; false science is settled. 

That "journalists" like Lex Alexander continue to side with falsified models and attempt to halt debate with claims that Global Warming is settled science is evidence that they are not reality based.

So, when all else fails, "journalists" like Lex Alexander ignore observed reality and play politics with falsified climate assumptions and produce:

But when challenged with the notion that perhaps government spending on climate research has been omitted  Lex Alexander claims he is finished discussing facts.  Never mind he continues to post on those topics he is finished discussing.

Bound by factualized desires, the poorest journalist questions the least.  And that is what we find in Lex Alexander.







out

Science Does not Include Closing off Debate...

polifrog




An opinion in the WSJ has earned derision in some quarters of the scientific community for what they claim is its claim that one experiment in one field of science can be used to question an experiment in another field.

That WSJ paragraph:

5) The science is not settled, not by a long shot. Last month, scientists at CERN, the prestigious high-energy physics lab in Switzerland, reported that neutrinos might—repeat, might—travel faster than the speed of light. If serious scientists can question Einstein's theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth's atmosphere.

It seems obvious, though, that Robert Bryce did not use the results of one experiment in one field of study to draw conclusions in an unrelated field.

What he did was to compare the treatment of the scientific method in one field of study to its treatment in another field of study based the valid presumption that the scientific method is common between all fields of study.

He notes that in one field science is presumed "settled" while in another it is still questioned.  Thus, it is clear that one field of study adheres to the scientific process while the other raises itself above question. Or said another way: Physics is science; climate science is not.

However, I prefer the conservation of words found in:

If serious scientists can question Einstein's theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth's atmosphere.

out

Geologic Time Scale and the CO2 / Global Temperature Non Relationship...

polifrog

H/T Maggie's Farm

out

Christie Lapses Into Global Warming Gibberish...

polifrog




Christie may have cornered the market in clearing the fog of Teacher 's Union influence in New Jersey and by example, the nation but I don't expect Chris Christie to be a point of clarity on all issues; he represents New Jersey, after all.

However ... AGW gibberish? Really?

Politico:

In vetoing a bill (S2946) that would have required New Jersey to stay in a regional program intended to curb greenhouse gases — a program Christie plans to leave by the end of the year — the governor said “climate change is real.”

He added that “human activity plays a role in these changes” and that climate change is “impacting our state.”

Global Warming is no more scientific than a teacher's union and like a teacher's union AGW represents not needs of those their representatives claim but rather the desires of statists.





out

69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research...

polifrog


Rasmussen:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don’t think it’s likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided.

Those new Global Warming stories? Just "more cowbell".




out

Dr. Vincent Courtillot - Sun Over CO2 in Climate Control

polifrog



It seems obvious that the sun would have an impact on Earth temperatures, after all, for any of us who spend any time outside at all temperature differences between day and night are obvious.
Silly statement? Only somewhat....





out

Eastern Heatwave -- Records Broken -- Global Warmists Silent

polifrog


A heatwave has hit the East Coast.

Polifrog feels the heat and does not like it.

But, Polifrog has yet to experience the shrill cries of the Global Warmists. The press, in particular, has been extremely silent.

Crickets...

While hiding the decline it seems the Global Warmists have found themselves in decline.

ONE MORE TIME, HIDE THE DECLINE...










out

Climate Change on Jupiter Took Only Three Months

polifrog


As we all know, global warming (now climate change), is a bad, bad thing. NOVA told us so. Because climates are a naturally static.
Except when they, well.....change over time.

Jupiter experienced climate change over a period of 3 months.




Earth is like a microdot compared to Jupiter, so that cloud band is a massive climactic change.

Apparently climate change naturally occurs on Jupiter in a matter of months and that is without SUVs and carbon...

Just saying.






out