Lungs of the planet reveal their true sensitivity to global warming

Feb 6, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Science Daily

But the amount of carbon dioxide that rainforests absorb, or produce, varies hugely with year-to-year variations in the climate.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of38
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Now this is the same study but writer is not from Norway.

"Climate change would be more damaging for the Amazon if greenhouse gases other than CO2, such as ozone or methane which do not have a fertilizing effect, take a bigger role" in the other piece now gets expanded:

The researchers are however certain that tropical forests will suffer under climate change if carbon dioxide doesn't fertilise tree growth as strongly as climate models suggest.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

SpaceBlues wrote:
Now this is the same study but writer is not from Norway.
"Climate change would be more damaging for the Amazon if greenhouse gases other than CO2, such as ozone or methane which do not have a fertilizing effect, take a bigger role" in the other piece now gets expanded:
The researchers are however certain that tropical forests will suffer under climate change if carbon dioxide doesn't fertilise tree growth as strongly as climate models suggest.
Some cut and paste scientific science fiction you used on every topic.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Feb 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Science Daily is not science fiction, troll.

No surprises you can't distinguish between the two.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Feb 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

Wallop10 wrote:
Science Daily is not science fiction, troll.
No surprises you can't distinguish between the two.
More BS from the commander TROLL!!!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Wallop10 wrote:
to ph'd:
Science Daily is not science fiction, troll.
No surprises you can't distinguish between the two.
No suprises that she called tina "a box of rocks" for at least three years and now commiserates with her.
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

phud fetid feces face fiend wrote:
More BS......
"phud fetid feces face fiend" loves BS, rolls in it, & 'fiendishly' delights that 'fetid feces' cover its 'face'.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

So what does the article say? If CO2 goes up forests will be OK or not depending on if the forest will absorb the additional CO2.

The problem, we don't have enough information to turn into data to load into the computer program to determine what will happen.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
So what does the article say? If CO2 goes up forests will be OK or not depending on if the forest will absorb the additional CO2.
The problem, we don't have enough information to turn into data to load into the computer program to determine what will happen.
Well that's an improvement you used to say you knew we did know the data was wrong.

The climatologists climate models do prove you wrong we have no data though.

What's your problem, FF?
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Feb 16, 2013
 
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that's an improvement you used to say you knew we did know the data was wrong.
The climatologists climate models do prove you wrong we have no data though.
What's your problem, FF?
You seem to be concerned with me, my credibility, my allies or my problem. I have to tell you to me, you're an anonymous poster on Topix. Don't care who you are, where you are, who your friends are. Unless you can support your opinions on climate change with real science, I don't care about your opinions. I hope that clarifies the situation.

Now, if you would like me to address anything I might have posted, I'd be glad to do it.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to be concerned with me, my credibility, my allies or my problem. I have to tell you to me, you're an anonymous poster on Topix. Don't care who you are, where you are, who your friends are. Unless you can support your opinions on climate change with real science, I don't care about your opinions. I hope that clarifies the situation.
I have engaged in discussion with you before.
I read what you posted and showed you the flaws.

You refused to even admit I posted flaws; Saw you do the same with other posters.
Not to mention you refused to read my strong science sources. You said you wanted to figure it out yourself.

You are into self delusion, not science.
As you know, I gave you time before reaching that conclusion.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
"phud fetid feces face fiend" loves BS, rolls in it, & 'fiendishly' delights that 'fetid feces' cover its 'face'.
In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The same thing happened to me with ff, who does not know science but requires "real" science from you. LOL.

Fossil fuel aka ff did not even watch the presentations by the President of the National Academy of Sciences.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Feb 16, 2013
 
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.
Gag, you are some paranoid dame.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Feb 16, 2013
 
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have engaged in discussion with you before.
I read what you posted and showed you the flaws.
You refused to even admit I posted flaws; Saw you do the same with other posters.
Not to mention you refused to read my strong science sources. You said you wanted to figure it out yourself.
You are into self delusion, not science.
As you know, I gave you time before reaching that conclusion.
You're making up stuff again. If you want my attention post the science you are willing to discuss.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gag, you are some paranoid dame.
Did someone out there cross their legs and gagged you again? See response in kind.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Feb 16, 2013
 
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
You're making up stuff again. If you want my attention post the science you are willing to discuss.
There are other clues the warming we have experienced in previous decades is from CO2 and not from the sun:

(i) The sun has been flat in terms of irradiance for the past 50 years.
-- But the average global temperature has been warming.

(ii) If it were the sun causing the warming: Increased sunlight would heat the stratosphere first, where the ozone layer absorbs solar ultraviolet light.
-- But the stratosphere is cooling (as predicted by CO2 radiative warming)

(iii) Increased sunlight would heat the equator more than the poles (Lambert's cosine law).
- Instead we see "polar amplification," (read more for details on the site)

(iv) Increased sunlight would increase daytime temperatures more than nighttime temperatures.
-- But nighttime temperatures have risen more, which is consistent with an atmosphere of increased IR opacity holding in surface warmth better. Think of the way a cloudy night is warmer than a clear night.

(v) Increased sunlight would increase summer temperatures more than winter temperatures.
-- But winter temperatures have risen more. Again, more greenhouse gases hold in the heat better when sunlight is decreased.

see more details here
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Sun.html

Add to that NASA's evidence.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

You ignored also when I showed you the Milankovitch cycles showed we should have been entering a cooling period right now...

So I'm afraid it is a long list, FF.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Feb 16, 2013
 
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
There are other clues the warming we have experienced in previous decades is from CO2 and not from the sun:
(i) The sun has been flat in terms of irradiance for the past 50 years.
-- But the average global temperature has been warming.
(ii) If it were the sun causing the warming: Increased sunlight would heat the stratosphere first, where the ozone layer absorbs solar ultraviolet light.
-- But the stratosphere is cooling (as predicted by CO2 radiative warming)
(iii) Increased sunlight would heat the equator more than the poles (Lambert's cosine law).
- Instead we see "polar amplification," (read more for details on the site)
(iv) Increased sunlight would increase daytime temperatures more than nighttime temperatures.
-- But nighttime temperatures have risen more, which is consistent with an atmosphere of increased IR opacity holding in surface warmth better. Think of the way a cloudy night is warmer than a clear night.
(v) Increased sunlight would increase summer temperatures more than winter temperatures.
-- But winter temperatures have risen more. Again, more greenhouse gases hold in the heat better when sunlight is decreased.
see more details here
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Sun.html
Add to that NASA's evidence.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
You ignored also when I showed you the Milankovitch cycles showed we should have been entering a cooling period right now...
So I'm afraid it is a long list, FF.
I've answered your solar questions.

Yes we are cooling, we've been cooling since the thermal max of the holocene approx 9000 years ago. Why, because both eccentricity and obliquity are in decline.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Feb 16, 2013
 
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
I've answered your solar questions.
Yes we are cooling, we've been cooling since the thermal max of the holocene approx 9000 years ago. Why, because both eccentricity and obliquity are in decline.
No. We are not cooling.

and you ignored

(ii) If it were the sun causing the warming: Increased sunlight would heat the stratosphere first, where the ozone layer absorbs solar ultraviolet light.
-- But the stratosphere is cooling (as predicted by CO2 radiative warming)

(iii) Increased sunlight would heat the equator more than the poles (Lambert's cosine law).
- Instead we see "polar amplification," (read more for details on the site)

(iv) Increased sunlight would increase daytime temperatures more than nighttime temperatures.
-- But nighttime temperatures have risen more, which is consistent with an atmosphere of increased IR opacity holding in surface warmth better. Think of the way a cloudy night is warmer than a clear night.

(v) Increased sunlight would increase summer temperatures more than winter temperatures.
-- But winter temperatures have risen more. Again, more greenhouse gases hold in the heat better when sunlight is decreased.

see more details here
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Sun.html
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
No. We are not cooling.
and you ignored
(ii) If it were the sun causing the warming: Increased sunlight would heat the stratosphere first, where the ozone layer absorbs solar ultraviolet light.
-- But the stratosphere is cooling (as predicted by CO2 radiative warming)
(iii) Increased sunlight would heat the equator more than the poles (Lambert's cosine law).
- Instead we see "polar amplification," (read more for details on the site)
(iv) Increased sunlight would increase daytime temperatures more than nighttime temperatures.
-- But nighttime temperatures have risen more, which is consistent with an atmosphere of increased IR opacity holding in surface warmth better. Think of the way a cloudy night is warmer than a clear night.
(v) Increased sunlight would increase summer temperatures more than winter temperatures.
-- But winter temperatures have risen more. Again, more greenhouse gases hold in the heat better when sunlight is decreased.
see more details here
http://BartonPaulLevenson.com/Sun.html
If you want to debate what Levenson says, then debate Levenson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barton_Paul_Leve...

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Feb 16, 2013
 
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to debate what Levenson says, then debate Levenson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barton_Paul_Leve...
He took it from the IPCC. Know him through another forum by the way.

Yeah -- knew you wouldn't like these facts.
It's what convinced the scientific agencies.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of38
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••