Fake News Reporting Thread

[rah]

Kid is immune to facts and logic. He prefers hacks and smears.

[Aeson]

Tropical forest can sequester about 200 metric tonnes of carbon per hectare. Temperate forests can sequester up to 750 metric tonnes per hectare. The difference is largely due to how temperate areas maintain carbon in the soil for longer.

Both can do much better if the forest is managed. Durable goods from wood can multiply the effect a few times, biochar production can multiply it many times.

Cutting forests down puts much of the carbon back into the air. This is especially true of Tropical forest, as carbon left in the soil is lost so quickly. There are very few land uses that can compete with forests for carbon sequestration even in temperate climates. Peat bogs, holistic management ... but both can take centuries or millenia to catch back up to where a forest had been.

The change in total Carbon in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is about 1 trillion metric tonnes... or less than what 5 billion hectares of forest could sequester.

[Proteus_MST]

Right. So you need to show that CO2 is the determining factor. The temperatures fall when CO2 increases. So how can you say how much CO2 increases temperatures. The graph is not sufficient.

I don't see a reason why... it is scientific consensus that the majoritry of climate change is manmade.

From NASA:

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals¹ show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)

Source .. together with additional links:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

If you, like Trump, disbelieve the 97% of the climate scientists and prefer to see the opinion of the 3% of scientists (who disagree) as a factum, that is your problem.
I won't waste my time with trying to sift through all the paper till I have suqashed even the last copunterargument of you.

Especially as I assume that you will then come with arguments like "Well, doesn't matter, it surely won't be so bad and god will prevent the worst" or something like that

[Aeson]

1945-1980 is a long trend. That's why your theory was not so popular in 1980. But now the data fits your theory. Ten years down the line, if temps decrease you will have no more graph to use.

The reason for using specific sets of data is important. I didn't do so to mislead. Proteus did. I'm making a valid point. I'm not even arguing that CO2 doesn't increase temps.

I use the data currently available. If the conclusion of that data changes at some point in the future I will change my conclusion. I don’t win some prize if there’s warming ... quite the opposite given my location. It’s already more than hot enough here.

You continually cherrypick the data. If you’re trying to prove a point by doing so, there are much better ways to prove something than to consistently make arguments that are easily refuted.

You say you aren’t arguing that CO2 doesn’t increase temps, but in the same thread claim we aren’t able to affect temps. We clearly can affect CO2 in the atmosphere, and so can affect radiative forcing.

[Kidlicious]

Tropical forest can sequester about 200 metric tonnes of carbon per hectare. Temperate forests can sequester up to 750 metric tonnes per hectare. The difference is largely due to how temperate areas maintain carbon in the soil for longer.

Both can do much better if the forest is managed. Durable goods from wood can multiply the effect a few times, biochar production can multiply it many times.

Cutting forests down puts much of the carbon back into the air. This is especially true of Tropical forest, as carbon left in the soil is lost so quickly. There are very few land uses that can compete with forests for carbon sequestration even in temperate climates. Peat bogs, holistic management ... but both can take centuries or millenia to catch back up to where a forest had been.

The change in total Carbon in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution is about 1 trillion metric tonnes... or less than what 5 billion hectares of forest could sequester.

Ok Thanks. That explains a lot. But forests that are regrowing help some. Your numbers are for developed forests.

[Kidlicious]

I don't see a reason why... it is scientific consensus that the majoritry of climate change is manmade.

From NASA:




Source .. together with additional links:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

If you, like Trump, disbelieve the 97% of the climate scientists and prefer to see the opinion of the 3% of scientists (who disagree) as a factum, that is your problem.
I won't waste my time with trying to sift through all the paper till I have suqashed even the last copunterargument of you.

Especially as I assume that you will then come with arguments like "Well, doesn't matter, it surely won't be so bad and god will prevent the worst" or something like that

Maybe you don't understand what you read. "Likely" means >50% chance, not 100% or whatever you believe. So it's not shocking that many scientists believe that temps are likely to increase. That doesn't make it a certainty. Also, "primary driver" is not the determanent factor necessarily. As we see from the data CO2 levels can be the primary driver, but not determine temps.

[Kidlicious]

I use the data currently available. If the conclusion of that data changes at some point in the future I will change my conclusion. I don’t win some prize if there’s warming ... quite the opposite given my location. It’s already more than hot enough here.

You continually cherrypick the data. If you’re trying to prove a point by doing so, there are much better ways to prove something than to consistently make arguments that are easily refuted.

You can believe the current trend, but only with limited certainty since you must acknowledge that a previous trend may occur.

You say you aren’t arguing that CO2 doesn’t increase temps, but in the same thread claim we aren’t able to affect temps. We clearly can affect CO2 in the atmosphere, and so can affect radiative forcing.

If only 1/4 is manmade, and we reduce output by 10% I don't think we are going to affect temps much at all. Any more than that and we are going to cause a lot of hardship, and still won't do much imo.

[Proteus_MST]

Maybe you don't understand what you read. "Likely" means >50% chance, not 100% or whatever you believe. So it's not shocking that many scientists believe that temps are likely to increase. That doesn't make it a certainty. Also, "primary driver" is not the determanent factor necessarily. As we see from the data CO2 levels can be the primary driver, but not determine temps.

And you don't seem to understand the role of curve fits ... and why there always are standard deviations in statistics.
Yes, you can have years where the temperature stays the same as in the year before (especially as this is a complex system) ... or even go lower ... those are short term deviations, which, however, don't change the long term trend.

Actually statistics is the reason why we now know that Gregor Mendel did some sugarcoating/manipulating with regards to his genetic examinations on Pisum sativum- Because his data (regarding the distribution of colours of the filial generations) were so perfectly fitting to his hypothesis (regarding the genetic mechanisms of heredity) that they couldn't actually have occurred in nature.


Also regarding "likely" (which you btw. misquoted because my quote says "extremly likely") ... as, I guess, you didn't follow up on the links to the statements of the scientific organjisations on the NASA page.
The scientific paper as well as the statements linked by NASA are a little bit more4 strongly worded.
Here a few excerpts:

The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper.
...
Climate scientists overwhelmingly agree that humans are causing recent global warming. The consensus position is articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statement that 'human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century' (Qin et al 2014, p 17)
...

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Not "likely" but "definitely"

Statement by the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science)

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.

https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/s3fs-public/aaas_climate_statement_0.pdf

Statement by the AGU (American Geophysical union)

Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes. Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric
concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution.Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed globalaverage surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases(notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia. .

https://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

And so on.
All of them large scientific societies.

YOu (as well as Trump) delude yourself if you think that there are large doubts about the role of humans in climate change...
or if you believe that it is only a few politically motivated scientists who try to convince you about the human role in climate change / global warming

[Aeson]

Ok Thanks. That explains a lot. But forests that are regrowing help some. Your numbers are for developed forests.

The numbers are net total amount sequestered for mature forest. New growth forests have higher yearly uptake of Carbon (flux), but generally take decades or centuries to reach their highest net total sequestered. Old growth has a higher total sequestered, but generally are near a balance in flux. At that point they are rotting as fast as growing.

[Kidlicious]

And you don't seem to understand the role of curve fits ... and why there always are standard deviations in statistics.
Yes, you can have years where the temperature stays the same as in the year before (especially as this is a complex system) ... or even go lower ... those are short term deviations, which, however, don't change the long term trend.

Actually statistics is the reason why we now know that Gregor Mendel did some sugarcoating/manipulating with regards to his genetic examinations on Pisum sativum- Because his data (regarding the distribution of colours of the filial generations) were so perfectly fitting to his hypothesis (regarding the genetic mechanisms of heredity) that they couldn't actually have occurred in nature.


Also regarding "likely" (which you btw. misquoted because my quote says "extremly likely") ... as, I guess, you didn't follow up on the links to the statements of the scientific organjisations on the NASA page.
The scientific paper as well as the statements linked by NASA are a little bit more4 strongly worded.
Here a few excerpts:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Not "likely" but "definitely"

Statement by the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science)

https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/s3fs-public/aaas_climate_statement_0.pdf

Statement by the AGU (American Geophysical union)

https://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

And so on.
All of them large scientific societies.

YOu (as well as Trump) delude yourself if you think that there are large doubts about the role of humans in climate change...
or if you believe that it is only a few politically motivated scientists who try to convince you about the human role in climate change / global warming

There you go again, "you think that there are large doubts about the role of humans in climate change.." You give this vague explanation of the role humans are having (temps are predicted to increase). Then you accuse me of doubting that. I don't have significant doubts about the fact that temperatures are going to rise and humans have contributed to that. I mean you seem to have the absurd views, although you don't spell them out. This is what you do, and you fail to make a reasonable argument everytime because you aren't really augmenting against me. It's like you are pretending.

[Aeson]

You can believe the current trend, but only with limited certainty since you must acknowledge that a previous trend may occur.


If only 1/4 is manmade, and we reduce output by 10% I don't think we are going to affect temps much at all. Any more than that and we are going to cause a lot of hardship, and still won't do much imo.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is roughly 1/3 of the total. Its very significant because we don’t want to get rid of it all of course. It’s probably a good thing that we’ve elevated the levels somewhat, but weve gone quite a ways too far.

We could greatly reduce or even completey sequester the 1 billion metric tonnes of increase (since Ind Rev) Carbon in the atmosphere in a way that creates billions of jobs, fixes many of our health problems, improves our waterways, groundwater, and aquifers.

We need 5 billion hectares of new forest.

[Kidlicious]

Won't that be hard on the regions that are deforesting?

[Aeson]

If it’s done in the proper way it will dramatically benefit those regions, creating billions of jobs worldwide, bringing billions of new effective consumers into the world economy. Instead of trying to eek out a meager living in a degrading landscape they can prosper in a regenerating one.

[ZEE]

Rakes are the answer, dammit. And emails are more important than this topic, IMO. They caused moar damage worldwide.

[spambot]

Yes, spam emails are quite annoying.