Has anyone yet found a single publishing climatologist that denies man made global warming? John Christey sp?comes closest but as far as I can tell even he does not deny it. Especially after it was shown that his satellite data was faulty, which is what led him to doubt it.
Yeah, that is a brain dead assertion by loons like jem that don't consider that rising CO2 levels are not the only effect of climate change. Ecosystems and agriculture do not like changing conditions. They are adapted to certain ones. When they change it hurts them. This is common sense that apparently some folks just don't have.
salon pushing more "moronism". again. so some area of the west is more arid... and they without and science blame that on man made co2 instead of natural variation and then they state... therefore co2 is not good for plants?
Here is something closer to science... try using satellite images and see if we are getting greener.. --- Did you know that the Earth is getting greener, quite literally? Satellites are now confirming that the amount of green vegetation on the planet has been increasing for three decades. This will be news to those accustomed to alarming tales about deforestation, overdevelopment and ecosystem destruction. This possibility was first suspected in 1985 by Charles Keeling, the scientist whose meticulous record of the content of the air atop Mauna Loa in Hawaii first alerted the world to the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Mr. Keeling's famous curve showed not only a year-by-year increase in carbon dioxide levels but a season-by-season oscillation in the concentration. ENLARGE Satellites show that the amount of green vegetation has been increasing or three decades straight. JOHN S. DYKES During summers in the Northern Hemisphere, the Earth breathes in carbon dioxide as green plants (most of which are north of the equator) absorb the gas and turn it into carbohydrate. In the northern winter, the Earth breathes the gas out again, as the summer's leaves rot. Mr. Keeling and colleagues noticed that the depth of the breathing had increased in Hawaii by 20% since the 1960s: The Earth was taking in more carbon dioxide each northern summer and giving out more each winter. Since the inhalation is done by green leaves, they reasoned, the amount of greenery on the planet must be growing larger. In the 1980s forest biologists started to report striking increases in the growth rates of trees and the density of forests: in Douglas firs in British Columbia, Scots pines in Finland, bristlecone pines in Colorado and even tropical rain forests. Around the same time, a NASA scientist named Compton Tucker found that he could map global vegetation changes by calculating a "Normalized Difference Vegetation Index" (NDVI) from the data produced by a satellite sensor. The data confirmed Mr. Keeling's suspicion: Greenery was on the increase. At first, this was thought to be a northern phenomenon, caused by faster growth in the great spruce and birch forests of Siberia and Canada, but the satellites showed it was happening all over the world and especially strongly in the Amazon and African rain forests. Advertisement Using the NDVI, one team this year reported that "over the last few decades of the 20th century, terrestrial ecosystems acted as net carbon sinks," i.e., they absorbed more carbon than they were emitting, and "net greening was reported in all biomes," though the effect had slowed down in recent years. The latest and most detailed satellite data, which is yet to be published but was summarized in an online lecture last July by Ranga Myneni of Boston University, confirms that the greening of the Earth has now been going on for 30 years. Between 1982 and 2011, 20.5% of the world's vegetated area got greener, while just 3% grew browner; the rest showed no change. What explains this trend? Man-made nitrogen fertilizer causes crops to grow faster, but it is having little effect on forests. There are essentially two possibilities: climate and carbon dioxide itself. Warmer, wetter weather should cause more vegetation to grow. But even without warming, an increase in carbon dioxide should itself accelerate growth rates of plants. CO2 is a scarce resource that plants have trouble scavenging from the air, and plants grow faster with higher levels of CO2 to inhale. Dr. Myneni reckons that it is now possible to distinguish between these two effects in the satellite data, and he concludes that 50% is due to "relaxation of climate constraints," i.e., warming or rainfall, and roughly 50% is due to carbon dioxide fertilization itself. In practice, the two interact. A series of experiments has found that plants tolerate heat better when CO2 levels are higher. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887323374504578217621593679506 more at the link
Gee, what a surprise that a right wing rag like the Wall St Urinal, owned by Rupert Murdoch, purveyor of profitable lies and disinformation, would "accidentally" leave this real reason out. Jerm, you joke, why can't you EVER use reliable, true science sources? It was the comparison of satellite-based vegetation and climate data that allowed them to pinpoint decreased cloudiness in the tropics as the main driver of increased productivity, something that hadn’t been seriously considered before. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/ BTW jerm, ever find that ONE publishing climatologist that denies AGW? Of course you haven't. Because there isn't one.
intro... once again you take info from the nutters from the now partly disbanded group of liars from nasa at the giss jet propulsion laboratory and a model and act like its science.... you are a such a troll... here is a quote from your article... " To reach these conclusions, Nemani, and colleagues from Scripps Institute of Oceanography, University of Montana, NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and Boston University used global climate data from the National Center for Environmental Prediction to determine the relative importance for various locations of the three key variables that influence plant growth: temperature, water availability, and sunlight. They indexed areas based on which of those factors most limited plant growth across the Earth. Lack of sufficient water limits the growth of 40 percent of Earth’s vegetation, temperature limits 33 percent, and lack of sufficient sunlight limits the remaining 27 percent. Of course, these factors overlap in some cases; for example, both cold winters and dry summers limit plant growth in the western U.S. 2. its not the source of the article you moron... its the satellite images that show the earth is greening. the journal had the integrity to quote scientists who state its hard to tell if the climate or the co2. your article just b.s.ed the issue. 3. Many of us gave you published scientist by name... like Humlum... and lists of hundreds and thousands of scientists who dispute the agw consensus... your own al gore sponsored website... listed many as well. you can't go redefining words... you are not bill clinton. 4. as long as you sell greenhouse gases for a living you will be a troll on this issue. Save the world... get a new job.
I just want to know why you NEVER cite reputable sources unless I bring them to your attention and you then have to answer for your lies. Also, why can't you come up with even ONE publishing climatologist that denies man made global warming. Why jem, why? Inquiring minds want to know. lol
Oh jem, found him. Avakyan 2013 "The Role of Solar Activity in Global Warming," by S. V. Avakyan, appeared in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2013, Vol. 83, No. 3, pp. 275–285. Dr. Avakyan is "Head of the Laboratory of Aerospace Physical Optics at the Vavilov State Optical Institute and a leading researcher of the RAS Central (Pulkovo) Astronomical Observatory." DOI=10.1134/S1019331613030015, WoS # =000321517800013 The abstract reads: The author associates the recently observed climate warming and carbon dioxide concentration growth in the lower atmospheric layers with variations of solar–geomagnetic activity in global cloud formation and the significant decrease in the role of forests in carbon dioxide accumulation in the process of photosynthesis. The contribution of the greenhouse effect of carbon-containing gases to global warming turns out to be insignificant. A clue to the author's motivation comes on the first page of the article, where he writes,"The switch of world powers first to decreasing the use of fossil fuel and then to carbon-free energy within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol may lead to economic collapse for Russia as a consequence of the reduction and, probably, even loss of the possibility to sell oil and natural gas on the world market." Dr. Avakyan addresses the two main facts that any theory of global warming must explain: over the last 100 years or so, both CO2 levels and global temperatures have risen and by about the same relative amount. Mainstream science attributes this to cause and effect: namely, the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric CO2 absorbs rising heat radiation and redirects some of it back down to raise the temperature at the Earth's surface. Dr. Avakyan's paper attributes the known temperature rise to the effect of solar geomagnetic activity on clouds, and the known rise of CO2 to the carbon not absorbed due to expanding deforestation, desertification, and urbanization, and the resulting lessening of photosynthesis. The paper is complicated and we will have to wait until the article has been out longer for the experts to weigh in. http://www.jamespowell.org/Avakyan/Avakyan.html