Some carbon info for Chuck Chuck

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Read this "Are we heading into a new Ice Age?" https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm
Excerpt:
"So what are today’s conditions like? Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. However, two reasons explain why an ice age is unlikely:

1. These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak and are not acting within the same timescale – they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This means that their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age. You have to go back 430,000 years to find an interglacial with similar conditions, and this interglacial lasted about 30,000 years.
2. The warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases is greater than the cooling effect expected from natural factors. Without human interference, the Earth’s orbit and tilt, a slight decline in solar output since the 1950s and volcanic activity would have led to global cooling. Yet global temperatures are definitely on the rise.

It can therefore be concluded that with CO2 concentrations set to continue to rise, a return to ice age conditions seems very unlikely. Instead, temperatures are increasing and this increase may come at a considerable cost with few or no benefits."

That has to be the most contradictory statement you have yet made. So increasing CO2 is effectively staving off global cooling, yet there are no benefits to increased CO2. Your words, not mine. Do some research on agricultural productivity during the most recent little ice age, or even during the cooling cycle from the 40's to 70's, compared to during the warming trend of recent decades.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So where are we at on the interglacial timeline?
And what should we do about it?

Our current interglacial is already long in the tooth relative to the last 4.

And what should we do about it, within the next few generations, we should be slowly(and quietly) selling our farms to global warming fanatics(also known as suckers) and buying real estate in tropical and subtropical latitudes. Perhaps making a straight across trade for ocean front property promised to be submerged by rising sea levels imminently would be the best bang for the buck. Tuvalu would be a good place to look. Of course they may not be as easily suckered as Chuck et al. considering that in spite of the constant threats, their island is growing:

https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/land-area-of-low-lying-tuvalu-has-increased https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/land-area-of-low-lying-tuvalu-has-increased

And just for Chuck, there are peer reviewed papers showing the same results. Use google.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

So wouldn't the farmer from La Crete just be talking about weather? How can you have an informed discussion with someone doesn't know the difference between weather and climate?

And isn't the fact that there are farmers at LaCrete a benefit of global warming?

[fjlip]

It can therefore be concluded that with CO2 concentrations set to continue to rise, a return to ice age conditions seems very unlikely. Instead, temperatures are increasing and this increase may come at a considerable cost with few or no benefits."

So you and all other irrational SUCKERS would rather see the ICE AGE? There is the life on earth saving benefit right before your eyes...we will not DIE in an ICE AGE! Horay for CO2!!! We are saving life on earth according to Chucky! Start those engines, delete your emissions! Party on!

[seldomseen]

Chucky your hilarious

I am getting a little confused by all that you tell me but the way I see it is

If a scientist agrees with you then you have climate change.
If a scientist doesn't agree with you he is un informed and talking weather.
If a farmer disagrees with you then he is to dumb to have a conversion with. He can't even tell the difference between climate and weather.
If a farmer agrees with you then he is enlightened and understands climate change.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Chucky your hilarious

I am getting a little confused by all that you tell me but the way I see it is

If a scientist agrees with you then you have climate change.
If a scientist doesn't agree with you he is un informed and talking weather.
If a farmer disagrees with you then he is to dumb to have a conversion with. He can't even tell the difference between climate and weather.
If a farmer agrees with you then he is enlightened and understands climate change.

What is confusing about that? That is how the entire CAGW industry functions. Groupthink, discard evidence to the contrary, set the standards of proof impossibly high for dissenters, but accept the lowest quality anecdotal evidence to support their own side.
If it supports the CAGW theory, it is called climate, if it doesn't, then it is weather. So anything you or I observe will be known as weather, anything Troll observes will be climate by definition.

[fjlip]

Are there positive benefits from global warming?

Yes, there will probably be some short-term and long-term positive benefits from global warming. For example, the flip side of increased mortality from heat waves may be decreased mortality from cold waves.

In the short term, farmers in some regions may benefit from the earlier onset of spring and from a longer warm season that is suitable for growing crops. READ CANADA! Also, studies show that, up to a certain point, crops and other plants grow better in the presence of higher carbon dioxide levels and seem to be more drought-tolerant. Even plants are smarter than irrational people. [13] But this benefit is a two-edged sword: weeds, many invasive plant species, and insect pests will also thrive in a warmer world. Water availability will be impacted in drier agricultural areas that need irrigation. At some point, the positive benefits to crops of increased carbon dioxide may be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of heat stress and drought. Maybe NEVER!

In the long term, shipping commerce will benefit from the opening of the Northwest Passage for longer periods of the year due to the loss of Arctic sea ice. However, in the long run, if a "business as usual" approach to emitting heat-trapping gases is maintained at the present rate, or faster, then the negative costs and impacts of global warming are very likely to far outweigh the positive benefits over the course of this century, Gee I thought it was by 2030? with increased potential for catastrophic impacts from more extreme events.[12] In part, this is because any substantial change, whether warmer or colder, would challenge the societal infrastructure that has developed under the current climate. Oh so we are so DUMB we can not adapt? All bullshit!

[chuckChuck]

I would suggest believing what ever you want and whatever makes you happy. Don't worry about facts or evidence, they would just get in the way of your brilliant analysis and clever conspiracy theories.

Why bother discussing science with the flat earth society in other words.

[furrowtickler]

I would suggest believing what ever you want and whatever makes you happy. Don't worry about facts or evidence, they would just get in the way of your brilliant analysis and clever conspiracy theories.

Why bother discussing science with the flat earth society in other words.

Kinda like not admitting that the carbon tax is simply just a wealth transfer scheme ??
Which is the tax’s sole purpose is as stated by head UN officials , and has nothing to do with any effect at all on climate change.
That makes it a two way street to a never ending debate from all sides.
Is there Climate change .... yup
Is the carbon tax scheme going to effect climate change .... nope, it never was intended to from day one .

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I would suggest believing what ever you want and whatever makes you happy. Don't worry about facts or evidence, they would just get in the way of your brilliant analysis and clever conspiracy theories.

Why bother discussing sciene...

So, your best rebuttal to any evidence that your favourite religious theory isn't as catastrophic as you had hoped for, is to (once again) confuse science with something that requires believing. You must be a real fun troll to be around in person, all negatives, all the time, no matter how good the news.

Just to clarify yet again, religion =belief, science =evidence.

[Guest]

So, your best rebuttal to any evidence that your favourite religious theory isn't as catastrophic as you had hoped for, is to (once again) confuse science with something that requires believing. You must be a real fun troll to be around in person, all negatives, all the time, no matter how good the news.

Just to clarify yet again, religion =belief, science =evidence.

maybe he is actually Ralph goodale or someone like that
it's been good since I gonged him
the odd one does sneak through though

[shtferbrains]

I read Les Henry's article in the summer. I was kind of surprised that Henry, a well known soil scientist would be so uninformed about the negative affects of climate change, the research that shows the increasing temperatures and what causes ice ages and why ice ages end.

There is no dispute carbon is essential to life on earth and increased CO2 will benefit plant growth. But seeing an educated scientist who ignores overwhelming evidence of climate change and all the negative impacts, is mind boggling. Henry spent most of his life looking at soil, so maybe its no surprise he is not well informed on climate change.

Henry Quote:
"At meetings where I continually hear about how bad the future will be I ask two questions:

What thermometers do they average to come up with a global temperature?
Twenty thousand years ago, what is now Saskatoon was under about a mile of ice. It all melted and not a fossil fuel to be had. What force of nature resulted in that massive global warming event?

I have yet to receive an answer to those questions."

It seems like the only reason Henry doesn't have an answer to these basic questions is he doesn't believe in climate science? Or he hasn't bothered to review what causes ice ages? This information is widely available on the internet.

Thank you Charlie for pointing out that Les is a well known Scientist.

I don't think he would like being described as an academic as he enjoyed many years of touring the Sask countryside sharing information with generations of agriculturalist. Les knows many of us on a first name basis.

I don't believe I have ever heard Les described as "Uninformed".

It seems unlikely but I am guessing you have never met the man as when he makes a statement it is seldom disputed.

Maybe I underestimate your credentials.

It's not hard to run into "Henry" if your indeed a farmer. You might look for an opportunity to answer those questions in person and set him straight on the topic.

Les never stops learning always likes data.

[seldomseen]

Also on the point of Les Henry being a soil scientist.
What is David Suzuki? PhD in zoology.

[fjlip]

But Al Gore invented the internet!

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Also on the point of Les Henry being a soil scientist.
What is David Suzuki? PhD in zoology.

And can anyone recall what PhD Leonardo DiCaprio holds that makes him an authority on climate? Or AL Gore?