BPSDB Double the CO2 – Half the literacy – 1/10th the coherence
Potholer54 is back with another good one, this time debunking the “not much warming for two centuries” nonsense. Potholer pretty much covers it all, so I’ll leave it to him.
Half the literacy
Even before the Lewis Page version of this meme turned up Deniers were using a report on the NASA Press Release that had been posted at WUWT and echoed around the Denialosphere as the basis for claiming that climate change was not a problem.
They weren’t speaking with the same kind of certainty about details that Page gave them, but they were confident that “plants slow Global Warming” was somehow synonymous with “all but completely stopped.”
Watts actually did include the relevant quote “… it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected“, and even put that high up in the article, which was duely copy/pasted by many in the Denial echochamber, so it’s not that the fact wasn’t out there. Even so, obviously most Deniers either couldn’t grasp what that meant, and/or they don’t even read Denier posts for more than the headlines (I suspect both).
So Page has certainly added a higher level of false precision to a bogus story, but the Deniers were already running with it as yet another fable. Thankfully this video debunks either version, so that’s handy.
1/10th the coherence
Just for giggles, go to any site that posted the Lewis Page story and do an internet site search of that site for these other denier fables:
i) “global cooling” OR “Global warming ended”.
Find the stories that claim we are cooling, not warming like this one. Ask why they post a story about dampening “the warming” if they believe the Earth is cooling. Why do stories about something that is not happening?
Find the stories that claim CO2 is not a greenhouse gas (GHG), or a minor one compared to water vapour etc like this one., or that CO2 climate sensitivity is low. Ask why, if they believe CO2 is not an important GHG, does it matter if plants absorb a little more of it.
iii) “Climate Models”
Find the stories about how climate computer models don’t work & are useless (eg like this one). Ask them why we should believe this new study which is based on a computer model if computer models of climate are useless.
I am sure you get the idea, so also try
iv) “NASA” & “corrupt” for stories like this one
v) “corrupt” and “climate scientists” for stories like this one.
You’ll find that Climate Change Denier has no problem believing that:
“The warming that isn’t happening will be slowed by plants absorbing more of a gas that doesn’t (really) affect climate at all. I know this is true because I was told by scientists I don’t trust from an agency that lies about science who did a study using tools that don’t work.”
Did I miss any there? Does this story contradict other Denier claims (as so many of their beliefs do).
A real question
A question that I have about the model which I am hoping someone can answer concerns the assumptions about precipitation. From the abstract:
“When we combine these interactions in climate simulations with 2 × CO2, the associated increase in precipitation contributes primarily to increase evapotranspiration” [Emphasis added]
Under climate change precipitation changes are not going to be uniform, with many arid areas getting more arid, and wet areas getting more so. Stressed plants will use less CO2 and even release methane (eg here, here and here) as a response to stress, thus acting as a positive feedback. eg
- Corralling The Carbon Cycle: Calculating How Much Carbon Dioxide Is Absorbed And Released By Plants
- Importance of carbon dioxide physiological
forcing to future climate change
- Stressed Plants Could Negatively Influence the Climate
- Plants and Climate Change: It’s Not That Simple
To what extent did the model incorporate this non-uniform response? If the model assumes a homgeneous increased precipitation, then the negative feedback is grossly overestimated.
I find it hard to believe that the authors might have missed something that obvious, but I’d still feel better if it was stated explicitly rather than assuming it. Does anyone know?
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Global map of terrestrial net primary production From ‘Global Carbon Project‘
Sources and sinks induced by the production and metabolisation of food products. From ‘Global Carbon Project‘
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread” is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.