Derails from Climate Change News thread.

[Animavore]

Vegetation that isn't holding as much water is going to be a less effective sponge though.

[mistermack]

My trolling alarm just went off

[Seth]

Problem is the Green agenda isn't about creating a better world, it's about power and control and creating a world in which the worship of environmentalism becomes the mandatory religion of everyone and apostasy is punishable by death.

Forcing people to wear hair shirt, live in wattle and daub huts and grub in the ground with sticks for roots is not what I call a "better world."

Why, of course. Capitalism good. Environmentalism tyrannous. Now hop along and clearfell another forest for photocopy paper please. And don't forget to kill a whale on your way. For scientific purposes, of course. On your way home you may as well do a little detour through Africa. The rhinoceros may be in danger of extinction, but its horny protuberance is so lucrative.

Non sequitur. The near-extinction of the rhinoceros has nothing whatever to do with environmental changes, it has to do with stupidity and ignorance in Asia. You want to save the rhinoceros spend the money the Warmists are spending on propaganda educating Asians about biology instead.

Oh, when can we expect you to stop using toilet paper and start wiping your ass with your fingers...or the bones of a martyr?

Forests are renewable resources by the way, and they grow better and faster when there is more moisture and CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Seth]

Plants surviving with less water messes up the hydrological cycle of ecosystems and increases run-off leading to soil erosion and more pollutants washed into the rivers and oceans so it's not particularly good at all.

Nonsense. Plants surviving with less water means less water that plants have to survive on, not that they are not using available water for growth. Add water and plants will use it, that's how ecosystems work.

[macdoc]

Solar Panels Drain the Sun’s Energy, Experts Say

<National Report>This week, a scientific research facility in Wyoming made a startling discovery that is certain to change the way millions of Americans look at the environmentalism movement, after they found conclusive evidence that solar panels not only convert the sun’s energy into usable energy, but that they are also draining the sun of its own energy, possibly with catastrophic consequences far worse than global warming.

Scientists at the Wyoming Institute of Technology, a privately-owned think tank located in Cheyenne, Wyoming, discovered that energy radiated from the sun isn’t merely captured in solar panels, but that energy is directly physically drawn from the sun by those panels, in a process they refer to as “forced photovoltaic drainage.”

“Put into laymen’s terms, the solar panels capture the sun’s energy, but pull on the sun over time, forcing more energy to be released than the sun is actually producing,” WIT claims in a scientific white paper published on Wednesday. “Imagine a waterfall, dumping water. But you aren’t catching the water in buckets, but rather sucking it in with a vacuum cleaner. Eventually, you’re going to suck in so much water that you drain the river above that waterfall completely.”

WIT is adamant that there’s no immediate danger, however. “Currently, solar panels are an energy niche, and do not pose a serious risk to the sun. But if we converted our grids to solar energy in a big way, with panels on domestic homes and commercial businesses, and paving our parking lots with panels, we’d start seeing very serious problems over time. If every home in the world had solar panels on their roofs, global temperatures would drop by as much as thirty degrees over twenty years, and the sun could die out within three hundred to four hundred years.”

The study was commissioned in August 2011 by the Halliburton corporation, who wanted to learn if the energy giant should start manufacturing and selling solar panels domestically and internationally. Halliburton’s executives wanted to know more about the sustainability of solar energy and how photovoltaic technology might evolve over the next ten years. But based on the findings of WIT’s research in the field, Halliburton revealed on Friday that they will not be entering the solar energy market.

“Solar panels destroying the sun could potentially be the worst man-made climate disaster in the history of the world, and Halliburton will not be taking part in that,” the company stated in a press release issued Friday morning. “It’s obvious, based on the findings of this neutral scientific research group, that humans needs to become more dependent on fossil fuels like oil and coal, not less. Because these so-called `green technologies’ are far more dangerous to the Earth than any hydrofracking operation or deep-water drilling station. What good is clean air when our very sun is no longer functional?”

- See more at: http://nationalreport.net/solar-panels- ... EwAvX.dpuf

[Animavore]

Plants surviving with less water messes up the hydrological cycle of ecosystems and increases run-off leading to soil erosion and more pollutants washed into the rivers and oceans so it's not particularly good at all.

Nonsense. Plants surviving with less water means less water that plants have to survive on, not that they are not using available water for growth. Add water and plants will use it, that's how ecosystems work.

Oh. I didn't know you were a botanist or other relevant specialist.

[Animavore]

OMG, Mac. Is that report real?

Fuck me I've read some stupid shit, but that takes the fucking cake.

[Hermit]

The National Report is a satirical site.

[Seth]

Plants surviving with less water messes up the hydrological cycle of ecosystems and increases run-off leading to soil erosion and more pollutants washed into the rivers and oceans so it's not particularly good at all.

Nonsense. Plants surviving with less water means less water that plants have to survive on, not that they are not using available water for growth. Add water and plants will use it, that's how ecosystems work.

Oh. I didn't know you were a botanist or other relevant specialist.

One doesn't have to be a "relevant specialist," one merely has to be not an idiot and capable of examining a statement for it's logical consistency and rationality. Your statement is neither logical nor rational.

For one thing, "plants surviving with less water" is the "hydrological cycle" you dunce. Second, as I said, if the plants are surviving with less water it's because there is less water for them to survive on, which completely blows your bogus "more pollution" alarmist bullshit right out of the water.

You've got the cart before the horse. In fact you've got a cart and no horse at all, though you keep flogging the cart as if it's a horse, which would be dead even if it were a horse, but it's not.

[Animavore]

Plants surviving with less water messes up the hydrological cycle of ecosystems and increases run-off leading to soil erosion and more pollutants washed into the rivers and oceans so it's not particularly good at all.

Nonsense. Plants surviving with less water means less water that plants have to survive on, not that they are not using available water for growth. Add water and plants will use it, that's how ecosystems work.

Oh. I didn't know you were a botanist or other relevant specialist.

One doesn't have to be a "relevant specialist," one merely has to be not an idiot and capable of examining a statement for it's logical consistency and rationality. Your statement is neither logical nor rational.

For one thing, "plants surviving with less water" is the "hydrological cycle" you dunce. Second, as I said, if the plants are surviving with less water it's because there is less water for them to survive on, which completely blows your bogus "more pollution" alarmist bullshit right out of the water.

You've got the cart before the horse. In fact you've got a cart and no horse at all, though you keep flogging the cart as if it's a horse, which would be dead even if it were a horse, but it's not.

My statement is from the very same paper you and Mack are using to support your claim about plants using less water. Take it up with them, not me. Unlike your statement it isn't one I just made up myself.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledg ... n-13254108

Also, your accusation about me being an "alarmist" and that "horse" I "keep flogging" are unfoudned. I said one fucking thing

[Animavore]

It seems in my rush this morning I've read your post incorrectly, Seth.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, plants using less water in times of drought I guess, but my post was a direct response to Mack's post that more carbon in the atmosphere means plants can grow on less water. He then said that more carbon leads to a better world, not a worse one.
Because I'd never heard this claim before I immediately looked it up. While it's true that plants use less water in environments with more carbon (check the experiments run on the article above), it's not all peachy and there are consequences.
This is all I was pointing out. Mack sems to have wilfully left out this part in his claim that more carbon leads to a better world. Either that or he got his info from an agenda based site which left out this info. Sites like this one http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.as ... itemid=329

I was not making a claim about plants using less water in times when less water is available or whatever point you're making which is irrelevant to what Mack and I were specifically discussing.

[macdoc]

Protein concentrations in plant tissues are closely tied to plant nitrogen status. Changes in plant tissue nitrogen are therefore likely to have important effects on species at higher trophic levels.
Performance is typically diminished for insect herbivores feeding on plants grown in elevated CO2 (Zvereva & Kozlov 2006).

This can lead to increased consumption of plant tissues as herbivores compensate for decreased food quality (Stiling and Cornelissen 2007).

Effects on human nutrition are likely as well. In FACE experiments, protein concentrations in grains of wheat, rice and barley, and in potato tubers, are decreased by 5–14% under elevated CO2 (Taub et al. 2008).

Crop concentrations of nutritionally important minerals including calcium, magnesium and phosphorus may also be decreased under elevated CO2 (Loladze 2002; Taub & Wang 2008).

don't tell me deniers are acknowledging we're fucking with the climate...thought that wasn't in the right wing catechism

[Animavore]

Maybe it's a new tactic. They can't deny the increase in CO2 any more so they're now talking about its virtues. Like the lead and the cigarette industries before them.

[Seth]

It seems in my rush this morning I've read your post incorrectly, Seth.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, plants using less water in times of drought I guess, but my post was a direct response to Mack's post that more carbon in the atmosphere means plants can grow on less water. He then said that more carbon leads to a better world, not a worse one.
Because I'd never heard this claim before I immediately looked it up. While it's true that plants use less water in environments with more carbon (check the experiments run on the article above), it's not all peachy and there are consequences.
This is all I was pointing out. Mack sems to have wilfully left out this part in his claim that more carbon leads to a better world. Either that or he got his info from an agenda based site which left out this info. Sites like this one http://www.plantsneedco2.org/default.as ... itemid=329

I was not making a claim about plants using less water in times when less water is available or whatever point you're making which is irrelevant to what Mack and I were specifically discussing.

I think the point is that more CO2 in the atmosphere results in more and faster plant growth, which increases transpoevaporation, which increases humidity, which increases rainfall and clouds, which increases planetary albedo, which reduced insolation, which causes temperature to drop.

The important thing is that it's a closed system and all the carbon that exists now has existed from the beginning and it keeps being cycled into and out of the environment through the natural balancing processes that occur over time.

We may be in for a fully tropical planet with no ice caps for a while, but so what? I'd rather live in Fiji than Nome. The planet can easily adapt to a two-degree, or four-degree or whatever rise in overall temperature even if it melts every ice cube on earth. Species will adapt or die. Humanity will adapt or die. Nothing remains the same, everything changes, and as environmental changes go, being that we're somewhat overdue for another period of glaciation, warmer is much, much better than colder, for humanity and every other living creature.

This has happened before, it'll happen again. Nothing to worry about because nothing that's happened so far is outside the normal range of planetary temperature variation, and all the predictions that excursions will be fatal have so far failed to come to pass, since I was a young man in fact. They told me that the planet would look like Venus by some 20 years ago. Guess what? Didn't happen. And all the alarmism is entirely unconvincing.

[Animavore]

Some scientists think will go like Venus in 1.1 billion or so years due to a runaway greenhouse effect as the Sun gets bigger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_Earth

I've never heard anyone seriously say this'll happen any time soon.