Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Global Warming's Impact On Plants Greater Then Predicted - 8 hours ago

18 views
Skip to first unread message

Doug Bashford

unread,
May 4, 2012, 3:53:31 PM5/4/12
to

Global Warming's Impact On Plants Greater Then Predicted

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112528250/global-warmings-impact-on-plants-greater-than-predicted/


RedOrbit - 8 hours ago
... scientists will have to rethink the impacts of global
warming.


For over two decades, researchers have been conducting
experiments that are designed to mimic the effects of rising
temperatures on the rates at which plants first begin to
leaf and flower each spring. However, a new study has found
that that these models are inaccurate, and that the actual
impact of global warming on plants may cause the flowering
and leafing of plants to occur up to eight times faster than
the models predicted.

For many years, researchers assumed that plants would
respond in much the same way in experiments that simulate
global warming as they would to changes in temperature
occurring in the natural environment. To test this
assumption, Dr Elizabeth Wolkovich, of the University of
British Columbia in Vancouver, and her colleagues compared
the data on the timing of the flowering and leafing of
plants found in observational studies to data based on
warming experiments.

Dr Wolkovich and her colleagues were surprised by the
results.

“What we found is that the experiments don’t line up with
the long term data, and in fact they greatly underestimate
how much plants change their leafing and flowering with
warming,” Wolkovich told BBC News.

Observational data is gathered by the long term systematic
recording of flowering and leafing rates in.....snip

......."The bottom line is that the impacts might be bigger
than we have believed until now. That’s going to provoke a
lot of work to probably revise modeling results for
estimations of what’s going to happen in the future for food
production especially.”

Dr Wolkovich has also concluded that if the models so
grossly underestimate the real world observations, there
could be a much greater impact on the world’s water supply
than had been predicted by the artificial warming
experiments....

..........snip


matt_sykes

unread,
May 5, 2012, 5:00:45 AM5/5/12
to
On May 4, 9:53 pm, Doug Bashford <Play...@work.edu> wrote:
> Global Warming's Impact On Plants Greater Then Predicted
>
> http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112528250/global-warmings-impac...
Alarmist crap designed to generate funding.

2966 Dead

unread,
May 5, 2012, 9:18:46 AM5/5/12
to
Whine louder, little corporate cunt!

Hey, I KNOW! Compare global warming "believers" to Charlie Manson!

Steve

unread,
May 5, 2012, 9:28:30 AM5/5/12
to
On Sat, 5 May 2012 13:18:46 +0000 (UTC), 2966 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:
It's really funny that it's the global warming "believers" that are
whining.. Nobody else is paying them any attention and that's what
they're whining about.

Clifford

unread,
May 5, 2012, 5:56:33 PM5/5/12
to
"Steve" <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in message
news:jdaaq7tpc8fkpa4e3...@4ax.com...
Hey, Global warming has helped me out on my farm (or maybe it was just my
new greenhouse!).


Steve

unread,
May 5, 2012, 6:00:59 PM5/5/12
to
On Sat, 5 May 2012 14:56:33 -0700, "Clifford" <no...@nowhere.net>
wrote:
It might reduce the cost of heating the condo's swimming pool.

1treePetrifiedForestLane

unread,
May 5, 2012, 6:47:20 PM5/5/12
to
>>>Whine louder, pretty-please.

> It might reduce the cost of heating the condo's aquaculture.

thank you; hadn't thought of taht,
"dpeends upon teh microclimate, period, thank you."

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
May 5, 2012, 8:48:48 PM5/5/12
to
In sci.environment Doug Bashford <Pla...@work.edu> wrote:
>
> Global Warming's Impact On Plants Greater Then Predicted
>
> http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112528250/global-warmings-impact-on-plants-greater-than-predicted/
>
>
> RedOrbit - 8 hours ago
> ... scientists will have to rethink the impacts of global
> warming.
>
>
> For over two decades, researchers have been conducting
> experiments that are designed to mimic the effects of rising
> temperatures on the rates at which plants first begin to
> leaf and flower each spring. However, a new study has found
> that that these models are inaccurate, and that the actual
> impact of global warming on plants may cause the flowering
> and leafing of plants to occur up to eight times faster than
> the models predicted.

Oh no!!

If true, depending on the crop, this means farmers could get 2 to 3 harvests
a year instead of 1 to 2.

Oh, the horror of crop yields increasing 33% to 50% on the same land!!

How will we ever survive with all those crops being harvested?



Doug Bashford

unread,
May 5, 2012, 10:06:25 PM5/5/12
to

Re: Global Warming's Impact On Plants Greater Then Predicted
- 8 hours ago;
On Sun, 6 May, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
I can tell you are a follower of the
FoxLimbaugh&Co religion. Since you have
that GOD, why finish reading the article?
Since you have that GOD, what do facts matter?




The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
The rational change their world view to fit the facts.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
May 6, 2012, 1:10:29 AM5/6/12
to
In sci.environment Doug Bashford <Pla...@work.edu> wrote:
>
I can tell you are a gibbering moron who thinks news sites publish
science and is marginally coherent.

Is "FoxLimbaugh&Co religion" supposed to mean something to people NOT
on drugs?




Rich

unread,
May 6, 2012, 9:10:19 PM5/6/12
to
Doug Bashford <Pla...@work.edu> wrote in
news:wICdnY3k6aUhrjnS...@pghconnect.com:

>
> Global Warming's Impact On Plants Greater Then Predicted
>

"Stung the by the recent revelation that Greenland glaciers aren't
shrinking, global warmers regrouped to go after another "effect."


2966 Dead

unread,
May 6, 2012, 9:51:29 PM5/6/12
to
They ARE shrinking, bubbles. They just aren't shrinking as fast as a
2009 study suggested.

bobo fizmarkian

unread,
May 7, 2012, 12:18:43 AM5/7/12
to
On Sun, 06 May 2012 20:10:19 -0500, Rich wrote:

If we were to drop some black paint or perhaps even coal dust, we could
probably achieve more glacial melt. A massive effort by the US Airforce
might work, I don't know.





--
Bobo

gordo

unread,
May 7, 2012, 2:42:40 AM5/7/12
to
Shake your head rich . Read the study. Now what did the study say
about Greenland glaciers. Oh I know , they continue to shrink. Now
back to the study on plants. Don't post rich unless you can contribute
.

AGWFacts

unread,
May 9, 2012, 5:43:39 PM5/9/12
to
On Sun, 6 May 2012 00:48:48 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> On Fri, 04 May 2012 12:53:31 -0700, Doug Bashford <Pla...@work.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > Global Warming's Impact On Plants Greater Then Predicted
> >
> > http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112528250/global-warmings-impact-on-plants-greater-than-predicted/
> >
> >
> > RedOrbit - 8 hours ago
> > ... scientists will have to rethink the impacts of global
> > warming.
> >
> >
> > For over two decades, researchers have been conducting
> > experiments that are designed to mimic the effects of rising
> > temperatures on the rates at which plants first begin to
> > leaf and flower each spring. However, a new study has found
> > that that these models are inaccurate, and that the actual
> > impact of global warming on plants may cause the flowering
> > and leafing of plants to occur up to eight times faster than
> > the models predicted.
> >
> If true, depending on the crop, this means farmers could get 2 to 3 harvests
> a year instead of 1 to 2.

Decrease in plant production:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/plant-decline.html

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/476572main_NPP_Audiofile.pdf

Increased drought due to increased atmospheric CO2:

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Drought.pdf

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JHM-386.1

http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~jean/monsoon/Menonmonsoon.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5789/940.short

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.140.7788&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2338.1994.tb01063.x/abstract

http://portal.iri.columbia.edu/~alesall/ouagaCILSS/articles/neelin_etal_grl2003.pdf

http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/40427/1/IND21978882.pdfx


--
Denialism: "The employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance
of legitimate debate where there is none." / "We plough far too much money
into universities these days." -- Catoni, thermometer denier

AGWFacts

unread,
May 9, 2012, 5:45:18 PM5/9/12
to
On Sun, 06 May 2012 20:10:19 -0500, Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 04 May 2012 12:53:31 -0700, Doug Bashford <Pla...@work.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> > Global Warming's Impact On Plants Greater Then Predicted
> >
> Stung the by the recent revelation that Greenland glaciers aren't
> shrinking, global warmers regrouped to go after another effect.

"Global warmers?" You mean greenhouse gases? WTF?

Peer-reviewed science papers that show almost all of the world's
glaciers are in sharp, rapid, unprecidented decline:

http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/

http://www.grid.unep.ch/glaciers/

http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/index.html

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2009/global-data-sets/GLACIER_cogley_arithmetic.txt

http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/geofag/GEG2130/h09/Reading%20list/Norwegian%20mountain%20glaciers%20in%20the%20past,%20present%20and%20future.pdf

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2005/00000051/00000174/art00002

http://nsidc.org/glims/glaciermelt/index.html

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2009/00000050/00000050/art00015

http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/55553

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2573&from=rss_home

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2006/00000043/00000001/art00032

http://www.wrq.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2008_kehrwald.pdf

http://instaar.metapress.com/content/xn9255q33110739t/

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040222.shtml

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0821_020821_wireglaciers.html

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL029703.shtml

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_Antarctic_20-11-2515.pdf

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n5/abs/ngeo186.html

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/121653main_ScambosetalGRLPeninsulaAccel.pdf

http://www.glaciologia.cl/textos/RignotetalGRLPeninsulaAccel.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004.../2004GL021106.shtml

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
May 9, 2012, 6:00:02 PM5/9/12
to
In sci.environment AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:

Once again the idiot child pastes in a bunch of crap not in the original
post in an attempt to be somehow clever.

What an idiot.


AGWFacts

unread,
May 11, 2012, 10:28:17 AM5/11/12
to
On Wed, 9 May 2012 22:00:02 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:
> Once again the idiot child pastes in a bunch of crap not in the original
> post in an attempt to be somehow clever.

You are being too hard on yourself. Don't be ashamed: just try to
improve.


--
"The people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly
on the radical fringe of society. This is why the most prominent
advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers,
tyrants, and madmen." -- The Heartland Institute cult

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
May 11, 2012, 12:25:55 PM5/11/12
to
In sci.environment AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 May 2012 22:00:02 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:43:39 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:

Once again the resident idiot pastes in a bunch of crap not in the original
post, this time about 100 lines, in a childish attempt to be somehow clever.


AGWFacts

unread,
May 16, 2012, 9:11:14 AM5/16/12
to
On Fri, 11 May 2012 16:25:55 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> On Fri, 11 May 2012 08:28:17 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 9 May 2012 22:00:02 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:43:39 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> > >
> Once again the resident idiot pastes in a bunch of crap not in the original
> post, this time about 100 lines, in a childish attempt to be somehow clever.

So then don't try to improve: it's not as if net.k00ks are rare.


--
"Desertphile isn't dead..... darn." -- Rawbush (YouTube)

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
May 16, 2012, 11:26:58 AM5/16/12
to
In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:

This time the brain dead child invents an entire thread that doesn't exist.


AGWFacts

unread,
May 17, 2012, 1:48:54 PM5/17/12
to
On Wed, 16 May 2012 15:26:58 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:
> This time the brain dead child invents an entire thread that doesn't exist.

You are still too hard on yourself. There is medication for that
problem.


--
"A 'crank' is defined as a man who cannot be turned." --- _Nature_, 8 Nov 1906

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
May 17, 2012, 2:11:18 PM5/17/12
to
In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in:

117 lines of crap from other posts pretending this is a response to
something I wrote.

Thus proving once again that what this idiot posts is made up.



Sam Wormley

unread,
May 17, 2012, 6:22:47 PM5/17/12
to
Try making a positive contribution, jimp.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
May 17, 2012, 6:42:55 PM5/17/12
to
In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Try making a positive contribution, jimp.

Try shoving it up your ass, swormley1, you arrogant twit.




AGWFacts

unread,
May 20, 2012, 11:49:16 AM5/20/12
to
On Thu, 17 May 2012 18:11:18 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:
> 117 lines of crap from other posts pretending this is a response to
> something I wrote. Thus proving once again that what this idiot posts
> is made up.

Medication is one option. Please consider it.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
May 20, 2012, 12:12:18 PM5/20/12
to
In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:

121 lines in the delusional belief he is being clever.


AGWFacts

unread,
May 22, 2012, 9:15:09 AM5/22/12
to
On Sun, 20 May 2012 16:12:18 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:
> 121 lines in the delusional belief he is being clever.

Decrease in plant production is still an observed fact,
Shit-for-brains.

Sam Wormley

unread,
May 22, 2012, 11:24:53 AM5/22/12
to
On 5/17/12 5:42 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> Try shoving it up your ass, swormley1, you arrogant twit.
>

Why is it that cranks, crackpot and trolls call me names like
you do, jimp?

Did you know that global warming's impact on plants is greater
than predicted?
>
> http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112528250/global-warmings-impact-on-plants-greater-than-predicted/

hanson

unread,
May 22, 2012, 2:01:56 PM5/22/12
to
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Jim Pennino ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Try shoving it up your ass, swormley1, you arrogant twit.
>>
"Sam Wormley" wrote:
Why is it that cranks, crackpot and trolls call me names
like you do, jimp?
Did you know that global warming's impact on plants is greater
than predicted?
<
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112528250/global-warmings-impact-on-plants-greater-than-predicted/>
>
hanson wrote:
Sam, what you just parroted about/in your link is pure
Enviro-hysteria by people with an IQ of 2 points above
plant life since they believe that they can talk to plants.
>
AFAIAC Sam, you are definitely rogant but NOT arrogant.
So, you ought to try Pennino's suggestion, as that may
give you some more ass con- with -traction ... ahahahaha....
Thanks for the laughs, guys,... ahahahaha... ahahahanson

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
May 22, 2012, 3:00:33 PM5/22/12
to
In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/17/12 5:42 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> Try shoving it up your ass, swormley1, you arrogant twit.
>>
>
> Why is it that cranks, crackpot and trolls call me names like
> you do, jimp?

The same reason I do; you are an arrogant, self rightous, lying, misanthropic,
off topic posting, ass hat with delusions of competence.


Did you know the Russian Academy of Science has declared global warming
is ending?

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-cache/russische-wissenschaftler-melden-globale-erwaermung-geht-zu-ende/


ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
May 22, 2012, 3:01:37 PM5/22/12
to
In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:

138 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.


erschro...@gmail.com

unread,
May 22, 2012, 4:48:49 PM5/22/12
to
On May 22, 3:00 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5/17/12 5:42 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> >> Try shoving it up your ass, swormley1, you arrogant twit.
>
> >   Why is it that cranks, crackpot and trolls call me names like
> >   you do, jimp?
>
> The same reason I do; you are an arrogant, self rightous, lying, misanthropic,
> off topic posting, ass hat with delusions of competence.
>
> Did you know the Russian Academy of Science has declared global warming
> is ending?
>
> http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-cache/russische-wissenschaftler...

Did you know eike is a right-wing denialist blog?

"EIKE (European Institute for Climate and Energy Association) is a
union of an increasing number of natural, human and economic
scientists, engineers, journalists and politicians, the assertion of a
"man-made climate change" as scientifically unfounded and therefore a
fraud against the population . view EIKE consequently rejects any
"political climate" as an excuse to patronize the economy and
population and burdening the people with taxes."

Further, "the Russian Academy of Sciences signed onto a statement in
2007 which included this wording:

"In 2005, the Academies issued a statement emphasising that climate
change was occurring and could be attributed mostly to human
activities, and calling for efforts to tackle both the causes of
climate change and the inevitable consequences of past and unavoidable
future emissions. Since then the IPCC has published the Working Group
1 part of the Summary for Policymakers of its fourth assessment
report, and further reports are expected later this year from IPCC.
Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions."

Next time, find a credible source.

kym horsell

unread,
May 22, 2012, 9:28:59 PM5/22/12
to
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 5:01:37 AM UTC+10, (unknown) wrote:
> In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:
>
> 138 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

Meta count update.

50 counting posts counted, 28 of them unique.

--
[Keeping up with "current events":]
Nope, it is just nonsense according to a recently completed study looking
for real effects of warming in the latter half of the 20th century.
You really need to keep up with current events
-- ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com, 10 Apr 2012

AGWFacts

unread,
May 26, 2012, 12:17:07 PM5/26/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 19:01:37 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:
> 138 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

It's still an observed fact:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/plant-decline.html

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/476572main_NPP_Audiofile.pdf

Increased drought due to increased atmospheric CO2:

http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Drought.pdf

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JHM-386.1

http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~jean/monsoon/Menonmonsoon.pdf

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5789/940.short

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.140.7788&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2338.1994.tb01063.x/abstract

http://portal.iri.columbia.edu/~alesall/ouagaCILSS/articles/neelin_etal_grl2003.pdf

http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/40427/1/IND21978882.pdfx



AGWFacts

unread,
May 26, 2012, 12:18:47 PM5/26/12
to
Worse yet, it's already observed to have happened: globally,
plants are producing less mass:

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/plant-decline.html

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/476572main_NPP_Audiofile.pdf

AGWFacts

unread,
May 26, 2012, 12:42:26 PM5/26/12
to
On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:48:49 -0700 (PDT),
"erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > On 5/17/12 5:42 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> > Did you know the Russian Academy of Science has declared global warming
> > is ending?

No, Russian Academy of Sciences did not. The assertion is absurd,
and one will not find any evidence to support the assertion. The
claim is equal to asserting the Russian Academy of Sciences has
renounced the heliocentric model of the Solar System.

It's amazing what these cultists can believe. It's amazing what
cultists like "jimp" here expect sane people to believe.

> > http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-cache/russische-wissenschaftler...
>
> Did you know eike is a right-wing denialist blog?

Not just right-wing, but fascist right-wing---- which must make
all good Russians who died in The Great Patriotic War turn in
their graves.

> "EIKE (European Institute for Climate and Energy Association) is a
> union of an increasing number of natural, human and economic
> scientists, engineers, journalists and politicians, the assertion of a
> "man-made climate change" as scientifically unfounded and therefore a
> fraud against the population . view EIKE consequently rejects any
> "political climate" as an excuse to patronize the economy and
> population and burdening the people with taxes."
>
> Further, "the Russian Academy of Sciences signed onto a statement in
> 2007 which included this wording:
>
> "In 2005, the Academies issued a statement emphasising that climate
> change was occurring and could be attributed mostly to human
> activities, and calling for efforts to tackle both the causes of
> climate change and the inevitable consequences of past and unavoidable
> future emissions. Since then the IPCC has published the Working Group
> 1 part of the Summary for Policymakers of its fourth assessment
> report, and further reports are expected later this year from IPCC.
> Recent research strongly reinforces our previous conclusions."

They re-issued similar statements since then.

".... We call on all governments to:

"o) agree at the UNFCCC negotiations in Copenhagen to adopt a
long-term global goal and near-term emission reduction targets
that will deliver an approximately 50% reduction in global
emissions from 1990 levels by 2050;

o) significantly increase fundamental international research on
the earth’s climate, on low carbon and climate resilient
technologies, and on ways to protect and enhance the resilience of
natural systems to climate change;

o) identify the common strategic priorities for developing and
implementing environmentally sustainable technologies for
adaptation and mitigation;

o) collaborate in the implementation of low carbon and
climate-resilient infrastructure and technologies, and in the
implementation of innovative incentives, through the use of
economic and regulatory instruments, to accelerate adoption of
clean "green" technologies;

[....]

> Next time, find a credible source.



ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
May 26, 2012, 1:21:04 PM5/26/12
to
In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:48:49 -0700 (PDT),
> "erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > > On 5/17/12 5:42 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> > Did you know the Russian Academy of Science has declared global warming
>> > is ending?
>
> No, Russian Academy of Sciences did not. The assertion is absurd,
> and one will not find any evidence to support the assertion. The
> claim is equal to asserting the Russian Academy of Sciences has
> renounced the heliocentric model of the Solar System.

Here you go in English:

http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754/10140

Take notice of line 4.



ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
May 26, 2012, 1:23:00 PM5/26/12
to
In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:

170 lines of crap in the deluded belief he is being clever.


Wally W.

unread,
May 26, 2012, 4:43:38 PM5/26/12
to
On Fri, 04 May 2012 12:53:31 -0700, Doug Bashford wrote:

>
>Global Warming's Impact On Plants Greater Then Predicted

AKA: "It's worse than we thought."


Wally W.

unread,
May 26, 2012, 5:19:31 PM5/26/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:17:07 -0600, AGWFacts wrote:

<more of the same>

"A 'crank' is defined as a man who cannot be turned." --- _Nature_, 8
Nov 1906

The above is another ridiculous definition, deemed worth of a sig by a
Warmist.


Actually, a crank:
Has a fixation.
Is easily wound up.
Is repetitive at every turn.


What kind of dodging evader pisses with followup settings to
discourage exposure of their spew for what it is?

From: AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.global-warming
Subject: Re: Global Warming's Impact On Plants Greater Then Predicted
- 8 hours ago
Followup-To: alt.usenet.kooks
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 10:17:07 -0600

Bill Ward

unread,
May 26, 2012, 7:29:53 PM5/26/12
to
Desperate ones.

Sam Wormley

unread,
May 26, 2012, 8:12:33 PM5/26/12
to
On 5/26/12 12:23 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics AGWFacts<AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:
>
> 170 lines of crap in the deluded belief he is being clever.
>
>

The jimp is back to his obsession counting lines, I see. Hey jimp,
what do you think about this article:

> Accusations that climate science is money-driven reveal ignorance of how science is done
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/05/accusations-that-climate-science-is-money-driven-reveal-ignorance-of-how-science-is-done/

> One of the unfortunate memes that has made repeated appearances in the climate debate is that money isn't just influencing the public debate about science, but it's also influencing the science itself.

> Although the argument displays a profound misunderstanding of how science and science funding work, it's just not going away. Just this week, one of the sites where people congregate to criticize mainstream climate science once again repeated it, replete with the graph below.






ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
May 26, 2012, 8:56:51 PM5/26/12
to
In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/26/12 12:23 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics AGWFacts<AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:
>>
>> 170 lines of crap in the deluded belief he is being clever.
>>
>>
>
> The jimp is back to his obsession counting lines, I see. Hey jimp,

Hey, swormely1, you arrogant, self rightous little twit with delusions of
competence, is the following English sentance too difficult for you to
understand:

My newsreader displays the number of lines in posts.

Do you understand the difference between the words "display" and "count" or
do I have to explain it to you?


> what do you think about this article:

I think it is naive twaddle at best.



AGWFacts

unread,
May 26, 2012, 10:06:44 PM5/26/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 17:23:00 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:
> 170 lines of crap in the deluded belief he is being clever.

AGWFacts

unread,
May 26, 2012, 10:14:46 PM5/26/12
to
On Sat, 26 May 2012 17:21:04 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:

> On Sat, 26 May 2012 10:42:26 -0600, AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:48:49 -0700 (PDT),
> > "erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On 5/17/12 5:42 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Did you know the Russian Academy of Science has declared global warming
> > > > is ending?
> >
> > No, Russian Academy of Sciences did not. The assertion is absurd,
> > and one will not find any evidence to support the assertion. The
> > claim is equal to asserting the Russian Academy of Sciences has
> > renounced the heliocentric model of the Solar System.
> >
> Here you go in English:
>
> http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754/10140
>
> Take notice of line 4.

Take note of the whole paper, you silly goose. The writer claimed
there will be a decrease in greenhouse gases in Earth's
atmosphere. That just some how didn't make you blink? Did you see
the part where he explained how he "knows" this? No, you did not.

He also claimed there will be an increase in albedo, even though
*ALL* of the data shows albedo has been sharply decreasing for the
past 25 years or so. Sheeeish.

Did you even fucking *READ* the "paper?" No, of course you did
not.

Did you even stop to wonder why Earth has been warming sharply
even during an extended solar minimum, which even the writer of
the "paper" admitted? No, of course you did not.

Sam Wormley

unread,
May 26, 2012, 10:22:05 PM5/26/12
to
According to his posting record, jimp, is not noted for his
understanding of physics. He spends most of his time disparaging
other posters.


ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
May 26, 2012, 11:04:11 PM5/26/12
to
In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:

80 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.


ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
May 26, 2012, 11:06:02 PM5/26/12
to
In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:

198 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.


AGWFacts

unread,
May 28, 2012, 12:53:30 PM5/28/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 03:06:02 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:
> > > 170 lines of crap in the deluded belief he is being clever.
> >
> > http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/plant-decline.html
> >
> > http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/476572main_NPP_Audiofile.pdf
> >
> > Increased drought due to increased atmospheric CO2:
> >
> > http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/Drought.pdf
> >
> > http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JHM-386.1
> >
> > http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~jean/monsoon/Menonmonsoon.pdf
> >
> > http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5789/940.short
> >
> > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.140.7788&rep=rep1&type=pdf
> >
> > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2338.1994.tb01063.x/abstract
> >
> > http://portal.iri.columbia.edu/~alesall/ouagaCILSS/articles/neelin_etal_grl2003.pdf
> >
> > http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/40427/1/IND21978882.pdfx

> 198 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.



AGWFacts

unread,
May 28, 2012, 12:54:36 PM5/28/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 03:04:11 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:
> 80 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

See what I mean?

AGWFacts

unread,
May 28, 2012, 1:01:32 PM5/28/12
to
> According to his posting record, jimp, is not noted for his
> understanding of physics. He spends most of his time disparaging
> other posters.

In the past he has become irate at physics being discussed in
sci.physics and other science newsgroups. It's more than just a
little freaky.

Meanwhile, Abdussamatov's assertions are not just asinine, they're
also delusional. Quoting:

"....

"From early 90s we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI
and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth.

"The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in
the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in
approximately 2014. Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the
greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of
solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will
additionally decline."

All three of these assertions are ridiculous, because:

1) TSI is increasing, not decreasing;

2) albedo is decreasing, not increasing;

3) Greenhouse gases are increasing, not decreasing.

It is therefore no wonder at all that net.k00k "jimp" here cites
the "paper."

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
May 28, 2012, 1:10:55 PM5/28/12
to
In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:

106 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.


ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
May 28, 2012, 1:11:51 PM5/28/12
to
In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:

206 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.


Fredric L. Rice

unread,
May 28, 2012, 3:03:27 PM5/28/12
to
You have a reading comprehension problem -- which is profound since you're
using Usenet which is all reading. :)

---
http://www.skeptictank.org/
Save us, Obe Won Paul! You're our only hope!

AGWFacts

unread,
May 28, 2012, 10:07:27 PM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:11:51 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:
> > > 198 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.

> 206 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.



AGWFacts

unread,
May 28, 2012, 10:08:26 PM5/28/12
to
On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:10:55 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:
> > > 80 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.
> >
> > See what I mean?

> 106 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.



linuxgal

unread,
May 28, 2012, 10:36:15 PM5/28/12
to
Fredric L. Rice wrote:
> Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 May 2012 12:53:31 -0700, Doug Bashford wrote:
>>> Global Warming's Impact On Plants Greater Then Predicted
>> AKA: "It's worse than we thought."
>
> You have a reading comprehension problem -- which is profound since you're
> using Usenet which is all reading. :)

Unless you get binaries, which is all wanking.

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com

unread,
May 28, 2012, 11:23:24 PM5/28/12
to
In sci.physics AGWFacts <AGWF...@1800reality.com> pasted in from other posts:

114 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.



AGWFacts

unread,
May 29, 2012, 2:22:15 PM5/29/12
to
On Tue, 29 May 2012 03:23:24 -0000, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
wrote:
> > > 106 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.
> >

> 114 lines of crap in the delusional belief he is being clever.


Fredric L. Rice

unread,
May 30, 2012, 10:40:57 PM5/30/12
to
Ah. Drew Barrymore.
0 new messages