BBC article: climate models underestimate plants' CO2 absorption

What? The global warming kooks are wrong again?

Unfortunately, they'll never give it up although no sane person believes them.

quote:

---

"This new research implies it will be slightly easier to fulfil the target of keeping global warming below two degrees - but with a big emphasis on 'slightly'," said Dr Chris Huntingford, a climate modeller at the UK's Centre for Ecology and Hydrology.

"Overall, the cuts in CO2 emissions over the next few decades will still have to be very large if we want to keep warming below two degrees."

---

These fricking fools think they can "keep" the earth from doing what it has naturally done for millenia. Or worse, they think that we believe their "solutions".

No. Don't you get it? This means evil, irresponsible, greedy humans have been pumping even more of that polluting CO2 into the atmosphere than has been estimated (of course, it also means that their estimates of historical CO2 levels is likely even more off because of the greater abundance of plants (including plankton) in the pre industrial period).

Seems like what they're talking about is the amount absorbed per plant (given size). I find it surprising that this is something that is still not known precisely. And being off by 16%? Maybe I'm off-base but that seems pretty huge.

I was expecting this to talk about how the amount absorbed by plants in the aggregate would change in proportion because plant growth should be endogenous with atmospheric co2.

I will only start giving 'climate change' credibility when Al Gore and his ilk divest themselves of the significant financial gain they receive from being its mouthpiece.

The wealth they have gained destroys their credibility.

quote:

---

But experts believe the new calculation is unlikely to make a difference to global warming predictions

---

reading. Its fun.

quote:

---

I will only start giving 'climate change' credibility when Al Gore and his ilk divest themselves of the significant financial gain they receive from being its mouthpiece.

The wealth they have gained destroys their credibility.

---

Al gore has zero peer reviewed climate publications. You are a moron.

quote:

---

So plants absorb more co2 than thought but makes no difference in warming predictions? Why is that?

---

It's almost as if the warming might be caused by something else...

Perhaps it's that gigantic nuclear furnace 93 million miles away.

quote:

---

So plants absorb more co2 than thought but makes no difference in warming predictions?

Why is that?

---

I thought the whole carbon credit thing and carbon neutral planting etc was all related to co2 absorbtion?

When those that gain financially politically or prestige wise review work done by others with the same things to gain you have to question their credibility.

All these oopsies we have been seeing recently and all the errors made both accidentally and on purpose in the data interpretation call the entire concept of "climate change", AKA "global warming", into question.

Calling someone an idiot that questions these people's credibility is the height of arrogance. You are advancing a theory that predicts doom and gloom that has not panned out. And the majority of the American People suspect that theory is being advanced for political gain. Only a cretin would not be suspicious of the climate change crowd.

quote:

---

And being off by 16%? Maybe I'm off-base but that seems pretty huge.

---

even if they were only off by 10% that's a massive amount, kilo or mega tonnage of carbon annually.

The fact that so much hysteria is generated by those who don't even understand the science shows their agenda is not based on reality but their own selfish interests.