France roasts in record heatwave, two die in Spain

[RickBradford]

42 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Your formulation of support is obviously designed to be as minimalist as possible.

Nevertheless, I believe that the globe has been warming for 50 years, and that man's activities have a role to play in that, particularly with regard to greenhouse gases.

 

Either change your definition of a "global warming denialist" or stop using the phrase to describe me.

[bristolboy]

Just now, RickBradford said:

Nevertheless, I believe that the globe has been warming for 50 years, and that man's activities have a role to play in that, particularly with regard to greenhouse gases.

 

Either change your definition of a "global warming denialist" or stop using the phrase to describe me.

There's a huge discrepancy in what you say you believe and the sources you subscribe to. I'll go with the latter to judge where you actually stand.

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

There's a huge discrepancy in what you say you believe and the sources you subscribe to. I'll go with the latter to judge where you actually stand.

Somebody who quotes the SkS Kidz, the Scooby-Doo Team Up of climate websites, as a credible source should be careful about impugning other people's sources.

 

If you don't want to believe something when I state it plainly, twice, then fine. No more to be discussed.

[Skallywag]

Scientific america magazine has been discussing climate change/global warming since the 70's that I know of.  Simple science, more carbon based resources being burned, more CO2 into the atmosphere.  

 

"No doubt human population growth is a major contributor to global warming, given that humans use fossil fuels to power their increasingly mechanized lifestyles. More people means more demand for oil, gas, coal and other fuels mined or drilled from below the Earth’s surface that, when burned, spew enough carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere to trap warm air inside like a greenhouse"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-growth-climate-change/

 

The United Nations discussed population stabilization in 1996 for socio economic reasons, but it would have also slowed climate change.  Nothing has come from it

 

[bristolboy]

32 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Somebody who quotes the SkS Kidz, the Scooby-Doo Team Up of climate websites, as a credible source should be careful about impugning other people's sources.

 

If you don't want to believe something when I state it plainly, twice, then fine. No more to be discussed.

There's what you profess to believe and then there where you for for evidence. Clearly your sources are denialist websites. I go with what people do, not what they profess.

[RickBradford]

Confirmation, then, that the term "denialist" is a purely subjective and hence meaningless term to be thrown around regardless of anyone's actual views on climate change. It's the Humpty Dumpty style of definition where words mean whatever you want them to.

 

That was worth establishing, I suppose.

[VincentRJ]

Attached is an image of a report by the Morning Oregonian newspaper dated July 24, 1906.
The Oregonian was a daily newspaper based in Portland, Oregan, United States, and was published from 1861 to 1937.

 

It's clear from these historical archives that extreme heat waves are nothing new and have occurred in the fairly recent past before CO2 levels began rising. What's interesting is that the journalists in those days seem to have had a better understanding of the distinction between climate and weather, than modern journalists. To quote:

 

"Whenever an unusually hot season is upon us, sweltering humanity talks about the changes in climate and shakes its head in a foreboding fashion.
But let no one feel that he has seen the worst. There have been many superlatively hot waves in different parts of the globe and in different centuries. Fortunately, they do not come often."

 

 

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Attached is an image of a report by the Morning Oregonian newspaper dated July 24, 1906.
The Oregonian was a daily newspaper based in Portland, Oregan, United States, and was published from 1861 to 1937.

 

It's clear from these historical archives that extreme heat waves are nothing new and have occurred in the fairly recent past before CO2 levels began rising. What's interesting is that the journalists in those days seem to have had a better understanding of the distinction between climate and weather, than modern journalists. To quote:

 

"Whenever an unusually hot season is upon us, sweltering humanity talks about the changes in climate and shakes its head in a foreboding fashion.
But let no one feel that he has seen the worst. There have been many superlatively hot waves in different parts of the globe and in different centuries. Fortunately, they do not come often."

 

 

Thank you for posting this research paper from a peer-reviewed journal. Clearly it conforms to what is expected of a scientific report.

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, RickBradford said:

Somebody who quotes the SkS Kidz, the Scooby-Doo Team Up of climate websites, as a credible source should be careful about impugning other people's sources.

 

If you don't want to believe something when I state it plainly, twice, then fine. No more to be discussed.

You really want to give yourself away, don't you. The only people who have a problem with skepticalscience.com are denialists. I don't know of any reputable climatologist who has criticized the leading site for explaining climate change to laymen. Only cranks subscribe to your view.

[RickBradford]

Oh, come on.

 

SkS Kidz is like a bouncy castle for zealots and social justice warriors.

 

The SkS Kidz site is an abomination of partisan nonsense whose proprietors refuse to debate real scientists who point out how foolish its narrative is.

 

You place great store by peer-reviewed science, but prefer to gloss over the fact that John Cook, the founder of SkS Kidz, is primarily a cartoonist, and rather a bad one, it seems.

 

Only cranks subscribe to your view.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Oh, come on.

 

SkS Kidz is like a bouncy castle for zealots and social justice warriors.

 

The SkS Kidz site is an abomination of partisan nonsense whose proprietors refuse to debate real scientists who point out how foolish its narrative is.

 

You place great store by peer-reviewed science, but prefer to gloss over the fact that John Cook, the founder of SkS Kidz, is primarily a cartoonist, and rather a bad one, it seems.

 

Only cranks subscribe to your view.

You mean cranks such as these people?

https://skepticalscience.com/endorsements.shtml

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Oh, come on.

 

SkS Kidz is like a bouncy castle for zealots and social justice warriors.

 

The SkS Kidz site is an abomination of partisan nonsense whose proprietors refuse to debate real scientists who point out how foolish its narrative is.

 

You place great store by peer-reviewed science, but prefer to gloss over the fact that John Cook, the founder of SkS Kidz, is primarily a cartoonist, and rather a bad one, it seems.

 

Only cranks subscribe to your view.

And here is a list of some of its critics:

https://www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/skeptical-science-website/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/04/skeptical-science-gets-it-all-wrong-yet-again/

Let me know when you find a mainstream climatologist who is critical of skepticalscience.com

[RickBradford]

Due to your fondness for the circular argument, you will no doubt claim that any scientist who is critical of skepticalscience.com cannot be reputable.

 

In rather the same way as the site itself, in fact, which specialises in juvenilia such as :

 

 

They behaved in an equally childish, and reprehensible way towards Roger J Pielke Sr, a scientist who has more qualifications than almost anyone else in the climate field.

 

It looks like, and presumably is, just a meeting place for silly little social justice activists. The fact that you appear to regard SkS Kidz as credible makes it much easier to understand why you post the things you do.

[bristolboy]

50 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Due to your fondness for the circular argument, you will no doubt claim that any scientist who is critical of skepticalscience.com cannot be reputable.

 

In rather the same way as the site itself, in fact, which specialises in juvenilia such as :

 

 

They behaved in an equally childish, and reprehensible way towards Roger J Pielke Sr, a scientist who has more qualifications than almost anyone else in the climate field.

 

It looks like, and presumably is, just a meeting place for silly little social justice activists. The fact that you appear to regard SkS Kidz as credible makes it much easier to understand why you post the things you do.

As I noted, some very distinguished climatologists endorse the site. I haven't found one single maintstream climatologist who faults it. Which isn't surprising since the site draws mostly on their work.

[RickBradford]

Of course. Because if a climatologist faults it you will immediately declare that they are not mainstream. That's how circular arguments work.

 

Most everybody else, by contrast, would regard Roger Pielke Sr as a mainstream climate scientist:

 

Quote

Roger A. Pielke Sr., B.A. Mathematics, Towson State College (1968); M.S. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University (1969); Ph.D. Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University (1973); Research Assistant, Pennsylvania State University (1968); National Science Foundation Trainee, Pennsylvania State University (1968-1971); Research Meteorologist, Experimental Meteorology Laboratory, NOAA (1971-1974); Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1974-1977); Distinguished Authorship Award, NOAA (1974); Leroy Meisinger Award, American Meteorological Society (1977); Associate Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1978-1981); Chief Editor, Monthly Weather Review (1981-1985); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (1982); Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (1982-1985); Abell New Faculty Research and Graduate Program Award (1984); Deputy Director, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (1985-1988); Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (1985-2000), Abell Research Faculty Award (1987/1988); Researcher of the Year, Colorado State University Research Foundation (1993), Pennsylvania State Centennial Fellow (1996); Alumni of the Year, Pennsylvania State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences (1999); Colorado State Climatologist (1999-2006); Engineering Dean's Council Award, Colorado State University (2000); Adjunct Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Duke University (2003-2006); Fellow, American Geophysical Union (2004); Visiting Professor, Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona (2004); Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado-Boulder (2005-Present); Senior Research Associate, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado-Boulder (2005-Present); Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University (2007-Present)

 

Compare that with the resume of John Cook, founder of SkS Kidz.

 

 

Now, who would you rather get your science from?

 

Don't bother to answer, I know which one you will prefer.

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Of course. Because if a climatologist faults it you will immediately declare that they are not mainstream. That's how circular arguments work.

 

Most everybody else, by contrast, would regard Roger Pielke Sr as a mainstream climate scientist:

 

 

Compare that with the resume of John Cook, founder of SkS Kidz.

 

 

Now, who would you rather get your science from?

 

Don't bother to answer, I know which one you will prefer.

Whatever the merits and demerits of Roger PIelke, and clearly you are unfamiliar with the latter, and they are legion, the fact is that you are the person who endorsed the findings of a website offering fakery as science and the work of scientists. Most people wouldn't persist in the face of such a shameful error. But you haven't even acknowledged that the site is garbage. And yet you think your evaluation of a widely read and admired website is to be given more weight than the opinion of eminent climatologists. But you do have pretty much the entire, if much diminished army of denialists on your side. Which to most is evidence enough of how misguided your opinion is.

[RickBradford]

It's been very hot in France recently, and also in Germany.

 

Now, they're getting record cold in Germany:

Quote

 

(Wetter.com)

We have just experienced an extremely cold night. Rotenburg even set a new cold record. Will there be ground frost and cold in the nights to come?

 

Rotenburg: 2.9 degrees (lowest July Temperature since 1946)
Quickborn: 4.0 degrees  (lowest July Temperature since 1999)
Göttingen: 4.0 degrees (lowest July Temperature since 1996)
Soltau: 4.1 degrees (lowest July Temperature since 1986)
Friesoythe: 4.7 degrees (lowest July Temperature since 1971)
Lippstadt: 4.8 degrees (lowest July Temperature since 1990)
Diepholz: 5.1 degrees  (lowest July Temperature since 1971)

But we won't be seeing any of that in the mainstream press, as it is not congruent with The Narrative Which Must Be Preserved.

 

As always, hot weather = climate change catastrophe, but cold weather is just weather.

 

[expatfromwyoming]

and yet they go to the beach???? Is there a hotter environment surrounded by silica.

[RickBradford]

17 minutes ago, expatfromwyoming said:

and yet they go to the beach???? Is there a hotter environment surrounded by silica.

It's always warmer at the beach.

 

But there are several groups of scientists who believe that we are headed for much colder times, due to the lack of sunspot activity, what is known as a Solar Minimum.

 

 

The last time the sun was so quiet was in the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century, a cold and miserable time of wars and famine, and one which underscored the most fundamental relation of climate to human well-being: Warm is better than cold.

 

These predictions don't fit the accepted "progressive" narrative of the legacy mainstream media, and so are ignored.

[bristolboy]

 

2 hours ago, RickBradford said:

It's been very hot in France recently, and also in Germany.

 

Now, they're getting record cold in Germany:

But we won't be seeing any of that in the mainstream press, as it is not congruent with The Narrative Which Must Be Preserved.

 

As always, hot weather = climate change catastrophe, but cold weather is just weather.

 

Nice try at distraction. The fact is that for the last 2 decades globally record high temperatures are being set at multiples of record lows. For the first decade of the 21st century the ration was 2 to 1. For the second decade so far it's 5 to 1. This is unprecedented for as long as weather records have been kept. Yours is the kind of cherry picking irrelevant nonsense that denialists and their fellow travelers post to cast discredit on the fact of of global warming and the fact that it's accelerating.

And the fact is that in Europe record highs in summertime are far more life-threatening than record lows in summertime.

Edited July 5, 2019 by bristolboy

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

It's always warmer at the beach.

 

But there are several groups of scientists who believe that we are headed for much colder times, due to the lack of sunspot activity, what is known as a Solar Minimum.

 

 

The last time the sun was so quiet was in the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century, a cold and miserable time of wars and famine, and one which underscored the most fundamental relation of climate to human well-being: Warm is better than cold.

 

These predictions don't fit the accepted "progressive" narrative of the legacy mainstream media, and so are ignored.

And speaking of alarmism... Even if a Maunder minimum is coming - and it's a big if - denialists and their fellow travelers are exaggerating its significance. They claim that the last one corresponded to the Little Ice Age. But, in fact, the Little Ice Age began before the Maunder Minimum and outlasted it. And even if a Maunder Minimum occurs it's been calculated to maybe peel off 0.1 degree Celsius of increase. In other words the warming power of rising greenhouse gases will far outweigh any effect of the Maunder minimum.

Global Warming or Little Ice Age: Which Will It Be?

"It turns out this would be a very minor impact on the climate, even if we were to return to Maunder Minimum conditions," climate scientist Michael Mann, of Pennsylvania State University, told LiveScience. "That would only lead to a decrease in about 0.2 watts of power per square meter of the Earth's surface — that compared to greenhouse forcing, which is more than 2 watts per meter squared. That's a factor of 10 larger." [The World's Weirdest Weather]

https://www.livescience.com/14693-climate-change-sun-magnetic-minimum.html

 

Is a Mini Ice Age Coming? 'Maunder Minimum' Spurs Controversy

Regarding the Maunder Minimum predicted by Zharkova, Feulner said, "The expected decrease in global temperature would be 0.1 degrees Celsius at most, compared to about 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times by the year 2030," Feulner told the Post. Furthermore, this isn't the first time research has predicted waning heat from the sun, to which experts also said that man-made global warming won't be trumped.

https://www.livescience.com/51597-maunder-minimum-mini-ice-age.html

 

[RickBradford]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Yours is the kind of cherry picking irrelevant nonsense that denialists and their fellow travelers post to cast discredit on the fact of of global warming and the fact that it's accelerating.

I said nothing about casting "discredit" on global warming. I simply pointed out that there was record cold weather in Germany last week, and contrasted the indifference of the mainstream media to that compared to the hysterical caterwauling about the extreme heat in France.

 

Stop making stuff up and attributing it to other posters.

 

As for the climatic effects of the solar minimum, we'll just have to wait and see. I certainly wouldn't take the word of Michael "Piltdown" Mann on that subject, given his wretched track record of bungled activism.

 

At any rate, it's an interesting topic -- to those capable of free thinking, anyway, though perhaps not so interesting to committed ideologues.

 

 

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

I said nothing about casting "discredit" on global warming. I simply pointed out that there was record cold weather in Germany last week, and contrasted the indifference of the mainstream media to that compared to the hysterical caterwauling about the extreme heat in France.

 

Stop making stuff up and attributing it to other posters.

 

As for the climatic effects of the solar minimum, we'll just have to wait and see. I certainly wouldn't take the word of Michael "Piltdown" Mann on that subject, given his wretched track record of bungled activism.

 

At any rate, it's an interesting topic -- to those capable of free thinking, anyway, though perhaps not so interesting to committed ideologues.

 

 

Still getting things wrong? There were no record low temperatures set in Germany last week. And as I pointed out, low temperatures in summer - even if they set records are unlikely to be life threatening so not nearly so newsworthy as record highs in summertime. And, of course, their overall significance is dwarfed by the fact that the global ratio of record highs to record lows is at an all time high. Now that is massively significant and not given nearly so much attention by the media as it deserves.

 

And even if what you said about Mann were true -  although the results of Mann's  supposedly controversial research have been repeatedly and independently been confirmed - there's nothing controversial about his statement about how much solar radiation would be decreased in the Maunder minimum vs the forcing effect of greenhouse gases. The sunspot cycle is an exhaustively researched subject and even though the causes of the cycles may not be fully understood, the effect of sunspots or the lack thereof on radiation output is.

 

Once again you echo the claims of the denialists whilst denying to be one yourself. (A double denialist?) You're grasping at straws - broken straws at that.

[RickBradford]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Once again you echo the claims of the denialists whilst denying to be one yourself. (A double denialist?) You're grasping at straws - broken straws at that.

That is possibly the silliest thing I have ever seen you post - and that's up against some pretty stiff competition.

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, RickBradford said:

That is possibly the silliest thing I have ever seen you post - and that's up against some pretty stiff competition.

If it had been proven my claims were as ridiculous and as factually wrong as yours, I might be resorting to groundless insults, too. Although I like to think, perhaps mistakenly, that I have at least barely enough character not to do so. Clearly, facts are not your metier. Let's indulge in a brief recap.

 

1)You claimed that June 2019 was below average in global temperature. You based your claim on a tweet linked to www.temperature.global You wrote that the results they offered were based on science and that it was the result of work by scientists.  In fact, this website has nothing at all to do with science. It makes claims but lists no names of anyone at all responsible for them. This, apparently, is your idea of now science works.  And you still believe you have enough understanding of science to criticize other websites dealing with climate change.

 

To make matters worse for your claim, the month of June was actually the hottest June on record. "The data was provided by the Copernicus Climate Change Service(C3S), implemented by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts on behalf of the European Union."  

 And info from www,temperature.global is what you based the follow claim on to counter Copernicus: 

"That shows that different analyses of the available data come up with considerably different conclusions.

So much for "settled science"."

Actually the conclusion should be so much for the kind of fake science you endorse.

 

Based on the very cold temperatures in Germany you made this claim:

"The whole point is that, despite the very high temperatures in Europe last week, monthly temperatures were more than balanced by cold - sometimes record cold - in other parts of the world."

Where's your evidence for that? I'll venture to say you've got none. What we do know is that for the last year high temperature records have outpaced cold temperature records by a ratio of greater than 5 to 1. In fact for the last 2 decades high temperature records have vastly outpaced cold temperature records. This is unprecedented.

 

And when confronted with facts about solar radiation in relation to global warming and the Maunder minimum, you deflected with verbal abuse of a very eminent climatologist who just happens to be a favorite target of denialists. And you disregard the fact the what he say about solar radiation is supported by the climatological community at large. And you closed your comments about the Maunder Minimum with this:

"At any rate, it's an interesting topic -- to those capable of free thinking, anyway, though perhaps not so interesting to committed ideologues."

Well, given your reliance on the "science" of a site like www.temperature.global it's clear that what you think is "free thinking" is actually plain old-fashioned "gullibility."

 

Edited July 6, 2019 by bristolboy

[VincentRJ]

22 hours ago, bristolboy said:

"At any rate, it's an interesting topic -- to those capable of free thinking, anyway, though perhaps not so interesting to committed ideologues."

 

Well, given your reliance on the "science" of a site like www.temperature.global it's clear that what you think is "free thinking" is actually plain old-fashioned "gullibility."

  

'Gullibility' is believing there can be a high degree of certainty in relation to a non-linear, chaotic, system, such as the climate, because a group of scientists with invested interests claim they have achieved such certainty and can predict with certainty that there will be disastrous consequences if we don't reduce our CO2 emissions.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

'Gullibility' is believing there can be a high degree of certainty in relation to a non-linear, chaotic, system, such as the climate, because a group of scientists with invested interests claim they have achieved such certainty and can predict with certainty that there will be disastrous consequences if we don't reduce our CO2 emissions.

The actual data of temperatures actually recorded all over the globe overwhelmingly support their predictions. But thanks for the persiflage. 

[VincentRJ]

59 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The actual data of temperatures actually recorded all over the globe overwhelmingly support their predictions. But thanks for the persiflage. 

Except when there is a pause, as there was between 1998 and 2013, which wasn't predicted, or a downward trend which resulted in predictions of a future cooling during the 1970's, at least by some scientists, who in retrospect got it wrong at the time, but that doesn't mean there will not be another cooling period in the near future.

 

Most people accept we are now in a warming phase, following the Little Ice Age, with likely ups, downs and pauses. The predictions I'm referring to, which the gullible believe in, is that an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels from 0.028% to 0.04% is not only the main cause of the current warming but that such warming will be catastrophic if we don't reduce our CO2 emissions.

 

The most significant greenhouse gas is water vapour, which has a far greater greenhouse effect than the minuscule amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

Of course, the alarmists claim that because increases in CO2 drive the warming, the amount of water vapour will  increase as a result and will causes yet more warming in a never ending cycle. Sounds logical, doesn't it!

 

However, one would be very gullible to think that climatologists are not aware that more water vapour in the atmosphere results in more clouds, and clouds have an albedo effect, that is, they reflect the sunlight and reduce the amount of heat reaching the earth's surface.
In other words, the increased heating from increased water vapour is likely balanced by increased cloud cover.

 

Why don't the 'alarmist' climatologists mention this factor? Well, first it would have the effect of reducing the alarm, and secondly, the amount of water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere is so variable from region to region and from day to day, it's impossible to include such effects in climate models with any hope of accuracy.

 

Increases in CO2 and water vapour, which results in more precipitation, should not be a cause for alarm, but a boon for humanity. Both CO2 and water are essential for all life. Increased CO2 greens the planet and helps to compensate for our deforestation, and increased water supply is needed for food production, and reforestation projects to protect the environment and biodiversity.

 

The main problem is the cost of energy. In order to exploit those benefits of increased CO2 levels and increased precipitation, we need cheap energy to build more dams and long distance water pipes, and cheap energy to protect ourselves from naturally caused, extreme weather events.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Except when there is a pause, as there was between 1998 and 2013, which wasn't predicted, or a downward trend which resulted in predictions of a future cooling during the 1970's, at least by some scientists, who in retrospect got it wrong at the time, but that doesn't mean there will not be another cooling period in the near future.

 

Most people accept we are now in a warming phase, following the Little Ice Age, with likely ups, downs and pauses. The predictions I'm referring to, which the gullible believe in, is that an increase in atmospheric CO2 levels from 0.028% to 0.04% is not only the main cause of the current warming but that such warming will be catastrophic if we don't reduce our CO2 emissions.

 

The most significant greenhouse gas is water vapour, which has a far greater greenhouse effect than the minuscule amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

 

Of course, the alarmists claim that because increases in CO2 drive the warming, the amount of water vapour will  increase as a result and will causes yet more warming in a never ending cycle. Sounds logical, doesn't it!

 

However, one would be very gullible to think that climatologists are not aware that more water vapour in the atmosphere results in more clouds, and clouds have an albedo effect, that is, they reflect the sunlight and reduce the amount of heat reaching the earth's surface.
In other words, the increased heating from increased water vapour is likely balanced by increased cloud cover.

 

Why don't the 'alarmist' climatologists mention this factor? Well, first it would have the effect of reducing the alarm, and secondly, the amount of water vapour and clouds in the atmosphere is so variable from region to region and from day to day, it's impossible to include such effects in climate models with any hope of accuracy.

 

Increases in CO2 and water vapour, which results in more precipitation, should not be a cause for alarm, but a boon for humanity. Both CO2 and water are essential for all life. Increased CO2 greens the planet and helps to compensate for our deforestation, and increased water supply is needed for food production, and reforestation projects to protect the environment and biodiversity.

 

The main problem is the cost of energy. In order to exploit those benefits of increased CO2 levels and increased precipitation, we need cheap energy to build more dams and long distance water pipes, and cheap energy to protect ourselves from naturally caused, extreme weather events.

False. There was no pause between 1998 and 2013. It's just one of the many falsehoods told by denialists. 1998 were the years of a very powerful el nino. So average global temperatures did shoot up in 1998. And the following year had a very powerful La Nina so average global temperature plunged.  But the trendline for temperatures continued its upwards climb.

 

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

False. There was no pause between 1998 and 2013. It's just one of the many falsehoods told by denialists. 1998 were the years of a very powerful el nino. So average global temperatures did shoot up in 1998. And the following year had a very powerful La Nina so average global temperature plunged.  But the trendline for temperatures continued its upwards climb.

 

If there was no 'pause', then why did the IPCC address the issue in its 5th report which came out in 2013. They don't use the word 'pause', but use 'hiatus' instead. Here's what they concluded in the summary of the Working Group 1 report, which deals with the physical sciences rather than the political issues which are addressed in the overall summary.

 

“Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 –15 years.”

 

"In summary, the observed recent warming hiatus, defined as the reduction in GMST trend during 1998–2012 as compared to the trend during 1951–2012, is attributable in roughly equal measure to a cooling contribution from internal variability and a reduced trend in external forcing (expert judgment, medium confidence). The forcing trend reduction is primarily due to a negative forcing trend from both volcanic eruptions and the downward phase of the solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend."

 

Of course there will always be a trend in climate, whether regional or global. Climate is never static, and the long -term trend will be either up or down in temperature depending on the starting point which is chosen. If you were to start the current warming trend from the height of the Roman Warm Period, or the Medieval Warm Period, there would be no current warming at the present time, perhaps even a slight cooling. If you started the trend from the beginning of life on our planet, about 3.8 billion years ago, you would find a very significant, overall cooling trend.
 

This why Michael Mann did his best to hide the existence of the MWP and LIA, and claim they were not global.