Climate change will show no mercy to dithering Thailand

[Daniel Boon]

I meant antarctic sea ice...google climate debate daily for two colums , one pro and one anti climate change. Very interesting to see just how many scientists are sceptics and their reasons why.

Isn't it strange that CO2 is rapidly increasing yet temperatures are not increasing as predicted? The IPPC itself acknowledges there has been fewer cyclones and other severe weather events over the last few decades. As for sea rises???? Hardly any. If it appears to rise in one part of the globe it would register everywhere as all oceans are linked. Why has the arctic ice sheets grown to record levels recently? Why have all the dud warmist predictions been so wrong? Has anyone ever looked at waterfront real estate prices on these islands that are supposed to be inundated ? This weather of ours has been changing for billions of years. Why do they call greenland green? It once was and may be again.For man to think they can control the weather baffles the mind.

I will not be swayed by out of date you tube presentations but rather by what I see happenning in front of me. The very fact I could produce just as many scientists to refute what you claim means one thing for certain. The science is not settled.

The data as to CO2 acting as a blanket is based upon science researched in the 1950s as the US Air Force was perfecting its heat seeking missile technology.

▶ CO2 & the Atmosphere - YouTube

(

)

We know a great deal about what affects the Earth's balances of absorption vs radiance... and the observations don't track unless we add in the effects of CO2... indeed,we'd be cooling now, except for the blanket effect of the CO2

How do we know the climate is changing because of CO2?

YouTube - Sir David Attenborough: The Truth About Climate Change

(

)

And we know, based upon the math of sheer tonnage of fossil fuels sold and burned annually, but also because of the percentages / ratios of isotopes of Carbon that the CO2 is because of humans and not volcanoes

▶ "It's Us" - YouTube

(

)

I say "we" - speaking as a chemist, and aware of the predominant number of scientists who understand the logic of the above sequence of observations.

For the remainder of humans, there are a portion who claim to be of homo sapiens as a species, who trust their GPS, their satellite TV equipment, maybe even their doctor's reports - but are unwilling to accept evidence that might require them to reduce consumption and shift energy supply options. i.e. not really sapient.

a 'chemist' ... how under whelming ... C02 ... and what of the now (correct) description C02e? or CH4 (23 times the warming of C02) and (NF₃); a gas that has 17,000 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide ...

But here is an easier one for you ... we put two pots of water on the stove with the same amount of water ... one has some frozen water in it, the other none ... at the same temperature, which would get hotter quicker? .... try it at home, with the concave meniscus

there is more to it than that (like a) water expands with heat and reflection by snow/ice and c) the elliptical path of the Earth and heat absorption of various thermal mass) geographical characteristics ...)

[canuckamuck]

Mr Boon. I am sure you had a point to make, but I just got confused.

Do you really want me to heat up two kettles of water and report back? My kettle is opaque so I won't be sure I got that concave meniscus that seems to be important to you. If it was convex would the results be different?

And just so you know, water expands when it is cooled, that's why pipes break. But it also expands when it converts to steam. But forgive me I do not know what that has to do with earth's elliptical orbit and heat absorption of various thermal mass) geographical characteristics ...

Please try to clear this up, as I need to know if I should be adding ice to my kettle to speed up my morning coffee.

[RPCVguy]

Easterbrook gets asked some questions, not enough. He speaks in partial facts, facts, and outright falsehoods. His assertions sound logical, but omit data. He throws so much mud on the wall as to be difficult to keep a running list.
Point#1: The 30 year cycle is one of the known cycles... and by that cycle, we should be quite a bit cooler now.

The fact that the temperatures have only leveled off since1998 is an indication of the degree of net warming over historical patterns. He also stretches the truth by referring to records being broken at a lower rate than during the 1930's but the new records are above the old records (a bit of misdirection there.) He casts dispersions upon the temperature records - that only he is using "original" data... yet he stops short of saying the adjusted NASA and NOAA are wrong...because the adjustments are indeed needed adjustments to bring older "global data" up to the standards now available from improved instrumentation as gathered. Looking at tree rings, adjusting for measurements taken too close to a heat source,etc.etc. are valid reasons to adjust "original data"

Rate of records being set? Here is a USA only sample from 2011.

He also uses land data... and skips over ocean data, yet the oceans are the heat sink that absorb 90% of the heat imbalance. Oceans are warming...

When he finally admits the oceans are warming... which does mean more evaporation, meaning a higher saturation point =more water vapor=an increase of greenhouse gas effect, triggered by the CO2 increase.
For all of human history (350,000 years) indeed for the past million years (...when the earth has had repetitive Ice Ages and Interglacial warm periods) CO2 has cycled between 180ppm (deep ice age) and 280ppm which is where we were at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. We are now at 400ppm MUCH more than the 0.08% change he cites several times.

As a chemist, the dynamic equilibrium of the increased concentration of CO2 in the air does push the equilibrium to have more CO2 dissolved in the ocean. His "precision" as to denying "ocean acidification" is in reality denying the pH crosses below 7... but "Less alkaline" he does not deny. It is an argument not about the direction of change, but only on the net value. Yet he insists those changes are not affecting the stationary coral reefs or causing the other
degradation of marine shellfish that he heard cited.
Yes too, the warming of the oceans releases CO2, but so far it is more than compensated by the increase in concentration in the air over it.

Edited July 1, 2014 by RPCVguy

[i claudius]

150 years ago the river Thames used to freeze over and they held faires on it ,we used to grow grapes in Britain a few hundred years ago ,all these changes ,were they man made ,i dont think so.

[Daniel Boon]

Mr Boon. I am sure you had a point to make, but I just got confused.

Do you really want me to heat up two kettles of water and report back? My kettle is opaque so I won't be sure I got that concave meniscus that seems to be important to you. If it was convex would the results be different?

And just so you know, water expands when it is cooled, that's why pipes break. But it also expands when it converts to steam. But forgive me I do not know what that has to do with earth's elliptical orbit and heat absorption of various thermal mass) geographical characteristics ...

Please try to clear this up, as I need to know if I should be adding ice to my kettle to speed up my morning coffee.

a 'chemist' ... I said two pots (not kettles) (what sort of 'chemist'?) the reason for convex is simple; if the meniscus was positive, then one the analysis could be less conclusive ... by putting in the same level of water (with a block of ice in one) at the same temperature, then the example would be easier to measure (as the ice melts) ...

or more simply ... the rate of global is being slowed by the ice (be it north or south poles); however, as the ice melts and then warms (is warmed by already warm water) there is an exponential increase in the temperature, resulting in ocean levels rising; as storm strengths increase, so too do storm surges ... or - back to the two pots (not kettles) - in the test, the water having started in the negative, would soon be (given the rate of heating) be in the positive, breaching that point where the surface tension of the water contains the water within the confines of the pot ...

[RPCVguy]

Consequences for Thailand will be some changes in average temperature (land warming will be more noticeable nearer the poles.) Still, maybe enough to hinder the fertilization of rice, which depends upon overnight low temperatures being low enough during the pollination season.
I look more at the changes to rainfall.

Southern Thailand looks to be in latitudes that will regularly get more rain.
Northern and Eastern Thailand sits on the edge between long term more rain and the drier weather that is forecast for China.

This video explains the patterns.
Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier? - YouTube
(

)

It does not mean "no change" but rather suggests an increased in variability ...with years that will have more intense rains, and then more intense droughts. It is a better forecast than many nations known for being agricultural exporters... and Thailand would better absorb the rains and weather the droughts IF there was an increased area restored to mixed growth forest.

[Morch]

[Thanet]

Considering the fraud science that is perpetrated by the likes of Hanson and Mann et.al. The IPCC report which keeps being quoted as the bible is a regurgitation of false information.

All the computer models say we should be another degree warmer, but temperatures have either not changed or have gone down in the last 15 years. The amount of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic has grown. The US Great Lakes broke new records of ice, but one year is not climate.

How can the US historical temperature go down in the early 20th century and be higher than measured in the late 20th century? First, historical data doesn't change, unless modified by an agency with a flawed computer models and a agenda.

Statistical studies show fewer storms and less energy than historical norms have happened over the last years. One reason these storms seem so bad, there are more people and development in harms way.

The lesser countries are looking to cash in on a global tax bonanza, and they are just lining up for the payoff.

The 97% of scientists agreeing is another bogus lie, but the propaganda masters know if you tell it long enough and often enough it will be believed.

Agreed - climate change is an industry like any other, one that gives a whole load of people the opportunity to exercise control the masses with a load of dodgy science.

The temperature readings that purportedly show the earth warming up are based on computer modelling, rather than actual data.

A load of twaddle, really.

[watso63]

The world needs to address the real threat to mankind. Overpopulation and unsustainable use of the worlds resources. The climate and mother nature will do what it will. It is up to the wit and intelligence of the human race to react accordingly. Basically that means more wars to control what's left. Me, I don't care. I retired to a wonderful country where I can relax with a cold beer and never have to worry about heating or eating.

[sawadee1947]

Isn't it strange that CO2 is rapidly increasing yet temperatures are not increasing as predicted? The IPPC itself acknowledges there has been fewer cyclones and other severe weather events over the last few decades. As for sea rises???? Hardly any. If it appears to rise in one part of the globe it would register everywhere as all oceans are linked. Why has the arctic ice sheets grown to record levels recently? Why have all the dud warmist predictions been so wrong? Has anyone ever looked at waterfront real estate prices on these islands that are supposed to be inundated ? This weather of ours has been changing for billions of years. Why do they call greenland green? It once was and may be again.For man to think they can control the weather baffles the mind.

I will not be swayed by out of date you tube presentations but rather by what I see happenning in front of me. The very fact I could produce just as many scientists to refute what you claim means one thing for certain. The science is not settled.

The data as to CO2 acting as a blanket is based upon science researched in the 1950s as the US Air Force was perfecting its heat seeking missile technology.

▶ CO2 & the Atmosphere - YouTube

(

)

We know a great deal about what affects the Earth's balances of absorption vs radiance... and the observations don't track unless we add in the effects of CO2... indeed,we'd be cooling now, except for the blanket effect of the CO2

How do we know the climate is changing because of CO2?

YouTube - Sir David Attenborough: The Truth About Climate Change

(

)

And we know, based upon the math of sheer tonnage of fossil fuels sold and burned annually, but also because of the percentages / ratios of isotopes of Carbon that the CO2 is because of humans and not volcanoes

▶ "It's Us" - YouTube

(

)

I say "we" - speaking as a chemist, and aware of the predominant number of scientists who understand the logic of the above sequence of observations.

For the remainder of humans, there are a portion who claim to be of homo sapiens as a species, who trust their GPS, their satellite TV equipment, maybe even their doctor's reports - but are unwilling to accept evidence that might require them to reduce consumption and shift energy supply options. i.e. not really sapient.

......As for sea rises???? Hardly any. If it appears to rise in one part of the globe it would register everywhere as all oceans are linked. .....

I could see YOU are NOT a scientist...! You should know that the sea level is rising e.g. in Europe every year, but not everywhere the same because of influence by e.g. Gulf Stream, Rotation of our planet and Moon attraction. Also the sea water is moving as in a bath tub...some more water here, some less water there. It's going round the globe...

Please think twice before typing any nonsense

[canuckamuck]

Mr Boon. I am sure you had a point to make, but I just got confused.

Do you really want me to heat up two kettles of water and report back? My kettle is opaque so I won't be sure I got that concave meniscus that seems to be important to you. If it was convex would the results be different?

And just so you know, water expands when it is cooled, that's why pipes break. But it also expands when it converts to steam. But forgive me I do not know what that has to do with earth's elliptical orbit and heat absorption of various thermal mass) geographical characteristics ...

Please try to clear this up, as I need to know if I should be adding ice to my kettle to speed up my morning coffee.

a 'chemist' ... I said two pots (not kettles) (what sort of 'chemist'?) the reason for convex is simple; if the meniscus was positive, then one the analysis could be less conclusive ... by putting in the same level of water (with a block of ice in one) at the same temperature, then the example would be easier to measure (as the ice melts) ...

or more simply ... the rate of global is being slowed by the ice (be it north or south poles); however, as the ice melts and then warms (is warmed by already warm water) there is an exponential increase in the temperature, resulting in ocean levels rising; as storm strengths increase, so too do storm surges ... or - back to the two pots (not kettles) - in the test, the water having started in the negative, would soon be (given the rate of heating) be in the positive, breaching that point where the surface tension of the water contains the water within the confines of the pot ...

OK, I think you are saying that it is the ice at the poles that keeps warming in check. So I must assume that you think that all the ice is going to melt.

Why is it then that the last dozen or so times in the last 10,000 years, that it was considerably hotter than it is now, that the ice did not go away and cause runaway warming.

And I am not a chemist, that was someone else who said they were. Where I come from a chemist is scientist specializing in chemistry. But I understand that people also use that term to refer to pharmacists. I am sure the poster meant the former.

[Robert2006]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Considering the fraud science that is perpetrated by the likes of Hanson and Mann et.al. The IPCC report which keeps being quoted as the bible is a regurgitation of false information.

All the computer models say we should be another degree warmer, but temperatures have either not changed or have gone down in the last 15 years. The amount of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic has grown. The US Great Lakes broke new records of ice, but one year is not climate.

How can the US historical temperature go down in the early 20th century and be higher than measured in the late 20th century? First, historical data doesn't change, unless modified by an agency with a flawed computer models and a agenda.

Statistical studies show fewer storms and less energy than historical norms have happened over the last years. One reason these storms seem so bad, there are more people and development in harms way.

The lesser countries are looking to cash in on a global tax bonanza, and they are just lining up for the payoff.

The 97% of scientists agreeing is another bogus lie, but the propaganda masters know if you tell it long enough and often enough it will be believed.

I want to do the drugs your doing.

Actually he is correct, private corporations and their sales teams the governments push climate change science as a way to implement a tax on carbon dioxide. Most scientists that are not in the pocket of big business say it’s a scam, pure propaganda perpetrated for profit and control.

With 3% of the scientists disagreeing, I'd put my support behind the 97% of scientists agreeing with global warming.

At one point in time almost all of the scientists believed the world was flat, cigarettes and trans-fats were healthy. The most powerful people in the world own the scientists, they own the media; they are using this propaganda because they want carbon taxes.

[Daniel Boon]

Mr Boon. I am sure you had a point to make, but I just got confused.

Do you really want me to heat up two kettles of water and report back? My kettle is opaque so I won't be sure I got that concave meniscus that seems to be important to you. If it was convex would the results be different?

And just so you know, water expands when it is cooled, that's why pipes break. But it also expands when it converts to steam. But forgive me I do not know what that has to do with earth's elliptical orbit and heat absorption of various thermal mass) geographical characteristics ...

Please try to clear this up, as I need to know if I should be adding ice to my kettle to speed up my morning coffee.

a 'chemist' ... I said two pots (not kettles) (what sort of 'chemist'?) the reason for convex is simple; if the meniscus was positive, then one the analysis could be less conclusive ... by putting in the same level of water (with a block of ice in one) at the same temperature, then the example would be easier to measure (as the ice melts) ...

or more simply ... the rate of global is being slowed by the ice (be it north or south poles); however, as the ice melts and then warms (is warmed by already warm water) there is an exponential increase in the temperature, resulting in ocean levels rising; as storm strengths increase, so too do storm surges ... or - back to the two pots (not kettles) - in the test, the water having started in the negative, would soon be (given the rate of heating) be in the positive, breaching that point where the surface tension of the water contains the water within the confines of the pot ...

OK, I think you are saying that it is the ice at the poles that keeps warming in check. So I must assume that you think that all the ice is going to melt.

Why is it then that the last dozen or so times in the last 10,000 years, that it was considerably hotter than it is now, that the ice did not go away and cause runaway warming.

And I am not a chemist, that was someone else who said they were. Where I come from a chemist is scientist specializing in chemistry. But I understand that people also use that term to refer to pharmacists. I am sure the poster meant the former.

explaining - in detail - via a forum to someone not well versed in the changing temperatures on Earth and man's significant contribution to the speeding up of global warming is like explaining the internal combustion engine to someone who drives a car and has little idea ... reading my comments in isolation and a failure to understand that the how's and why's the rate of warming is increasing (due to the faster release of CH4 due to melting permafrost previously trapped methane bubbles (a kilometer or more wide) and and the NF3 from the manufacture of PV panels) which will exacerbate the problem ....

or simply, putting another log on the fire, where the heat is absorbed for a time until the added log gains sufficient heat to ignite ... and the heat increases ... whereas if there was not added log (humans ceased burning all the fossil fuels daily) ... then a 'normalization' or adaptation process would occur ...

or as described thus 'imagine the World as a bathtub, with the emissions (of fires, volcano and so on) filling the tub and the vegetation as the waste hole ... but somebody plugs the waste hole up (chops down the vegetation) while increasing the emissions ....

[canuckamuck]

Consequences for Thailand will be some changes in average temperature (land warming will be more noticeable nearer the poles.) Still, maybe enough to hinder the fertilization of rice, which depends upon overnight low temperatures being low enough during the pollination season.

I look more at the changes to rainfall.

Southern Thailand looks to be in latitudes that will regularly get more rain.

Northern and Eastern Thailand sits on the edge between long term more rain and the drier weather that is forecast for China.

This video explains the patterns.

Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier? - YouTube

(

)

It does not mean "no change" but rather suggests an increased in variability ...with years that will have more intense rains, and then more intense droughts. It is a better forecast than many nations known for being agricultural exporters... and Thailand would better absorb the rains and weather the droughts IF there was an increased area restored to mixed growth forest.

All the 10-20 year computer climate models were completely wrong, even the conservative ones. Not a single one predicted a flat temperature graph for the last 18 years. With this in mind, how much faith do you have in this one predicting for the year 2089?

[marcusd]

Considering the fraud science that is perpetrated by the likes of Hanson and Mann et.al. The IPCC report which keeps being quoted as the bible is a regurgitation of false information.

All the computer models say we should be another degree warmer, but temperatures have either not changed or have gone down in the last 15 years. The amount of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic has grown. The US Great Lakes broke new records of ice, but one year is not climate.

How can the US historical temperature go down in the early 20th century and be higher than measured in the late 20th century? First, historical data doesn't change, unless modified by an agency with a flawed computer models and a agenda.

Statistical studies show fewer storms and less energy than historical norms have happened over the last years. One reason these storms seem so bad, there are more people and development in harms way.

The lesser countries are looking to cash in on a global tax bonanza, and they are just lining up for the payoff.

The 97% of scientists agreeing is another bogus lie, but the propaganda masters know if you tell it long enough and often enough it will be believed.

Twit is a bird. And you

[crazygreg44]

Considering the fraud science that is perpetrated by the likes of Hanson and Mann et.al. The IPCC report which keeps being quoted as the bible is a regurgitation of false information.

All the computer models say we should be another degree warmer, but temperatures have either not changed or have gone down in the last 15 years. The amount of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic has grown. The US Great Lakes broke new records of ice, but one year is not climate.

How can the US historical temperature go down in the early 20th century and be higher than measured in the late 20th century? First, historical data doesn't change, unless modified by an agency with a flawed computer models and a agenda.

Statistical studies show fewer storms and less energy than historical norms have happened over the last years. One reason these storms seem so bad, there are more people and development in harms way.

The lesser countries are looking to cash in on a global tax bonanza, and they are just lining up for the payoff.

The 97% of scientists agreeing is another bogus lie, but the propaganda masters know if you tell it long enough and often enough it will be believed.

I want to do the drugs your doing.

I think you are doing quite well with what you are on now, if you honestly believe all bogus clap trap about global warming and the like.

while you might be right in the light of the great scheme, you are so obviously wrong in stating that both Arctic and Antarctic ice is growing. There has never in the recent few hundreds of years been so little arctic ice during the arctic summers , with the amount of ice shelves, polar ice and glaciers spiralling downwards. That's a FACT , prooven by satellite imageries, and not quite underlining your arguments

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Considering the fraud science that is perpetrated by the likes of Hanson and Mann et.al. The IPCC report which keeps being quoted as the bible is a regurgitation of false information.

All the computer models say we should be another degree warmer, but temperatures have either not changed or have gone down in the last 15 years. The amount of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic has grown. The US Great Lakes broke new records of ice, but one year is not climate.

How can the US historical temperature go down in the early 20th century and be higher than measured in the late 20th century? First, historical data doesn't change, unless modified by an agency with a flawed computer models and a agenda.

Statistical studies show fewer storms and less energy than historical norms have happened over the last years. One reason these storms seem so bad, there are more people and development in harms way.

The lesser countries are looking to cash in on a global tax bonanza, and they are just lining up for the payoff.

The 97% of scientists agreeing is another bogus lie, but the propaganda masters know if you tell it long enough and often enough it will be believed.

It's convenient to say that any scientific proof supporting the occurrence of global climate change is a fraud but such claim comes without any scientific merit. No wonder global climate change is suported by 97% of scientists! Unfortunately, your statements come with no scientific reference source so I must find them to be more your personal statements than scientific fact. Your confusion with what century we are living in may be part of the problem - the 21st century began on January 1, 2001, and will end on December 31, 2100. I offer as a minor balance the following selected information taken from the 23rd "2012 State of the Climate " report published in the Bulletin of the American Meterological Society, August 2013 and from datasets developed by the National Climatic Data Center/NOAA/NESDIS:

1) According to four major independent datasets, worldwide warm temperature trends continue with 2012 among the 10 warmest years on record. The United States had its warmest year on record. The whole of the 48 continental states experienced a combined annual temperature average in 2012 that was higher than the 20th century average by 1.8^o C; not a single state had near normal or lower average temperatures. (National Climatic Data Center/NOAA/ NESDIS).

2) Lake Superior has had increased water temperatures and an earlier onset of summer stratification by about two weeks in just the past 30 years. Within another 30 years Lake Superior may be mostly ice-free in a typical winter. Lake Erie water levels, already below average, could drop 4-5 feet by the end of this century. (NOAA)

3) “Worldwide, 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record…. Carbon levels are climbing, sea levels are rising, Arctic sea ice is melting, and our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place.” (NOAA Administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D., August 2013). Minimum Arctic ice sheet area is 18 percent lower than the previous record low extent of that occurred in 2007 and 54 percent lower than the record high minimum ice extent that occurred in 1980. Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have also decreased in mass.

4) The same datasets indicate that the globally average sea surface temperature for 2012 was among the 11 warmest on record. Meanwhile, the number of record low temperature land events has been decreasing since 1950. Globally, sea level has been increasing at an average rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm per year over the past two decades. Looking at ocean salinity, precipitation is increasing in already rainy areas and evaporation is intensifying in drier locations.

Global Climate Warming isn't about the change of weather in the seaons, it's about more frequent extremes of weather during the seasons. Hot becomes hotter, humid becomes more humid, storms become more intensive and frequent, polar ice packs have greater melting, seas warmer while upper atmosphere is colder. Monitoring global weather since the 1950's started with rudimentary regional manual measuring devices and only in the last 30 years has mankind advanced to global electronic measurement and analysis. But while today's data sets and meteorological modeling are not as precise as they will be in the future, it is certain that the data on global warming will not become any more cheerful.

[i claudius]

^{I'm a geologist. So is Don Easterbrook here giving testimony to the US congress. Man Made GLobal Warming/Climate Change is absolute bunk.}

^{http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI&feature=player_embedded}

My favourite is Al Gore's " Aconvienient lie" or" how i told half truths and made millions"

[MJP]

Consequences for Thailand will be some changes in average temperature (land warming will be more noticeable nearer the poles.) Still, maybe enough to hinder the fertilization of rice, which depends upon overnight low temperatures being low enough during the pollination season.

I look more at the changes to rainfall.

Southern Thailand looks to be in latitudes that will regularly get more rain.

Northern and Eastern Thailand sits on the edge between long term more rain and the drier weather that is forecast for China.

This video explains the patterns.

Will the Wet Get Wetter and the Dry Drier? - YouTube

(

)

It does not mean "no change" but rather suggests an increased in variability ...with years that will have more intense rains, and then more intense droughts. It is a better forecast than many nations known for being agricultural exporters... and Thailand would better absorb the rains and weather the droughts IF there was an increased area restored to mixed growth forest.

Even now our area of Issan runs out of water for months. Very concerned about the forthcoming El Nino and in the long term the desertification of the plateau. Spillways, reservoirs and aquifer storage is what's desperately needed.

[Gomyway]

One should look where this comes from: Asia News Network - and here we go: ANN is supported by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.

The Konrad Adenauer Foundation is an organization belonging to the Merkel-party CDU and one of their important task is to establish unrest in countries and overthrowing governments.

[Robert2006]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Considering the fraud science that is perpetrated by the likes of Hanson and Mann et.al. The IPCC report which keeps being quoted as the bible is a regurgitation of false information.

All the computer models say we should be another degree warmer, but temperatures have either not changed or have gone down in the last 15 years. The amount of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic has grown. The US Great Lakes broke new records of ice, but one year is not climate.

How can the US historical temperature go down in the early 20th century and be higher than measured in the late 20th century? First, historical data doesn't change, unless modified by an agency with a flawed computer models and a agenda.

Statistical studies show fewer storms and less energy than historical norms have happened over the last years. One reason these storms seem so bad, there are more people and development in harms way.

The lesser countries are looking to cash in on a global tax bonanza, and they are just lining up for the payoff.

The 97% of scientists agreeing is another bogus lie, but the propaganda masters know if you tell it long enough and often enough it will be believed.

It's convenient to say that any scientific proof supporting the occurrence of global climate change is a fraud but such claim comes without any scientific merit. No wonder global climate change is suported by 97% of scientists! Unfortunately, your statements come with no scientific reference source so I must find them to be more your personal statements than scientific fact. Your confusion with what century we are living in may be part of the problem - the 21st century began on January 1, 2001, and will end on December 31, 2100. I offer as a minor balance the following selected information taken from the 23rd "2012 State of the Climate " report published in the Bulletin of the American Meterological Society, August 2013 and from datasets developed by the National Climatic Data Center/NOAA/NESDIS:

1) According to four major independent datasets, worldwide warm temperature trends continue with 2012 among the 10 warmest years on record. The United States had its warmest year on record. The whole of the 48 continental states experienced a combined annual temperature average in 2012 that was higher than the 20th century average by 1.8^o C; not a single state had near normal or lower average temperatures. (National Climatic Data Center/NOAA/ NESDIS).

2) Lake Superior has had increased water temperatures and an earlier onset of summer stratification by about two weeks in just the past 30 years. Within another 30 years Lake Superior may be mostly ice-free in a typical winter. Lake Erie water levels, already below average, could drop 4-5 feet by the end of this century. (NOAA)

3) “Worldwide, 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record…. Carbon levels are climbing, sea levels are rising, Arctic sea ice is melting, and our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place.” (NOAA Administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan, Ph.D., August 2013). Minimum Arctic ice sheet area is 18 percent lower than the previous record low extent of that occurred in 2007 and 54 percent lower than the record high minimum ice extent that occurred in 1980. Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have also decreased in mass.

4) The same datasets indicate that the globally average sea surface temperature for 2012 was among the 11 warmest on record. Meanwhile, the number of record low temperature land events has been decreasing since 1950. Globally, sea level has been increasing at an average rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm per year over the past two decades. Looking at ocean salinity, precipitation is increasing in already rainy areas and evaporation is intensifying in drier locations.

Global Climate Warming isn't about the change of weather in the seaons, it's about more frequent extremes of weather during the seasons. Hot becomes hotter, humid becomes more humid, storms become more intensive and frequent, polar ice packs have greater melting, seas warmer while upper atmosphere is colder. Monitoring global weather since the 1950's started with rudimentary regional manual measuring devices and only in the last 30 years has mankind advanced to global electronic measurement and analysis. But while today's data sets and meteorological modeling are not as precise as they will be in the future, it is certain that the data on global warming will not become any more cheerful.

Most people want what is best for the environment and I’m sure you’re a well-meaning person but the information you have is junk science. You are being played. Just like there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Vietnam attacked the US in the Gulf of Tonkin, cigarettes are good for your health, the manipulation and disinformation never ends. The people in power just want carbon taxes they don’t give a $h!t about the environment.

[Gonsalviz]

Considering the fraud science that is perpetrated by the likes of Hanson and Mann et.al. The IPCC report which keeps being quoted as the bible is a regurgitation of false information.

All the computer models say we should be another degree warmer, but temperatures have either not changed or have gone down in the last 15 years. The amount of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic has grown. The US Great Lakes broke new records of ice, but one year is not climate.

How can the US historical temperature go down in the early 20th century and be higher than measured in the late 20th century? First, historical data doesn't change, unless modified by an agency with a flawed computer models and a agenda.

Statistical studies show fewer storms and less energy than historical norms have happened over the last years. One reason these storms seem so bad, there are more people and development in harms way.

The lesser countries are looking to cash in on a global tax bonanza, and they are just lining up for the payoff.

The 97% of scientists agreeing is another bogus lie, but the propaganda masters know if you tell it long enough and often enough it will be believed.

I want to do the drugs your doing.

I think you are doing quite well with what you are on now, if you honestly believe all bogus clap trap about global warming and the like.

while you might be right in the light of the great scheme, you are so obviously wrong in stating that both Arctic and Antarctic ice is growing. There has never in the recent few hundreds of years been so little arctic ice during the arctic summers , with the amount of ice shelves, polar ice and glaciers spiralling downwards. That's a FACT , prooven by satellite imageries, and not quite underlining your arguments

It is my understanding that one of the so called ice melts in Antarctica was caused by underwater volcanic activity.

Anyway at one point the arctic ice caps extended to nearly the central US, noted by most people in the flat landscape. I am not sure the scope of the ice caps in Europe and Asia. As I understand it human activity did not exist then and certainly satellites did not exist to prove it.

I am thinking that this phenomena does not quite underline your argument either.

[rickirs]

Two interesting charts...

[Longtooth]

chief of humanitarian organisation CARE USA said that "Aside from funding early-warning signals, CARE is helping vulnerable communities alter their way of life through initiatives such as introducing flood-resistant livestock."

With the above quote makes me question the point of the whole article, sounds more like a sales pitch for CARE. Would love to know more about flood resistant livestock?

FISH.

[canuckamuck]

chief of humanitarian organisation CARE USA said that "Aside from funding early-warning signals, CARE is helping vulnerable communities alter their way of life through initiatives such as introducing flood-resistant livestock."

With the above quote makes me question the point of the whole article, sounds more like a sales pitch for CARE. Would love to know more about flood resistant livestock?

FISH.

And water buffalo

[Daniel Boon]

Two interesting charts...

and in OZ

[Daniel Boon]

Easterbrook gets asked some questions, not enough. He speaks in partial facts, facts, and outright falsehoods. His assertions sound logical, but omit data. He throws so much mud on the wall as to be difficult to keep a running list.

Point#1: The 30 year cycle is one of the known cycles... and by that cycle, we should be quite a bit cooler now.

The fact that the temperatures have only leveled off since1998 is an indication of the degree of net warming over historical patterns. He also stretches the truth by referring to records being broken at a lower rate than during the 1930's but the new records are above the old records (a bit of misdirection there.) He casts dispersions upon the temperature records - that only he is using "original" data... yet he stops short of saying the adjusted NASA and NOAA are wrong...because the adjustments are indeed needed adjustments to bring older "global data" up to the standards now available from improved instrumentation as gathered. Looking at tree rings, adjusting for measurements taken too close to a heat source,etc.etc. are valid reasons to adjust "original data"

Rate of records being set? Here is a USA only sample from 2011.

He also uses land data... and skips over ocean data, yet the oceans are the heat sink that absorb 90% of the heat imbalance. Oceans are warming...

When he finally admits the oceans are warming... which does mean more evaporation, meaning a higher saturation point =more water vapor=an increase of greenhouse gas effect, triggered by the CO2 increase.

For all of human history (350,000 years) indeed for the past million years (...when the earth has had repetitive Ice Ages and Interglacial warm periods) CO2 has cycled between 180ppm (deep ice age) and 280ppm which is where we were at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. We are now at 400ppm MUCH more than the 0.08% change he cites several times.

As a chemist, the dynamic equilibrium of the increased concentration of CO2 in the air does push the equilibrium to have more CO2 dissolved in the ocean. His "precision" as to denying "ocean acidification" is in reality denying the pH crosses below 7... but "Less alkaline" he does not deny. It is an argument not about the direction of change, but only on the net value. Yet he insists those changes are not affecting the stationary coral reefs or causing the other

degradation of marine shellfish that he heard cited.

Yes too, the warming of the oceans releases CO2, but so far it is more than compensated by the increase in concentration in the air over it.

More worrying ... methane gas (CH4) ... about 23 times the heating effect of CO2 ...

[Daniel Boon]

Considering the fraud science that is perpetrated by the likes of Hanson and Mann et.al. The IPCC report which keeps being quoted as the bible is a regurgitation of false information.

All the computer models say we should be another degree warmer, but temperatures have either not changed or have gone down in the last 15 years. The amount of ice in the Arctic and Antarctic has grown. The US Great Lakes broke new records of ice, but one year is not climate.

How can the US historical temperature go down in the early 20th century and be higher than measured in the late 20th century? First, historical data doesn't change, unless modified by an agency with a flawed computer models and a agenda.

Statistical studies show fewer storms and less energy than historical norms have happened over the last years. One reason these storms seem so bad, there are more people and development in harms way.

The lesser countries are looking to cash in on a global tax bonanza, and they are just lining up for the payoff.

The 97% of scientists agreeing is another bogus lie, but the propaganda masters know if you tell it long enough and often enough it will be believed.

Agreed - climate change is an industry like any other, one that gives a whole load of people the opportunity to exercise control the masses with a load of dodgy science.

The temperature readings that purportedly show the earth warming up are based on computer modelling, rather than actual data.

A load of twaddle, really.

'thanet' ... twaddle (you speak) indeed

[canuckamuck]

Mr Boon, do you realize that when the temperature rises ice melts? If so, why are you so amazed that some of the ice is melting? There has been a lot more ice than your images show. Why not show a chart beginning from 12,000 years ago when half the planet was encased in Ice? Then you would see that a relatively small amount of ice has melted since industrialization, And then you are really going to have to think about how much ice was left in 8000, or 7000, or 3300 years ago; periods when the global temperatures were 2.6 C higher than they are now.

And while we are talking about historical (cyclical) warming, I would love to know how the global temps shot up 3.7 degrees in just 400 years about 8200 years ago. When the population of earth was a mere 5 million people.

Because that makes our current rate of warming .85 degrees in the last 130 years seem pretty normal. especially since we are coming of of what they called the little ice age.

Today we are less than one degree Celsius warmer than the little ice age and nearly 3 degrees cooler than (relatively) recent peaks. How can anybody be alarmed at this?

[antimedia]

This global warming issue must be taken serious, especially the cutting down of the trees. Look at what it is doing, it has to stop.

Edited July 2, 2014 by antimedia