UN sounds alarm over record-breaking temperature rise

[up2u2]

Even more recent research is showing that the negative impacts of increased CO2 levels are being seen now

You have misunderstood the science in that paper.

Uddling is not saying that fertility reduces because of increased CO2, merely that the benefits are not as linear as might have been expected. That is why the paper is entitled "Constraints to nitrogen acquisition of terrestrial plants under elevated CO2"

That is also why the abstract begins:

A key part of the uncertainty in terrestrial feedbacks on climate change is related to how and to what extent nitrogen (N) availability constrains the stimulation of terrestrial productivity by elevated CO2 (eCO2), and whether or not this constraint will become stronger over time.

So we have crops in a field, grasslands and forests that have died and we go in a tangent regarding fertility. Climate denial never ends does it.

Yes high CO2 levels constrains nitrogen acquisition in plants. This is not good it's actually bad. It actually explains why high atmospheric levels of CO2 is bad for plants they grow themselves to death........ quickly.

Its the same as the Coral. You pick up a piece of dead coral from 350M years ago and suggest that Coral survived mass extinctions. No it didn't, it died.

[boomerangutang]

Ok fellas. CO2 helping plants get bigger/more leaves is perhaps an issue, but not such a big deal compared to the bigger issue of GW. No need to grind on and on about leaves. I will say, however, that I grow a lot of plants up here in northern Thailand, and leaves and overall growth are getting bigger, and I add no fertilizer to anything I grow, other than manure and ashes/charcoal from burn pile residue. No store-bought stuff at all. I wish more growers/farmers did that. I'd be glad to accept smaller and/or imperfect-looking produce in the market. Oops, I'm doing the same thing I'm chastising others for doing ......discussing small side issues.

[boomerangutang]

Actually, it brings another point. increased plant growth, particularly weeds, contribute to more fuel for wildfires. Western N. America experience wildfires every summer, but with climate change (drier/longer droughts, more severe floods) - we can expect wild fires to be even more devastating than recent decades. Just a week ago, western Canada experience wildfires more severe than ever recorded. California has had 5 years of drought. Is it climate related? You tell me.

Also, a big reason for such severe wildfires is bark beetle damage. The beetles are extending their range to regions which were previously too-cold for them, thereby killing vast tracts of trees which were previously out of their range. Yet another adverse result of GW.

[ilostmypassword]

This is truly bizarre. I specifically asked you about post #176

If you were asking me about post #176, then why did you use my quote from post #192 instead?

Bizarre, indeed.

The question you posed to me was, then, did I think the "good" in climate change could be measured by the total amount of vegetable matter on the planet, or some such phrase.

The answer to that, of course is No, as the Richard Tol paper makes clear (as you will find when you manage to download it).

Your kind of evasion is so obvious. First I referenced post 176 and then I went on to cite my reply to #192. The point is, you are being evasive. You deny that you mean that a benefit of CO2 is that encourages the creation of more plant matter yet you cite approvingly an assertion made by someone else that the use of it in greenhouses proves it's beneficial effect. Well, the reason it's used by greenhouse growers is that it produces more crops. More crops means more plant matter. Or am I missing somethere here?

Today, the link to that paper you linked to worked. Absolutely no footnotes are to be found there. What hard evidence is in there that supports your case? In addition we find such comments as this: "Statements that climate change is the biggest (environmental) problem of humankind are unfounded: We can readily think of bigger problems. For example, the people of Greece lost a third of their income in five years’ time, arguably because monetary policy was unfit for purpose. The people of Syria lost more in a shorter period."

And here is your reply at #212 to Catoni: Actually his comment and then your reply. . Clearly you're not being honest at all.

es.... I agree. In my area we have a huge greenhouse industry. They actually buy CO2 generators and go to the expense because they get a great return on plant growth. The financial return is higher than the expense.

Depending on the crops raised in the greenhouses...flowers, and vegetables are favourites around here... and tomatoes and peppers especially, but also other vegtables... they raise the CO2 level to between 800ppm - 1300ppm.

And yes..... the plants do love it..

Those are powerful local demonstrations of what is a global effect.

I'm amazed that ExxonMobil, Shell, and all the rest are happy to give us all this CO2 for free, given the benefits we reap from it. Some might argue that they are benefactors of humanity.

[RickBradford]

California has had 5 years of drought. Is it climate related? You tell me.

A new paper in Nature Climate Change, entitled "Potential evapotranspiration (PET) and continental drying" suggests that fears of drought caused by global warming have been exaggerated.

The abstract concludes:

Our findings imply that historical and future tendencies towards continental drying, as characterized by offline-computed runoff, as well as other PET-dependent metrics, may be considerably weaker and less extensive than previously thought.

As with any changes, a warming of the globe and a rise in CO2 levels will likely produce winners and losers. The questions to be answered are: are the effects likely to be large enough to be noticeable, and if so, what is the balance between winners and losers, and what can we do to mitigate the effects on the losers?

These are the questions that economists such as Tol, Byatt, Lea and Stern have been examining (though not agreeing on all the details).

[Catoni]

^^

You tick all the boxes for fact-free RIGHTist drivel

There, fixed that for you

Meanwhile, back on planet earth:-

Australia had warmest autumn on record, BoM says

Source

And your definition of "...record.." is: ____________________________________

Fill in the blank!

[Catoni]

What is "...too much CO2." ? ? As I said... in my area, the greenhouse industry raises levels anywheres from 800ppm - 1300ppm, depending on what it is they are growing...

The farmers certainly find it worth going to the trouble and expense of raising CO2 levels to those points.

But perhaps you know better than they do. Maybe you should get in touch with them and let them know they are wasting time and money boosting the levels to 800ppm - 1300ppm.

For most crops here... saturation point is around 1000ppm - 1300ppm.... that being the point where adding further CO2 no longer produces higher yields...

Here is a government document on the practice of CO2 enrichment in the industry.

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

Carbon Dioxide in Greenhouses

Factsheet ISSN 1198-712X Queen's Printer for Ontario

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

What happened to the Arctic and Antarctic Polar caps in the Greenhouse? What were the impacts on Greenland in the Greenhouse? How much did the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans rise inside the Greenhouse? What was the effect of the rising sea levels on the major coastal cities inside the Greenhouse? What were the Oceans acidity increase and the impact on the Marine biology inside the Greenhouse? What was the Earth's atmospheric and Oceanic Oxygen levels inside the Greenhouse. Did the frozen Methane clathrate beds off the Polar continental shelf gasify inside the Greenhouse? What were the condition of the Global Glaciers inside the Greenhouse?

Get back to me.

Back at you !

>"What happened to the Arctic and Antarctic Polar caps in the Greenhouse?" Stupid question !

>"What were the impacts on Greenland in the Greenhouse?" Stupid question !

>"How much did the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans rise inside the Greenhouse? Stupid question !

> "What was the effect of the rising sea levels on the major coastal cities inside the Greenhouse?" Stupid question !

>" What were the Oceans acidity increase and the impact on the Marine biology inside the Greenhouse?" That is actually two questions. Both of them stupid !

>"What was the Earth's atmospheric and Oceanic Oxygen levels inside the Greenhouse." Forgot your question mark for the stupid question !

>"Did the frozen Methane clathrate beds off the Polar continental shelf gasify inside the Greenhouse?" Stupid question !

>"What were the condition of the Global Glaciers inside the Greenhouse?" Stupid question !

When you have some questions that show a higher level of intelligence..... get back to me.

[ace]

Keep telling you, its Planet X

http://news.discovery.com/space/could-planet-x-cause-comet-catastrophes-on-earth-160330.htm

This is entirely or at least partially correct. Most human could not describe but a few planetary features that contribute to climate. Perhaps the earth spins, and takes a year to go around the sun, no more. nearly 100% know nothing about horizon, galactic equator, ecliptic, precession, orbit through galactic center, etc. all of these factors seem to be inconvenient for those espousing the radical ideology of climate change. The earth spins like a top on a table. Climate change ideologues suggest that's all the content needed. That's the model. Wrong. There's many other tops and forces at work on the table. It's a lie to rule these out of formula. It's not just bad science. It's deceit.

Keep it simple, keep it stupid- "Ball. Space. Gruff. Sigh. Hot. Bad!" but no real truth. Never context.

Also the inconvenient issue of the data seeming to suggest that there most certainly a cyclic, measurable force in the solar system that is not explained by the current model and clearly suggests a dwarf star or planetary body on perturbed orbit, something huge- fact. These are the things that repeatedly cause ice age or not. Only when factored in can a valid model exist. One might insist humans are raising the temp. Ok. Offer this in accordance with the acutal factors that create climate. Otherwise, it's BS!

The earth can roast tomorrow and Climate Change, the ideology, is still a fraud! There's a reason why Climate Change has a naturally born opponent on the Right- because it's an entirely contrived Frankenstein of the Left. It's self evident.

Celestrial objects affecting Earths climate?

A controversial proposal to be sure, , I am sure that there are some people that would propose that the Sun might have something to do with the Earths Climate, but I will withhold opinion until all the data is in.

I have noticed one thing though, when wearing back clothing in the sun it seems to affect my personal climate , do you think it is mostly my fault for wearing black or The suns fault? and would you propose I do nothing? or do you think I should wear lighter clothing?

It's currently believed the majority of systems are binary and that there could well be a large 'dark star' way out there past the oort cloud. It's debatable, but hey that's science. Or are you a heretic denier?!

[Catoni]

What happened to the Arctic and Antarctic Polar caps in the Greenhouse? What were the impacts on Greenland in the Greenhouse? How much did the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans rise inside the Greenhouse? What was the effect of the rising sea levels on the major coastal cities inside the Greenhouse? What were the Oceans acidity increase and the impact on the Marine biology inside the Greenhouse? What was the Earth's atmospheric and Oceanic Oxygen levels inside the Greenhouse. Did the frozen Methane clathrate beds off the Polar continental shelf gasify inside the Greenhouse? What were the condition of the Global Glaciers inside the Greenhouse?

Get back to me.

You're asking those reasonable questions of people who are determined to not admit to a greenhouse effect. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but methane is many times more effective at that. Currently lots of methane is tied up in tundra and in frozen state deep in the oceans. Some of that is already getting released at increasing amounts. In many parts of the tundra, it can be seen bubbling up in pools of water. Pretty much everyone, including skeptics, agree that once warming gets going in earnest, it will increase in intensity at a fast clip. Greenland is one place where big changes are happening at a very fast pace already, climatically-speaking. There are vast shallow lakes in Greenland where before there was just ice. Part of Greenland's ice surface is darkened by soot/dust (guess where that comes from), which speeds up melting. Glaciers are receding and getting smaller in width and depth. Rivers and sinkholes are abundant in Greenland (and other parts of the Arctic) where there was just ice not long ago. It's not just vast amounts of ice melting (about 60 cubic miles/year just in the northern hemisphere), but it's ice which is generally not getting replaced.

In Antarctica, there have been some large icebergs calved in recent years. One was about the size of Manhattan. Larger regions of ice are on the brink of calving, as miles-long cracks are seen from the air - growing fast. Again, that's ice which is largely not being replaced, as Antarctica is effectively a desert in terms of precipitation.

It's happening folks, though it will speed up year by year. Anyone who denies serious warming affects in the Arctic regions either hasn't kept up with the latest scientific data, and/or is determined to not want to see what's really going on.

His questions are actually stupid questions..

And your reply shows little improvement. Greenland ice cores show higher warming during the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period.

Did the ice all melt away then ? ?

Ice melts as the Earth warms... Who would'a known ? ? Never had ice calving off and making ice bergs before huh ? ? What was it that the Titanic hit back in 1912 ?

It's possible we might be heading out of the Ice Age we are presently in. The Earth does not stay in Ice Ages you know... even if you want it to..

Do you wish us to go back to Little Ice Age times ? ? Do you think that was a nice time ?

Do you wish us to go back into another Glacial Period like 30,000 years ago ? ? With great ice sheets covering much of the continents, bulldozing cities flat ? ?

Would that make you happy ?

5555555 ;-)

Edited June 7, 2016 by Catoni

[Catoni]

What is "...too much CO2." ? ? As I said... in my area, the greenhouse industry raises levels anywheres from 800ppm - 1300ppm, depending on what it is they are growing...

The farmers certainly find it worth going to the trouble and expense of raising CO2 levels to those points.

But perhaps you know better than they do. Maybe you should get in touch with them and let them know they are wasting time and money boosting the levels to 800ppm - 1300ppm.

For most crops here... saturation point is around 1000ppm - 1300ppm.... that being the point where adding further CO2 no longer produces higher yields...

Here is a government document on the practice of CO2 enrichment in the industry.

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

Carbon Dioxide in Greenhouses

Factsheet ISSN 1198-712X Queen's Printer for Ontario

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

So many reason greenhouse agriculture is not relevant. For one thing, CO2 is only one of the nutrients needed by plants. 2 of the other most important ones are nitrogen and water. These are also limiting factors. You can give plants all the CO2 you want, but if the other nutrients aren't present in sufficient quantities it will make no difference. in a greenhouse you can give nitrogen in the form of fertilizer. Do you think we have enough ammonium nitrate to fertilize the world outside of green houses? Are you planning to sprinkle the planet with water gauged to the proper anount for each ecosystem. What nonsense.

Are you claiming that farmers will stop watering and fertilizing because CO2 is going up ? ? What nonsense ! !

Plants are getting water and fertilizer now..... that doesn't change as CO2 rises.

Already...the planet is getting greener from the tiny bit of CO2 rise we have had already.. The extra growth estimated to be equivalent to more than 4 billion Sequoia Trees.... the largest trees on the planet.

"It is called Greening of the Earth and its Drivers, and it is based on data from the Modis and AVHRR instruments which have been carried on American satellites over the past 33 years.The sensors show significant greening of something between 25% and 50% of the Earth's vegetated land, which in turn is slowing the pace of climate change as the plants are drawing CO2 from the atmosphere."

The article also tries to claim "negatives" such as "rising sea levels" ... but than it is the BBC.... a left wing media company... so no surprise there... They can't report some good news without trying to trash it in the process.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

[NumbNut]

^^

You tick all the boxes for fact-free RIGHTist drivel

There, fixed that for you

Meanwhile, back on planet earth:-

Australia had warmest autumn on record, BoM says

Source

And your definition of "...record.." is: ____________________________________

Fill in the blank!

As opposed to your definition of, dare I say it, 'truth'?

Did you actually click on the link, or just knee-jerk click on 'reply'? It's from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, via the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Both have impeccable credentials.

Go outside and shake yourself Catoni... the world is changing, and only rusted on shills with a dog (or should that be dollar?) in the fight are still spouting your denial nonsense.

[ilostmypassword]

California has had 5 years of drought. Is it climate related? You tell me.

A new paper in Nature Climate Change, entitled "Potential evapotranspiration (PET) and continental drying" suggests that fears of drought caused by global warming have been exaggerated.

The abstract concludes:

Our findings imply that historical and future tendencies towards continental drying, as characterized by offline-computed runoff, as well as other PET-dependent metrics, may be considerably weaker and less extensive than previously thought.

As with any changes, a warming of the globe and a rise in CO2 levels will likely produce winners and losers. The questions to be answered are: are the effects likely to be large enough to be noticeable, and if so, what is the balance between winners and losers, and what can we do to mitigate the effects on the losers?

These are the questions that economists such as Tol, Byatt, Lea and Stern have been examining (though not agreeing on all the details).

And yet again, here is Catoni's statement followed by your reply. How do you reconcile what you write now with it

Catoni, on 06 Jun 2016 - 12:46, said:

Depending on the crops raised in the greenhouses...flowers, and vegetables are favourites around here... and tomatoes and peppers especially, but also other vegtables... they raise the CO2 level to between 800ppm - 1300ppm.

And yes..... the plants do love it..

Those are powerful local demonstrations of what is a global effect.

I'm amazed that ExxonMobil, Shell, and all the rest are happy to give us all this CO2 for free, given the benefits we reap from it. Some might argue that they are benefactors of humanity.

[ilostmypassword]

Keep telling you, its Planet X

http://news.discovery.com/space/could-planet-x-cause-comet-catastrophes-on-earth-160330.htm

This is entirely or at least partially correct. Most human could not describe but a few planetary features that contribute to climate. Perhaps the earth spins, and takes a year to go around the sun, no more. nearly 100% know nothing about horizon, galactic equator, ecliptic, precession, orbit through galactic center, etc. all of these factors seem to be inconvenient for those espousing the radical ideology of climate change. The earth spins like a top on a table. Climate change ideologues suggest that's all the content needed. That's the model. Wrong. There's many other tops and forces at work on the table. It's a lie to rule these out of formula. It's not just bad science. It's deceit.

Keep it simple, keep it stupid- "Ball. Space. Gruff. Sigh. Hot. Bad!" but no real truth. Never context.

Also the inconvenient issue of the data seeming to suggest that there most certainly a cyclic, measurable force in the solar system that is not explained by the current model and clearly suggests a dwarf star or planetary body on perturbed orbit, something huge- fact. These are the things that repeatedly cause ice age or not. Only when factored in can a valid model exist. One might insist humans are raising the temp. Ok. Offer this in accordance with the acutal factors that create climate. Otherwise, it's BS!

The earth can roast tomorrow and Climate Change, the ideology, is still a fraud! There's a reason why Climate Change has a naturally born opponent on the Right- because it's an entirely contrived Frankenstein of the Left. It's self evident.

Celestrial objects affecting Earths climate?

A controversial proposal to be sure, , I am sure that there are some people that would propose that the Sun might have something to do with the Earths Climate, but I will withhold opinion until all the data is in.

I have noticed one thing though, when wearing back clothing in the sun it seems to affect my personal climate , do you think it is mostly my fault for wearing black or The suns fault? and would you propose I do nothing? or do you think I should wear lighter clothing?

It's currently believed the majority of systems are binary and that there could well be a large 'dark star' way out there past the oort cloud. It's debatable, but hey that's science. Or are you a heretic denier?!

It may well be that there is a binary star out there. But if so, why hasn't it been detected yet? The answer is simple; because if it does exist its effects are so faint as to be undetectable so far. Yet somehow, you seriously propose that this alleged star which must be very small and faint to have gone undetected so far, is having an effect on our climate?

Edited June 7, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[Catoni]

So we have crops in a field, grasslands and forests that have died and we go in a tangent regarding fertility. Climate denial never ends does it.

Yes high CO2 levels constrains nitrogen acquisition in plants. This is not good it's actually bad. It actually explains why high atmospheric levels of CO2 is bad for plants they grow themselves to death........ quickly.

Its the same as the Coral. You pick up a piece of dead coral from 350M years ago and suggest that Coral survived mass extinctions. No it didn't, it died.

Over all.... the Earth is greening to a much greater extent than it is browning... A net green effect......

The plant life certainly doesn't seem to be growing itself to death.... not even slowly... let alone "...quickly" ! !

[Catoni]

^^

You tick all the boxes for fact-free RIGHTist drivel

There, fixed that for you

Meanwhile, back on planet earth:-

Australia had warmest autumn on record, BoM says

Source

And your definition of "...record.." is: ____________________________________

Fill in the blank!

As opposed to your definition of, dare I say it, 'truth'?

Did you actually click on the link, or just knee-jerk click on 'reply'? It's from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, via the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Both have impeccable credentials.

Go outside and shake yourself Catoni... the world is changing, and only rusted on shills with a dog (or should that be dollar?) in the fight are still spouting your denial nonsense.

The sentence "Australia had warmest autumn on record, BoM says"....is meaningless without knowing what length of time your data set is comprised of.

...Your article fails... as you also fail.... to define the term "...record.." as used in your post.. What is the data set ? What period of time ? ?

Do you have a problem with defining the term "...record..." ? ? ?

So I will repeat my question.....

And your definition of "...record.." is: ____________________________________

Fill in the blank!

[NumbNut]

So you didn't even read the article before replying. You just knee-jerked replied. And I thought I was the NumbNut here. Mate, if you don't understand what 'on record' means there's no point going on.

I can fill in your blank for you though:-

It's C A T O N I

lol just a having a giggle mate keep your shirt on

[boomerangutang]

"on record" usually means since sometime in the 19th century. Of course it varies from place to place.

Catoni takes the mantle for Skeptic #1 on this thread (sorry, RB). He will always have a retort (usually non-scientific) for any data which shows added warming, Even when Bangkok, Miami, and Shanghai are under one to two meters of year 'round standing water, he'll find a way to brush it aside as either 'stupid' or 'insignificant.'

[up2u2]

What is "...too much CO2." ? ? As I said... in my area, the greenhouse industry raises levels anywheres from 800ppm - 1300ppm, depending on what it is they are growing...

The farmers certainly find it worth going to the trouble and expense of raising CO2 levels to those points.

But perhaps you know better than they do. Maybe you should get in touch with them and let them know they are wasting time and money boosting the levels to 800ppm - 1300ppm.

For most crops here... saturation point is around 1000ppm - 1300ppm.... that being the point where adding further CO2 no longer produces higher yields...

Here is a government document on the practice of CO2 enrichment in the industry.

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs

Carbon Dioxide in Greenhouses

Factsheet ISSN 1198-712X Queen's Printer for Ontario

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

What happened to the Arctic and Antarctic Polar caps in the Greenhouse? What were the impacts on Greenland in the Greenhouse? How much did the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans rise inside the Greenhouse? What was the effect of the rising sea levels on the major coastal cities inside the Greenhouse? What were the Oceans acidity increase and the impact on the Marine biology inside the Greenhouse? What was the Earth's atmospheric and Oceanic Oxygen levels inside the Greenhouse. Did the frozen Methane clathrate beds off the Polar continental shelf gasify inside the Greenhouse? What were the condition of the Global Glaciers inside the Greenhouse?

Get back to me.

Back at you !

>"What happened to the Arctic and Antarctic Polar caps in the Greenhouse?" Stupid question !

>"What were the impacts on Greenland in the Greenhouse?" Stupid question !

>"How much did the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans rise inside the Greenhouse? Stupid question !

> "What was the effect of the rising sea levels on the major coastal cities inside the Greenhouse?" Stupid question !

>" What were the Oceans acidity increase and the impact on the Marine biology inside the Greenhouse?" That is actually two questions. Both of them stupid !

>"What was the Earth's atmospheric and Oceanic Oxygen levels inside the Greenhouse." Forgot your question mark for the stupid question !

>"Did the frozen Methane clathrate beds off the Polar continental shelf gasify inside the Greenhouse?" Stupid question !

>"What were the condition of the Global Glaciers inside the Greenhouse?" Stupid question !

When you have some questions that show a higher level of intelligence..... get back to me.

Well until you can address these 'stupid questions' your greenhouse analogy is worthless. GW / CC models what will happen on Planet Earth as a whole not what may occur in an isolated greenhouse growing some shrubs.

[up2u2]

What happened to the Arctic and Antarctic Polar caps in the Greenhouse? What were the impacts on Greenland in the Greenhouse? How much did the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans rise inside the Greenhouse? What was the effect of the rising sea levels on the major coastal cities inside the Greenhouse? What were the Oceans acidity increase and the impact on the Marine biology inside the Greenhouse? What was the Earth's atmospheric and Oceanic Oxygen levels inside the Greenhouse. Did the frozen Methane clathrate beds off the Polar continental shelf gasify inside the Greenhouse? What were the condition of the Global Glaciers inside the Greenhouse?

Get back to me.

You're asking those reasonable questions of people who are determined to not admit to a greenhouse effect. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but methane is many times more effective at that. Currently lots of methane is tied up in tundra and in frozen state deep in the oceans. Some of that is already getting released at increasing amounts. In many parts of the tundra, it can be seen bubbling up in pools of water. Pretty much everyone, including skeptics, agree that once warming gets going in earnest, it will increase in intensity at a fast clip. Greenland is one place where big changes are happening at a very fast pace already, climatically-speaking. There are vast shallow lakes in Greenland where before there was just ice. Part of Greenland's ice surface is darkened by soot/dust (guess where that comes from), which speeds up melting. Glaciers are receding and getting smaller in width and depth. Rivers and sinkholes are abundant in Greenland (and other parts of the Arctic) where there was just ice not long ago. It's not just vast amounts of ice melting (about 60 cubic miles/year just in the northern hemisphere), but it's ice which is generally not getting replaced.

In Antarctica, there have been some large icebergs calved in recent years. One was about the size of Manhattan. Larger regions of ice are on the brink of calving, as miles-long cracks are seen from the air - growing fast. Again, that's ice which is largely not being replaced, as Antarctica is effectively a desert in terms of precipitation.

It's happening folks, though it will speed up year by year. Anyone who denies serious warming affects in the Arctic regions either hasn't kept up with the latest scientific data, and/or is determined to not want to see what's really going on.

His questions are actually stupid questions..

And your reply shows little improvement. Greenland ice cores show higher warming during the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warm Period.

Did the ice all melt away then ? ?

Ice melts as the Earth warms... Who would'a known ? ? Never had ice calving off and making ice bergs before huh ? ? What was it that the Titanic hit back in 1912 ?

It's possible we might be heading out of the Ice Age we are presently in. The Earth does not stay in Ice Ages you know... even if you want it to..

Do you wish us to go back to Little Ice Age times ? ? Do you think that was a nice time ?

Do you wish us to go back into another Glacial Period like 30,000 years ago ? ? With great ice sheets covering much of the continents, bulldozing cities flat ? ?

Would that make you happy ?

5555555 ;-)

That video was debunked the day after it was posted on a Climate Denier blogsite and six pages back on this thread.

Here we go again. All the historical data and research is correct but anything that is based on this historical data and research that confirms GW / CC is incorrect.

Maybe you should do a Paper on The Little Ice Age and how it proves GW is not occurring. Get back to me on how it goes lol. Such a simple error Catoni you think the Climate Scientists around the entire world would have picked that up. Especially as they actually found and are aware of that data.

Here is a discussion on the latest Little Ice Age research 2012 and where it fits in with the current (160 years) Global warming.

Little Ice Age vs Global Warming

[boomerangutang]

California has had 5 years of drought. Is it climate related? You tell me.

A new paper in Nature Climate Change, entitled "Potential evapotranspiration (PET) and continental drying" suggests that fears of drought caused by global warming have been exaggerated.

The abstract concludes:

Our findings imply that historical and future tendencies towards continental drying, as characterized by offline-computed runoff, as well as other PET-dependent metrics, may be considerably weaker and less extensive than previously thought.

As with any changes, a warming of the globe and a rise in CO2 levels will likely produce winners and losers. The questions to be answered are: are the effects likely to be large enough to be noticeable, and if so, what is the balance between winners and losers, and what can we do to mitigate the effects on the losers?

These are the questions that economists such as Tol, Byatt, Lea and Stern have been examining (though not agreeing on all the details).

Are you denying that CA has had 5 years of drought? ......or are you saying the drought is insignificant?

Also on the west coast of N.American: western Canada. If you'd been following recent headline news, you'd have heard that there have been record-setting forest fires there in past weeks. Your scholarly amigos might ask (with elite noses in the air) "are the effects likely to be large enough to be noticeable?" I'd say, darn right they're noticeable! ....particularly if you're one of the millions of people or one of tens of millions of wild animals/birds/reptiles/trees in that region which were adversely affected.

Note: California's driest months are in the summer, so worst danger of wild fires is the fall, before rains come (incidentally, Thailand's monsoon/drought cycle is opposite to California's). .....so expect a wicked fire season this year in California and beyond.

Edited June 8, 2016 by boomerangutang

[up2u2]

The best story on California's long drought was a Mother who took her 4 year old son outside because the toddler had never seen rain before.

[NumbNut]

"on record" usually means since sometime in the 19th century. Of course it varies from place to place.

Catoni takes the mantle for Skeptic #1 on this thread (sorry, RB). He will always have a retort (usually non-scientific) for any data which shows added warming, Even when Bangkok, Miami, and Shanghai are under one to two meters of year 'round standing water, he'll find a way to brush it aside as either 'stupid' or 'insignificant.'

Yes, finally...

Good to see RB finally drop his untenable scientific (and I use that term in the loosest possible way) position and instead now argues from the political viewpoint... where it's always really been for him anyways. The science was only ever any good when it fit with his political end game. Good to see you out in the light now RB!

Agree with you on Catoni too Boomer, he wins the biccy now as Skeptic No. 1, purely down to his ability to try to turn the clock back on this thread, trying to fight old battles already settled on this thread ages ago by folks like yourself and up2u2. Where in the 21st century now Catoni, adjust your clock mate.

Keep fighting the good BAD fight Catoni. Here's a tip though, move onto the politics of it like Bradford has and I'll give you another biccy. There's a good little Skeptic!

Lol

[NumbNut]

The best story on California's long drought was a Mother who took her 4 year old son outside because the toddler had never seen rain before.

Yeah, good one up2. The wheel turns...

Sounds like kids from the outback that have started SCHOOL for Christ sake and have never experienced rain, I remember reading the story on the ABC

This must come as a massive shock for folks from the US to be in this exact same position now!

[RickBradford]

Are you denying that CA has had 5 years of drought? ......or are you saying the drought is insignificant?

Neither. You were mentioning drought, and I referenced a relevant paper on drought and climate change which may be of general interest.

You don't need to be so touchy and defensive the whole time -- this isn't a war.

[up2u2]

California has had 5 years of drought. Is it climate related? You tell me.

A new paper in Nature Climate Change, entitled "Potential evapotranspiration (PET) and continental drying" suggests that fears of drought caused by global warming have been exaggerated.

The abstract concludes:

Our findings imply that historical and future tendencies towards continental drying, as characterized by offline-computed runoff, as well as other PET-dependent metrics, may be considerably weaker and less extensive than previously thought.

As with any changes, a warming of the globe and a rise in CO2 levels will likely produce winners and losers. The questions to be answered are: are the effects likely to be large enough to be noticeable, and if so, what is the balance between winners and losers, and what can we do to mitigate the effects on the losers?

These are the questions that economists such as Tol, Byatt, Lea and Stern have been examining (though not agreeing on all the details).

That is good news. What always concerns me is for political reasons scientists and the IPCC underestimate the effects of GW / CC and we wake up to be told it is 20% worse than we have planned for. I would prefer to find they have modelling 1% too high than than 20% too low.

[thaibeachlovers]

rapidly-warming planet triggered by human emissions.

What is the UN suggesting ? A cull ?

There are indeed many people who would welcome a cull. ..."and that if humanity does not willingly choose to embrace population control soon, then a solution will have to be “forced” upon them."

The Georgia Guide Stones says the planet should have a human population of no more than 500 million. The first two "rules" are:

1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity.

CNN Founder Ted Turner: “A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” David Rockefeller: “The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.” HBO personality Bill Maher: “I’m pro-choice, I’m for assisted suicide, I’m for regular suicide, I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving – that’s what I’m for. It’s too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death.” Colorado State University Professor Philip Cafaro in a paper entitled “Climate Ethics and Population Policy”: “Ending human population growth is almost certainly a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for preventing catastrophic global climate change. Indeed, significantly reducing current human numbers may be necessary in order to do so.“ Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka: “I do not bear any ill will toward people. However, I am convinced that the world, including all humanity, WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us.” Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger: “All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class" “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” David Brower, the first Executive Director of the Sierra Club: “Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license … All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” Mikhail Gorbachev: “We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola: “If there were a button I could press, I would sacrifice myself without hesitating if it meant millions of people would die”

Prince Phillip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II and co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.”

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/30-population-control-quotes-that-show-that-the-elite-truly-believe-that-humans-are-a-plague-upon-the-earth

Hmmmmm. I might have to change my opinion of Phillip ( for the better ).

I'd suggest that humans will never do what is necessary for the survival of humanity, and a cull is inevitable. Whether caused by humans or Gaia is irrelevant.

I thank the deity every time I read anything on this subject that I never had children to suffer the inevitable future. What I don't understand is why politicians like Obama that have children do nothing practical to sort the problem. I'm still waiting for someone, anyone to come up with a practical solution, but so far nothing, zero, nada.

Edited June 8, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[up2u2]

How funny is this. Sarah Palin 'Climate Scientist' is promoting a Climate Denier mockumentary just released called 'Climate Hustle'. Actual qualified Climate Scientists submit their response. The little kid at the end kind of gets to the point. lol

[thaibeachlovers]

How funny is this. Sarah Palin 'Climate Scientist' is promoting a Climate Denier mockumentary just released called 'Climate Hustle'. Actual qualified Climate Scientists submit their response. The little kid at the end kind of gets to the point. lol

For those that weren't there to laugh when the man told them to, Kimmel obviously doesn't understand English comprehension. Palin never said that she knew more than 97% of scientists.

Kimmel comes off as an idiot by claiming that because 97% of "scientists" agree we have to believe it. Notably, he comes up with NOTHING that those 97% of scientists believe will change things "for the better".

I believe that they never come up with a solution because they know there isn't one, but they're doing very nicely out of telling us that we're doomed, so they keep being Chicken Little, because it's great for their bank balance.

[thaibeachlovers]

"on record" usually means since sometime in the 19th century. Of course it varies from place to place.

Catoni takes the mantle for Skeptic #1 on this thread (sorry, RB). He will always have a retort (usually non-scientific) for any data which shows added warming, Even when Bangkok, Miami, and Shanghai are under one to two meters of year 'round standing water, he'll find a way to brush it aside as either 'stupid' or 'insignificant.'

Even if half the land mass of the planet is underwater it doesn't prove that 1/ it was caused by man's activities 2/ that it can be reversed.

Primitive men believed that bad climate was caused by the gods being angry with them. Have we actually progressed at all since then, except we now have "scientists" instead of priests?

[up2u2]

For those that weren't there to laugh when the man told them to, Kimmel obviously doesn't understand English comprehension. Palin never said that she knew more than 97% of scientists.

Kimmel comes off as an idiot by claiming that because 97% of "scientists" agree we have to believe it. Notably, he comes up with NOTHING that those 97% of scientists believe will change things "for the better".

I believe that they never come up with a solution because they know there isn't one, but they're doing very nicely out of telling us that we're doomed, so they keep being Chicken Little, because it's great for their bank balance.

You seem to be having trouble with making the very small leap from what is the scientifically established cause of GW / CC to what is the scientifically established solution to GW / CC. Let me see if I can make that very small leap really simple

Change from burning polluting Fossil Fuels (the cause of GW / CC) to not burning polluting Fossil Fuels (the solution to GW / CC).

Problem solved. It is really that simple.