UN sounds alarm over record-breaking temperature rise

[fasteddie]

You spent $60, LOL. I could make one for less than 500 baht, using some water pipe, black paint, and an old 44 gallon drum ( or anything similar size ). Unfortunately, millions of people can't afford 500 baht, and for many, their water has to be carried from miles away on someone's head.

There are people that have never owned a phone, never mind a 60s touch tone phone.

Lets stop thinking that everyone lives in western style societies, puleese.

I'm putting out solutions. What are you and RB doing? Shooting down every suggestion from folks trying to find solutions. So, let's dumb this whole conversation down so you and RB may understand it better. There are rich people, there are well-off people, there are struggling people, and there are very poor people. If I make a suggestion for a $60 passive solar set-up of heating water, it's not for everyone. At best, it may be suitable for 28% of people on the planet. The sort of people who spend about $40/month on average, heating water by electric. There are people, like Trump, who spend thousands of $$'s/month heating water, and there are people like my neighbors who heat water (for cooking) by burning sticks they gather around their bungalo. They never bathe with warm water. So yes, there are all types of people in the world.

Last year I met a man who captains a small pleasure cruise ship, about as long as a tennis court and with 11 crew. The boat is owned by Abrahamov (sp? a Russian Bazzilionalire). They get very rich clients, usually between 2 and 7 at a time. They cruised around the southernmost Burmese islands, Get this: In 9 days, they spent $34,000 just on diesel fuel. That's the sort of disgusting pollution that the super rich put out.

Who do you want to address, in order to make the world less polluted, and less prone to greenhouse affect which leads to global warming? We need to deal with people on all social strata, from poorest to richest. ....and on country levels, also, as happened in Paris.

Defenders of runaway fossil fuel (and nuclear) use often come forth with soggy 3rd grade deflections like; "not everyone is going to do that" or "well what about Obama with Air Force One?" or "do you think that will stop all warming?" . That's childish and deflecting. It reminds me of when I was in 3rd grade and my teacher reprimanded one of the boys for singing during class. She said, "what if everyone sang during class?" I remember thinking, 'what a dumb way to reprimand someone.' Incidentally, that singing boy went on to be Bruce Springstein's guitarist.

"That's childish and deflecting."

There is nothing more childish than believing anything but the sun and the earth's relation to it have anything to do with climate change.

[ilostmypassword]

You spent $60, LOL. I could make one for less than 500 baht, using some water pipe, black paint, and an old 44 gallon drum ( or anything similar size ). Unfortunately, millions of people can't afford 500 baht, and for many, their water has to be carried from miles away on someone's head.

There are people that have never owned a phone, never mind a 60s touch tone phone.

Lets stop thinking that everyone lives in western style societies, puleese.

I'm putting out solutions. What are you and RB doing? Shooting down every suggestion from folks trying to find solutions. So, let's dumb this whole conversation down so you and RB may understand it better. There are rich people, there are well-off people, there are struggling people, and there are very poor people. If I make a suggestion for a $60 passive solar set-up of heating water, it's not for everyone. At best, it may be suitable for 28% of people on the planet. The sort of people who spend about $40/month on average, heating water by electric. There are people, like Trump, who spend thousands of $$'s/month heating water, and there are people like my neighbors who heat water (for cooking) by burning sticks they gather around their bungalo. They never bathe with warm water. So yes, there are all types of people in the world.

Last year I met a man who captains a small pleasure cruise ship, about as long as a tennis court and with 11 crew. The boat is owned by Abrahamov (sp? a Russian Bazzilionalire). They get very rich clients, usually between 2 and 7 at a time. They cruised around the southernmost Burmese islands, Get this: In 9 days, they spent $34,000 just on diesel fuel. That's the sort of disgusting pollution that the super rich put out.

Who do you want to address, in order to make the world less polluted, and less prone to greenhouse affect which leads to global warming? We need to deal with people on all social strata, from poorest to richest. ....and on country levels, also, as happened in Paris.

Defenders of runaway fossil fuel (and nuclear) use often come forth with soggy 3rd grade deflections like; "not everyone is going to do that" or "well what about Obama with Air Force One?" or "do you think that will stop all warming?" . That's childish and deflecting. It reminds me of when I was in 3rd grade and my teacher reprimanded one of the boys for singing during class. She said, "what if everyone sang during class?" I remember thinking, 'what a dumb way to reprimand someone.' Incidentally, that singing boy went on to be Bruce Springstein's guitarist.

What are you and RB doing? Shooting down every suggestion from folks trying to find solutions

How dare you say I never put forth solutions!!!!!!!!! I put forth lots of suggestions, from a giant machine to remove greenhouse gas from the atmosphere, population reduction and banning cars in cities, plus others. It's the GW/ CC fanatics that never put any solutions forward.

Why I say nothing will happen is because no leaders have deigned to set an example, no laws have been passed that would make a difference, and frankly, outside of the GW/ CC bandwagon occupiers, no one gives a toss about it.

I put forth lots of suggestions, from a giant machine to remove greenhouse gas from the atmosphere, population reduction and banning cars in cities, plus others. It's the GW/ CC fanatics that never put any solutions forward.

At last. A constructive solution. "A giant machine". Couldn't you do a little better? Let's get real here. How about a super giant machine?

At last. A constructive solution. "A giant machine". Couldn't you do a little better? How about a super giant machine?

[boomerangutang]

It's the GW/ CC fanatics that never put any solutions forward.

Why I say nothing will happen is because no leaders have deigned to set an example, no laws have been passed that would make a difference, and frankly, outside of the GW/ CC bandwagon occupiers, no one gives a toss about it.

Either you aren't aware of the fast pace of innovations re; solutions, or you don't want to know.

Here are some topics you could google: energy from tides, wave energy, wind energy, concentrated solar, Tonopah solar, river energy.

Some leaders are setting examples. Jerry Brown, gov of California is forward looking, as are others. I mentioned San Diego and its plan to get fossil-fuel free in coming years. Portugal, Scotland and Denmark are three of several countries which are at the vanguard of alternative clean energy solutions. Iceland and Japan are making strides with thermal. If a person doesn't want to see advances, they won't see them. As John Lennon wrote in 'Strawberry Fields Forever': "Living is easy with eyes closed...."

Deniers like to counter with phrases like, "that's not going to fix everything overnight." No, of course nothing will get fixed in a flash. Sometimes the most worthwhile projects take decades to show positive results. No one is saying there is a cure-all. Innovations add to the mix, and their cumulative effect over several years can be worthwhile. Deniers are the ultimate cynics, always chopping down innovative ideas/suggestions as if the status quo is the only way to go. Not so. There are rivers in North America which are a lot cleaner now than they were 60 years ago. When environmentalists first proposed cleaning them, cynics were surely saying, "You dummy. You see how dirty that water is? It's a dead river. There's no way it can ever be cleaned. Quit being such an air-head."

[RickBradford]

Portugal, Scotland and Denmark are three of several countries which are at the vanguard of alternative clean energy solutions.

The average electricity price in the US is 12 cents/kilowatt hour. In Denmark it is 41 c/KwH. As you say, right in the "vanguard of alternative clean energy solutions." Portugal's price is around 30c/Kwh. That's the trade-off — use expensive forms of energy and your consumers pay the price. And your industries become uncompetitive.

Iceland and Japan are making strides with thermal.

Well, of course they are -- they sit on tectonic faults. Try that in Poland and see how far you get.

I think geothermal is a great form of energy — fairly reliable, at your doorstep, clean and inexhaustible. Equally good, it's one of the few viable forms of energy that the Green/Left doesn't object to.

I wonder why more effort isn't put into developing it. Actually, I don't — it's dull and proven technology, so doesn't fit with politicians' ego projects as well as shiny windmills and shining solar plants.

Just think, if we took even a fraction of the money being p**sed away on silly climate activities, and invested it in geothermal power generation across Indonesia (tectonically suitable). Then we would really have something to point to as a way forward.

[Gumballl]

They see the results in flooding of coastal cities, massive arctic ice melt and the largest coral die-off in recorded history.

I see typical UN BS.

Global temperatures affect IQ. I understand it fully. I used (and I emphasize that) to live in Florida.

.

.

.

.

.

.

If you're mentally slow, and I forgive you for such, I was referring to you in my opening sentence.

[Gumballl]

From the research i have done,reading as many sources of information i can,i am strongly starting to think we may have actually silently passed the tipping point,as the last few months indicate,sea ice in the Arctic at lowest ever extent,highest ever temp recorded in India this week,highest ever temps recently recorded in SE Asia,massive droughts in Africa,Australia having a record warm autumn,record sea temps leading to biggest bleaching event in recorded data.

Does anyone really think that the paris accord will do much to lower co2 emissions,i am afraid it is looking more like we w ill be hitting the 4-6c temp rise which will prove catastrophic for much of humankind,and change many areas of the planet,Se Asia at least the mainland is very vunerable,lets not forget once the Sahara,and large parts of Australia were once lush forests.

Assuming you are correct (and personally I think you are), what are we to do? The Earth is getting warmer and the water (on ground) is evaporating; furthermore rainfall is not as plentiful on every location of the globe.

Sure, some places might witness the "once in a lifetime" deluge that floods, or an unusual temperature drop from the norm, but overall... and that means across the entire globe... the environment is turning to the worse... that is, it is warming. Don't try to think of just your immediate area, country, or continent... but the entire globe.

Thailand recently had, and perhaps still has, some dry weather. Perhaps next year it will be a year fraught with flooding. This doesn't mean that global warming is a farce. Scientist, of all nationalities, keep temperature and rainfall readings for each day, and throughout the year, for their respective region on the Earth. Using basic/rational arithmetic skills, it is trivial to figure out that the Earth is in trouble.

The Earth is getting warmer... water will become the commodity of tomorrow... and which perhaps will lead to conflicts/battles.

P.S. I work with NASA. In case you are unaware, we are not a bunch of nuts that are in business of promoting scaremongering. We just report the facts. And I do apologize if the facts do not fit into your expectations.

[RickBradford]

.... nuts that are in business of promoting scaremongering.

I think that's the best one-line description I've ever seen of James "Homer" Hansen, who was head of NASA's GISS climate institute for 32 years and is widely known as the godfather of climate alarmism.

[boomerangutang]

As important as anything else, in my view, is how we influence youngsters.

Among today's youngsters are some of tomorrow's innovators, movers & shakers.

As adults, we don't want to burden them with cynical thoughts. Be realistic and honest, sure, but also instill in them a sense of hope. Without hope for improvements, life is pretty bleak.

Though I've never attended a Burning Man festival, I applaud the concept. An annual gathering of folks with an emphasis on art, innovation, fun, joyful interaction. Yes, I'm an aging hippie, and have been to many hippie gatherings. If I had kids and resided in the western US, I would take my kids to Burning Man. I'd like to see Burning Man type festivals (and Glastonberry, Woodstock, etc) in every part of the globe. They're such refreshing alternatives to meetings like G8 and ASEAN, which only focus on money and power issues (96% on money).

Where did most alternative energy issues first show up? Same for re-cycling, alternative building issues? .....The Whole Earth Catalog which first came out in the 1960's. Whole Earth Catalog was a catalyst for alternative clean technologies, which were decades ahead of conventional thinking. Some of the 'innovations' which are cropping up today, were first broached 50 years ago. That's about how long it takes conventional thinking to catch up with innovative thinking. Whole Earth was part of the movement which led to Woodstock, then to Burning Man and beyond.

Most people are like ants (and am not just referring to their propensity to form armies and fight). They abhor any disturbance to their status quo. Yet, like ants, ten minutes after their mound is disturbed, they start building again. Ants are conservative, in that they don't want anything changed, no innovation, ....yet they're non-conservative in that they're always willing to move on, without holding grudges or harboring vindictiveness.

[DrTuner]

Most people are like ants (and am not just referring to their propensity to form armies and fight). They abhor any disturbance to their status quo. Yet, like ants, ten minutes after their mound is disturbed, they start building again. Ants are conservative, in that they don't want anything changed, no innovation, ....yet they're non-conservative in that they're always willing to move on, without holding grudges or harboring vindictiveness.

That's true. They also want a queen to service, looks like. Hillary, eh?

[ricklev]

I wonder what percentage of people who deny climate change is occurring and is caused by human activity also believe Obama is a Kenyan Muslim?

No offense intended. I'm not saying.... I'm just saying.....

Edited June 18, 2016 by ricklev

[thaibeachlovers]

It's the GW/ CC fanatics that never put any solutions forward.

Why I say nothing will happen is because no leaders have deigned to set an example, no laws have been passed that would make a difference, and frankly, outside of the GW/ CC bandwagon occupiers, no one gives a toss about it.

Either you aren't aware of the fast pace of innovations re; solutions, or you don't want to know.

Here are some topics you could google: energy from tides, wave energy, wind energy, concentrated solar, Tonopah solar, river energy.

Some leaders are setting examples. Jerry Brown, gov of California is forward looking, as are others. I mentioned San Diego and its plan to get fossil-fuel free in coming years. Portugal, Scotland and Denmark are three of several countries which are at the vanguard of alternative clean energy solutions. Iceland and Japan are making strides with thermal. If a person doesn't want to see advances, they won't see them. As John Lennon wrote in 'Strawberry Fields Forever': "Living is easy with eyes closed...."

Deniers like to counter with phrases like, "that's not going to fix everything overnight." No, of course nothing will get fixed in a flash. Sometimes the most worthwhile projects take decades to show positive results. No one is saying there is a cure-all. Innovations add to the mix, and their cumulative effect over several years can be worthwhile. Deniers are the ultimate cynics, always chopping down innovative ideas/suggestions as if the status quo is the only way to go. Not so. There are rivers in North America which are a lot cleaner now than they were 60 years ago. When environmentalists first proposed cleaning them, cynics were surely saying, "You dummy. You see how dirty that water is? It's a dead river. There's no way it can ever be cleaned. Quit being such an air-head."

Either you aren't aware of the fast pace of innovations re; solutions, or you don't want to know.

Here are some topics you could google: energy from tides, wave energy, wind energy, concentrated solar, Tonopah solar, river energy.

LOL. All those "solutions" have been around for decades- nothing new there.

In 1994 I visited the solar power research facility near Riyadh, I read about a concentrated solar power ( that is what Tonopah is- no need to repeat ) station ( I think in France ) at least 20 years ago, maybe 30. Wave energy had been developed in the UK at least 10 years ago, wind energy has been around for donkey's years. River and estuary power generation has likewise been around ages.

Hydrogen fuel cells have been used on manned space flights since the 60s, and solar has been powering space stations and satellites for yonks.

Soooooooo, where is the "fast" pace of innovation?

If the powers that be won't legislate to use the technology, it's not much use, so all the pro GW/ CC crowd should be lobbying their legislatures to pull finger.

[up2u2]

Heaps of solutions to CO₂ pollution. Depends on the country involved and what resources they have.

[thaibeachlovers]

Heaps of solutions to CO₂ pollution. Depends on the country involved and what resources they have.

People cause pollution, the more people the more pollution.

No resources are necessary to impose population reduction, just political will.

It's not a lack of resources that is the problem, it's the political will to do anything that is missing.

PS I'm a great believer in reducing pollution, and would probably support anything that did so.

Edited June 18, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[up2u2]

Heaps of solutions to CO₂ pollution. Depends on the country involved and what resources they have.

People cause pollution, the more people the more pollution.

No resources are necessary to impose population reduction, just political will.

It's not a lack of resources that is the problem, it's the political will to do anything that is missing.

PS I'm a great believer in reducing pollution, and would probably support anything that did so.

The Earth is more than capable of supporting the current population and many more billions. A simple transition from polluting Fossil Fuels to renewable energy sources is all that is required. Not really all that big a deal.

[thaibeachlovers]

Heaps of solutions to CO₂ pollution. Depends on the country involved and what resources they have.

People cause pollution, the more people the more pollution.

No resources are necessary to impose population reduction, just political will.

It's not a lack of resources that is the problem, it's the political will to do anything that is missing.

PS I'm a great believer in reducing pollution, and would probably support anything that did so.

The Earth is more than capable of supporting the current population and many more billions. A simple transition from polluting Fossil Fuels to renewable energy sources is all that is required. Not really all that big a deal.

OMG

Have you not noticed that people are destroying the environment?

The rain forests are disappearing, hundreds ( ?thousands ) of other species are being exterminated, the oceans are all contaminated with human's waste products, fish are vanishing from overfishing and cars are ruining quality of life everywhere.

All of which are NOTHING to do with GW/ CC, just too many people.

Yet you think it will all be OK as long as we stop using carbon.

I'm really glad I'll not live long enough to see a planet with nothing but humans on it.

[DrTuner]

I'm really glad I'll not live long enough to see a planet with nothing but humans on it.

Many of the big cities already approximate that. Like BKK. Most unenjoyable, but hey, VR is coming, just pluck in the IV and enjoy virtual tourism on the sofa. That's where you'll be restricted to in the future with population densities increasing. Does bring up the question why bother living at all.

[ilostmypassword]

May 2016 is now the hottest month on record. To find the 2nd warment month on record you'd have to go all the way back to.....April, 2016

http://www.sciencealert.com/may-was-the-hottest-month-on-earth-since-records-began-says-nasa

[ilostmypassword]

Heaps of solutions to CO₂ pollution. Depends on the country involved and what resources they have.

People cause pollution, the more people the more pollution.

No resources are necessary to impose population reduction, just political will.

It's not a lack of resources that is the problem, it's the political will to do anything that is missing.

PS I'm a great believer in reducing pollution, and would probably support anything that did so.

The Earth is more than capable of supporting the current population and many more billions. A simple transition from polluting Fossil Fuels to renewable energy sources is all that is required. Not really all that big a deal.

OMG

Have you not noticed that people are destroying the environment?

The rain forests are disappearing, hundreds ( ?thousands ) of other species are being exterminated, the oceans are all contaminated with human's waste products, fish are vanishing from overfishing and cars are ruining quality of life everywhere.

All of which are NOTHING to do with GW/ CC, just too many people.

Yet you think it will all be OK as long as we stop using carbon.

I'm really glad I'll not live long enough to see a planet with nothing but humans on it.

It's not quite as simple as population. The figures should be weighted for consumption. It was a while back, but I read that the average American consumes 25 times as much as the average Indian. As India grows more prosperous the current ration is probably lower. One of the reasons that the USA and other northern nations have lessened their own pollution is that they have exported pollution causing industries to developing nations. And the resources of these nations such as forests are being destroyed partly to contribute to the consumption of wealthier nations. So the higher the per-capita consumption of a nation, the more the decline in its population will contribute to the lessening of pollution and consumption of natural resources.

[thaibeachlovers]

The Earth is more than capable of supporting the current population and many more billions. A simple transition from polluting Fossil Fuels to renewable energy sources is all that is required. Not really all that big a deal.

OMG

Have you not noticed that people are destroying the environment?

The rain forests are disappearing, hundreds ( ?thousands ) of other species are being exterminated, the oceans are all contaminated with human's waste products, fish are vanishing from overfishing and cars are ruining quality of life everywhere.

All of which are NOTHING to do with GW/ CC, just too many people.

Yet you think it will all be OK as long as we stop using carbon.

I'm really glad I'll not live long enough to see a planet with nothing but humans on it.

It's not quite as simple as population. The figures should be weighted for consumption. It was a while back, but I read that the average American consumes 25 times as much as the average Indian. As India grows more prosperous the current ration is probably lower. One of the reasons that the USA and other northern nations have lessened their own pollution is that they have exported pollution causing industries to developing nations. And the resources of these nations such as forests are being destroyed partly to contribute to the consumption of wealthier nations. So the higher the per-capita consumption of a nation, the more the decline in its population will contribute to the lessening of pollution and consumption of natural resources.

Notice how when people get more prosperous they go out and buy a car?

China used to be a nation of bicycles, then they got money and now they are polluting themselves to death. Sad.

I hate cars in cities- they absolutely destroy the quality of life, and cause massive pollution. They aren't even necessary in cities if only the authorities would get their heads out of where the sun don't shine and provide decent public transport.

[RickBradford]

They aren't even necessary in cities if only the authorities would get their heads out of where the sun don't shine and provide decent public transport.

Even that notion comes up against the immovable object -- human vanity and self-interest.

Singapore has one of the finest public transport systems in the world, yet hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans prefer to drive their fancy S280s through heavy traffic every morning into the city.

Edited June 20, 2016 by RickBradford

[thaibeachlovers]

They aren't even necessary in cities if only the authorities would get their heads out of where the sun don't shine and provide decent public transport.

Even that notion comes up against the immovable object -- human vanity and self-interest.

Singapore has one of the finest public transport systems in the world, yet hundreds of thousands of Singaporeans prefer to drive their fancy S280s through heavy traffic every morning into the city.

Having lived in Singapore, that doesn't surprise me.

However, I think the public system is well utilised. Certainly used to be when I was there, and I used it all the time.

The last bus to Nee Soon at night used to be as thrilling as any fairground ride as the driver raced to finish his shift. Happy days in Singapore in the 70s, before it went all puritanical and expensive.

[boomerangutang]

All those "solutions" have been around for decades- nothing new there.

We're talking about more than the first prototype. Cars and planes have been around for over 100 years, but there have been improvements along the way.

One reason Tonopah is notable, is it's the first large scale concentrated solar set-up which can run for days (I think it's up to 5) without sun. Spain had one or two impressive concentrated solar arrays, but I think they were limited to 3 days/no sun. And Tonopah isn't the final word. There will be further improvements. Similarly, wave energy is being field tested, and improvements are coming along month by month. A Norwegian company has a new design which uses a planetary gear - to take the slow motion of the waves and speeding it up to power on-board electricity generators.

2 years ago I was at a secluded resort south of Ao Nang beach, in Krabi Province. The resort had hundreds of meters of dedicated power lines coming in over hills. However, at the beach, there was a floating jetty made from locker-sized floating pieces of air-filled plastic. Even tho the surf there is usually small (about 1 to 2 feet), the power of it could be felt in the undulating jetty. I'd venture that one or more innovative-thinking engineers could get a device like that to produce enough power for the entire secluded resort of about 100 units. Maybe a lot more, depending on scale and efficiency.

A larger scale challenge would be large towns like Pai and Mae Hong Song, both of which have many miles (50?) of thick cable servicing them. The cables are strung up and down dozens of steep hills. I saw remnants of at least 4 different scale poles/wires used. From relatively small poles (8 meters?) to giant double posts as high as 12 story buildings. Smaller = earlier, giant = later. Pai has thermal potential, and MHS probably does also. Added to concentrated solar, water cold be heated to provide electricity for outlying towns like that. Alternatively, and more likely for Thailand, would be PV, because it's simpler to install, and Thais don't know about concentrated solar yet. Either way, it would be good to preclude the very long distances of stringing cable (from Laos? or Chiang Mai?).

[Andreas2]

...

They see the results in flooding of coastal cities, massive arctic ice melt and the largest coral die-off in recorded history.

...

I guess the main stream media - and consequently TV - won't provide us with this update - Even if it has such great entertainment potential.

Global Warming Expedition Stopped In Its Tracks By Arctic Sea Ice

A group of adventurers, sailors, pilots and climate scientists that recently started a journey around the North Pole in an effort to show the lack of ice, has been blocked from further travels by ice.

Maybe these "scientists" should start reading the data that tracks the temperatures correctly, instead of their own seemingly flawed statistics.

The correct data is available, just not for climate "scientists", bureaucrats and politicians!

From the same article:

Real Climate Science also provides a graph showing that current Arctic temperatures — despite alarmist claims of the Arctic being hotter than ever — is actually below normal.

Nature can be such a bitch if it doesn't respect the laws of state-approved science - Man-Made Global Warming "science" that is. They obviously don't even know where to get the correct data from...

[up2u2]

...

They see the results in flooding of coastal cities, massive arctic ice melt and the largest coral die-off in recorded history.

...

I guess the main stream media - and consequently TV - won't provide us with this update - Even if it has such great entertainment potential.

Global Warming Expedition Stopped In Its Tracks By Arctic Sea Ice

A group of adventurers, sailors, pilots and climate scientists that recently started a journey around the North Pole in an effort to show the lack of ice, has been blocked from further travels by ice.

Maybe these "scientists" should start reading the data that tracks the temperatures correctly, instead of their own seemingly flawed statistics.

The correct data is available, just not for climate "scientists", bureaucrats and politicians!

From the same article:

Real Climate Science also provides a graph showing that current Arctic temperatures — despite alarmist claims of the Arctic being hotter than ever — is actually below normal.

Nature can be such a bitch if it doesn't respect the laws of state-approved science - Man-Made Global Warming "science" that is. They obviously don't even know where to get the correct data from...

Classic Climate Denial 'cherry picking'. So a ship cannot take a specific route due to Sea Ice. Totally irrelevant to Sea Ice extent in the Arctic. Antarctic or Greenland also irrelevant to Glacial melting. Sea Ice extent is the lowest in recorded history.

'Real Climate Science' doesn't seem to be able to read the Report:

"The Arctic Heat Wave is Off The Charts Right Now"

"So far, 2016 has been a record hot year however you slice it—but the Arctic ison fire. A recently updated graph by the National Snow and Ice Data Center’sAndrew Slater shows just how freakishly warm it’s been in what is ostensibly one of the coldest regions of our planet."

Seems nature is following the script perfectly.

[ilostmypassword]

...

They see the results in flooding of coastal cities, massive arctic ice melt and the largest coral die-off in recorded history.

...

I guess the main stream media - and consequently TV - won't provide us with this update - Even if it has such great entertainment potential.

Global Warming Expedition Stopped In Its Tracks By Arctic Sea Ice

A group of adventurers, sailors, pilots and climate scientists that recently started a journey around the North Pole in an effort to show the lack of ice, has been blocked from further travels by ice.

Maybe these "scientists" should start reading the data that tracks the temperatures correctly, instead of their own seemingly flawed statistics.

The correct data is available, just not for climate "scientists", bureaucrats and politicians!

From the same article:

Real Climate Science also provides a graph showing that current Arctic temperatures — despite alarmist claims of the Arctic being hotter than ever — is actually below normal.

Nature can be such a bitch if it doesn't respect the laws of state-approved science - Man-Made Global Warming "science" that is. They obviously don't even know where to get the correct data from...

The reason there was all that ice? It's simple. The wind was coming from the wrong direction. It piles up the ice. That's all. Nothing at all to do with how much ice there is in the Arctic Ocean.

[RickBradford]

It is spectacularly pointless to debate whether ice in this place or that is growing, receding, and why or why not. The same with temperatures in Australia, Bolivia, Cuba or Denmark.

Because the world's politicians decided, at the Paris conference last December, to do nothing about curbing global CO2 emissions, which alarmists were telling them would lead to catastrophe if not checked.

Annual CO2 emissions are going to continue rising for at least the next 20 years, as a direct result of the legally binding agreements signed in Paris.

So if the Alarmists are right, we face catastrophe. If they're wrong, we save trillions of dollars which would otherwise have been wasted on pointless "climate activities."

[boomerangutang]

The agreements to lessen CO2 usage at the Paris meeting were the best that can be expected - considering the many countries, including some (like China and India) who didn't want to sign anything at all. Something's better than nothing. Without Paris, CO2 generation would continue to increase and many people would be fine with that, particularly China and Oil/Coal Companies.

Bradford opines; "So if the Alarmists are right, we face catastrophe. If they're wrong, we save trillions of dollars which would otherwise have been wasted on pointless 'climate activities.'"

Boomer responds: First off, the deniers are the alarmists. Who said trillions would have to be spent? Spent on what? .....putting in some scrubbers on coal smokestacks? A trillion is a lot. It's a thousand thousand thousand thousand. Or a thousand thousand million.

The way I'd re-phrase Bradford's alarmist missive: "If environmentalists are right, then we may stave off crippling GW for some decades. Concurrently, we'll lessen fossil fuel emissions, smog, acid rain, lung disease, extinctions, and a bunch of other deprivations caused by fossil fuel emissions. I can't see how environmentalists (and over 95% of scientists) are wrong about the world getting more polluted. Every one of us can see the effects every day. Nearly every kid in every Chinese city has never seen a blue sky, and most of them wear reading glasses because their eyes are faulty from so much toxins. That's just two of ten thousand factoids proving the manifold problems of runaway pollution."

[RickBradford]

Who said trillions would have to be spent? Spent on what? .....putting in some scrubbers on coal smokestacks? A trillion is a lot. It's a thousand thousand thousand thousand. Or a thousand thousand million.

The EU, the World Bank, multiple NGOs and governments, that's who said it.

The World Bank said in a recent report that we need to raise "..$4.1 trillion in incremental investment for the low-carbon transition to keep within the internationally agreed limit of a 2 degree Celsius temperature rise."

Organisations are proud to boast how much they are spending on "climate activities", as anyone who does even the slightest research can attest to.

The EU, for example, boasts in official documents that it "has agreed that at least 20% of its budget for 2014-2020 – as much as €180 billion - should be spent on climate change-related action."

Spent on what? Your guess is as good as mine. If the past is any guide, then most of the "activities" will involve paper pushing, virtue signalling, make-work bureaucracy and formulating pointless and damaging regulation. The most visible legacy will be those stupid windmills sprouting everywhere, an inefficient, unreliable and counter-productive technology, as the government of South Australia has just learned, to its cost.

It's estimated that about $1 billion per day is now chucked away on "climate activities", so $365 billion per year. There is a commitment to raise another $100 billion a year from taxpayers "for climate mitigation and adaptation in developing countries."

The International Institute for Environment and Development said in a report recently: "The world’s 48 poorest countries will need to find around $1 trillion between 2020 and 2030 to achieve their plans to tackle climate change."

You're right on one thing. A trillion is an enormous amount. Think what good you could do in the world if that kind of money wasn't being p**sed away on pointless climate activities.

[Alive]

Less humans is the most effective natural solution. Those who can't accept this are in denial just like the global-warming deniers. That's how I see it. Trying to come up with all these ridiculous schemes is silly when you won't acknowledge the truth about humans. The world's leaders are cowardly capitalists who can't think differently whose only economic models involve more and more people and more and continued exploitation of the environment. These cowards dare not call human existence the actual problem; instead they call out the by products of it, carbon and chemicals. Less people on the rock is the answer.

[ilostmypassword]

Less humans is the most effective natural solution. Those who can't accept this are in denial just like the global-warming deniers. That's how I see it. Trying to come up with all these ridiculous schemes is silly when you won't acknowledge the truth about humans. The world's leaders are cowardly capitalists who can't think differently whose only economic models involve more and more people and more and continued exploitation of the environment. These cowards dare not call human existence the actual problem; instead they call out the by products of it, carbon and chemicals. Less people on the rock is the answer.

It depends which humans you talk about. A while back, i read that it takes 25 Indians to consume as much as 1 American. So if there were 50 million less AMericans, that would effectively neutralize the contribution of all of India. Of course, it's more complicated than that but still...