UN sounds alarm over record-breaking temperature rise

[RickBradford]

Al Gore is pretty spot on with his commentary of GW / CC.

Hardly. His silly film 'An Inconvenient Truth' was slated by a UK judge as "exaggerated" and "alarmist", that it was "a political film" amounting to propaganda rather than information, and that showing it in British schools (without pointing out its inaccuracies) would violate the Education Act

To skeptics, Gore is the gift that keeps on giving.

His enormous house by the seaside shows that he a) doesn't mind having a vast carbon footprint and b ) isn't worried about sea-level rise. His sale of a TV network to Al-Jazeera, from which he pocketed $100 million, earned him opprobrium; his climate "reality project" earned him widespread ridicule.

Having set himself up as a global leader on climate, Gore has proved to be a consistent loser.

As Walter Russell Mead observed:

" It is hard to think of any recent failure in international politics this comprehensive, this swift, this humiliating. If the heart of your message is that the peril of climate change is so imminent and so overwhelming that the entire political and social system of the world must change, now, you cannot fly on private jets. You cannot own multiple mansions. You cannot even become enormously rich investing in companies that will profit if the policies you advocate are put into place."

Al Gore, the skeptics' best friend.

Edited May 28, 2016 by RickBradford

[up2u2]

Al Gore is a liar and conman.

http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_fraud.html

Mike Adams, self styled 'journalist', should stick to attacking Big Pharma to promote and profit from money wasting, fraudulent supplementary vitamins that no one actually needs.

He bases his article on misinformation posted on Fossil Fuel funded blogsites.

If his article was peer reviewed for publication in a scientific journal rather than his own agenda driven blogsite it would be popped into the shredder.

Next

[up2u2]

Al Gore has been a very effective advocate on GW / CC. He has been a driving force in getting GW / CC issues into the public domain. It is understandable that the Fossil Fuel industry leads a fierce campaign to discredit him.

To be honest I don't take much notice of it. I haven't watched the documentary because I was pretty much up to speed on the issue before the Doco was released.

[up2u2]

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.

Guess I will be buying a second air conditioning unit.

Hope my emissions are low, but I plan on staying cool.

Air conditioners, cars, trucks, lights, microwaves, houses, dishwashers, machinery, buses, ships, are not the problem.

[RickBradford]

It is understandable that the Fossil Fuel industry leads a fierce campaign to discredit him.

Al Gore doesn't need anyone's help to discredit him. He takes care of that quite adequately every time he opens his mouth.

His statements that those who believe in technological advances are as sinister, and polluters are as evil, as the perpetrators of the Holocaust do that on their own.

He accuses Americans (in his 'book' Earth in the Balance) of being dysfunctional because of “an apparent obsession with inauthentic substitutes for direct experience with real life,” such as “Astroturf, air conditioning and fluorescent lights … Walkman and Watchman, entertainment cocoons, frozen food for the microwave oven,” and so on.

As his lifestyle shows, Al Gore doesn’t exactly live the frugal life of a hermit in a cave himself, savouring the joys of nature. Davy Crockett he ain’t.

He is a grandiose narcissist who combines an embarrassing lack of scientific knowledge with an almost unbroken record of failure.

[fasteddie]

Al Gore is a liar and conman.

http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_fraud.html

Mike Adams, self styled 'journalist', should stick to attacking Big Pharma to promote and profit from money wasting, fraudulent supplementary vitamins that no one actually needs.

He bases his article on misinformation posted on Fossil Fuel funded blogsites.

If his article was peer reviewed for publication in a scientific journal rather than his own agenda driven blogsite it would be popped into the shredder.

Next

Next? Certainly.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

[up2u2]

Al Gore is a liar and conman.

http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_fraud.html

Mike Adams, self styled 'journalist', should stick to attacking Big Pharma to promote and profit from money wasting, fraudulent supplementary vitamins that no one actually needs.

He bases his article on misinformation posted on Fossil Fuel funded blogsites.

If his article was peer reviewed for publication in a scientific journal rather than his own agenda driven blogsite it would be popped into the shredder.

Next

Next? Certainly.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

Lianne M Lefsrud

"First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” (emphasis added)"

Heartland’s James Taylor Falsely Claims New Study Rejects Climate Consensus

Detailed response to Climate Denier interpretation of study

Next.......

[fasteddie]

Al Gore is a liar and conman.

http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_fraud.html

Mike Adams, self styled 'journalist', should stick to attacking Big Pharma to promote and profit from money wasting, fraudulent supplementary vitamins that no one actually needs.

He bases his article on misinformation posted on Fossil Fuel funded blogsites.

If his article was peer reviewed for publication in a scientific journal rather than his own agenda driven blogsite it would be popped into the shredder.

Next

Next? Certainly.

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis - Forbes

Lianne M Lefsrud

"First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” (emphasis added)"

Heartland’s James Taylor Falsely Claims New Study Rejects Climate Consensus

Detailed response to Climate Denier interpretation of study

Next.......

OK.

IPCC's Gangster Science - Dr Willie Soon 9th ICCC - Duration: 16:21. 1000frolly 2,169 views

[Catoni]

The 'Little Ice Age' was regional, effecting parts of England and Northern Europe and was caused by decadel ocean current blocking. Its effect was not global. The last Interglacial ended 10,000 years ago and the next Interglacial begins in 7000 years (Milankovitch Cycle). 2015 was Thailand's hottest year recorded and drought effected.

The Polar Vortex that dumps record snow falls in Canada and North East America is caused by uneven Global heating that collapses one side of the Arctic region. This leads to milder temperatures in the Arctic further reducing Sea Ice Extent and Land Ice Cover. 2015 saw the lowest Summer Sea Ice extent recorded. Over all the Earth recorded the highest Temperature recorded. ie the heatwave conditions far outweighed the cold conditions.

Global surface temperature data does take into account the cold temperatures as well as the warmer temperatures.

The Inhoff Snow Ball scientific evaluation of Earth's global warming. Find a snowball and state the Earth is cold not hot. Pretty stupid. Also what he failed to understand is a large percentage of that snowball should have fallen in the Arctic not in Washington. While Washington froze the Arctic warmed. A percentage of that snowball should have ended up as water flowing through China down into Asia but it ended up in Washington. As the mid and East Coast of America froze the west coast was in a 1000 year drought.

I really don't understand why so many Climate Change Alarmists try to confine the Little Ice Age to just Europe. They like to do the same thing with the Medieval Warm Period.

It's as if they want to "get rid of" the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period for some reason. Perhaps the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period are "inconvenient" for their activist agenda.

There is no massive wall that confined the Little Ice Age to just parts of England and Europe for hundreds of years. England and Europe are not confined and separate from the rest of the world.

The Little Ice Age had effects around the globe..

There is documented historical records of the effects of the Little Ice Age also in North America. "SVS Science Story: Ice Age NASA Scientific Visualization Studio.

Lamb, Hubert H. (1995). "The little ice age". Climate, history and the modern world. London: Routledge. pp. 211–241. ISBN 0-415-12734-3.

Actually..... the Little Ice Age went much further than just parts of England and Europe and North America. Japanese researches have found low temperature effects of the Little Ice Age in cores from the sea bed off of Japan.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017d42937ba9970c-pi

[Dai Isono, Masanobu Yamamoto, Tomohisa Irino, Tadamichi Oba, Masafumi Murayama, Toshio Nakamura, Hodaka Kawahata 2009: Geology]

Sediment cores from Venezuela, South America show the Little Ice Age:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c013110051af1970c-pi

Tree-ring data from Patagonia show cold episodes between 1270 and 1380 and from 1520 to 1670, periods contemporary with LIA events in the Northern Hemisphere. Eight sediment cores taken from Puyehue Lake have been interpreted as showing a humid period from 1470 to 1700, which the authors describe as a regional marker of LIA onset.

"Tree-ring and glacial evidence for the medieval warm epoch and the Little Ice Age in southern South America". Climatic Change 26 (2–3): 183–97.

Sébastien Bertranda, Xavier Boësa, Julie Castiauxa, François Charletb, Roberto Urrutiac, Cristian Espinozac, Gilles Lepointd, Bernard Charliere, Nathalie Fage (2005). "Temporal evolution of sediment supply in Lago Puyehue (Southern Chile) during the last 600 yr and its climatic significance". Quaternary Research 64 (2): 163.

In New Zealand the Franz Joseph glacier was “a mere pocket of ice on a frozen snowfield nine centuries ago”…. Then Little Ice Age cooling began and the glacier thrust downslope into the valley below smashing into the great rain forests that flourished there, felling giant trees like matchsticks. By the early 18th Century, Franz Joseph’s face was within 3 km of the Pacific Ocean .

The high tide of glacial advance at Franz Joseph came between the late 17th Century and early 19th Century, just as it did in the European Alps.

Brian Murray Fagan is a British prolific author of popular archaeology books and a professor emeritus of Anthropology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA

[up2u2]

OK.

IPCC's Gangster Science - Dr Willie Soon 9th ICCC - Duration: 16:21. 1000frolly 2,169 views

Willie Soon gets his funding from Exxon to the tune of $1.2M. Here is Jim Lakley from the Heartland Institute running protection for Wee Willie.

So at this point you are batting a big fat duck egg zero.

Gets a little boring for me after a while.

[up2u2]

The 'Little Ice Age' was regional, effecting parts of England and Northern Europe and was caused by decadel ocean current blocking. Its effect was not global. The last Interglacial ended 10,000 years ago and the next Interglacial begins in 7000 years (Milankovitch Cycle). 2015 was Thailand's hottest year recorded and drought effected.

The Polar Vortex that dumps record snow falls in Canada and North East America is caused by uneven Global heating that collapses one side of the Arctic region. This leads to milder temperatures in the Arctic further reducing Sea Ice Extent and Land Ice Cover. 2015 saw the lowest Summer Sea Ice extent recorded. Over all the Earth recorded the highest Temperature recorded. ie the heatwave conditions far outweighed the cold conditions.

Global surface temperature data does take into account the cold temperatures as well as the warmer temperatures.

The Inhoff Snow Ball scientific evaluation of Earth's global warming. Find a snowball and state the Earth is cold not hot. Pretty stupid. Also what he failed to understand is a large percentage of that snowball should have fallen in the Arctic not in Washington. While Washington froze the Arctic warmed. A percentage of that snowball should have ended up as water flowing through China down into Asia but it ended up in Washington. As the mid and East Coast of America froze the west coast was in a 1000 year drought.

I really don't understand why so many Climate Change Alarmists try to confine the Little Ice Age to just Europe. They like to do the same thing with the Medieval Warm Period.

It's as if they want to "get rid of" the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period for some reason. Perhaps the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period are "inconvenient" for their activist agenda.

There is no massive wall that confined the Little Ice Age to just parts of England and Europe for hundreds of years. England and Europe are not confined and separate from the rest of the world.

The Little Ice Age had effects around the globe..

There is documented historical records of the effects of the Little Ice Age also in North America. "SVS Science Story: Ice Age NASA Scientific Visualization Studio.

Lamb, Hubert H. (1995). "The little ice age". Climate, history and the modern world. London: Routledge. pp. 211–241. ISBN 0-415-12734-3.

Actually..... the Little Ice Age went much further than just parts of England and Europe and North America. Japanese researches have found low temperature effects of the Little Ice Age in cores from the sea bed off of Japan.

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017d42937ba9970c-pi

[Dai Isono, Masanobu Yamamoto, Tomohisa Irino, Tadamichi Oba, Masafumi Murayama, Toshio Nakamura, Hodaka Kawahata 2009: Geology]

Sediment cores from Venezuela, South America show the Little Ice Age:

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c013110051af1970c-pi

Tree-ring data from Patagonia show cold episodes between 1270 and 1380 and from 1520 to 1670, periods contemporary with LIA events in the Northern Hemisphere. Eight sediment cores taken from Puyehue Lake have been interpreted as showing a humid period from 1470 to 1700, which the authors describe as a regional marker of LIA onset.

"Tree-ring and glacial evidence for the medieval warm epoch and the Little Ice Age in southern South America". Climatic Change 26 (2–3): 183–97.

Sébastien Bertranda, Xavier Boësa, Julie Castiauxa, François Charletb, Roberto Urrutiac, Cristian Espinozac, Gilles Lepointd, Bernard Charliere, Nathalie Fage (2005). "Temporal evolution of sediment supply in Lago Puyehue (Southern Chile) during the last 600 yr and its climatic significance". Quaternary Research 64 (2): 163.

In New Zealand the Franz Joseph glacier was “a mere pocket of ice on a frozen snowfield nine centuries ago”…. Then Little Ice Age cooling began and the glacier thrust downslope into the valley below smashing into the great rain forests that flourished there, felling giant trees like matchsticks. By the early 18th Century, Franz Joseph’s face was within 3 km of the Pacific Ocean .

The high tide of glacial advance at Franz Joseph came between the late 17th Century and early 19th Century, just as it did in the European Alps.

Brian Murray Fagan is a British prolific author of popular archaeology books and a professor emeritus of Anthropology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, California, USA

North America, Northern Europe parts of the UK is not the entire world. It was regional not Global glaciation. The term 'Ice Age' gets Climate Deniers excited.

[arjunadawn]

Cosmoclimatology and paleoclimatology make overwhelmingly clear that while Man certainly has the power to shape this planet he most definitely is not a primary tera-former; and this is the argument offered by the Ideology of Climate Change- man has been tera-forming Earth since the industrial revolution, tilted its homeostasis, and now must reverse tera-form with conveniently ready and appropriate social prescriptions.

If it was not so absurd it would read like an Orwellian novel. Hubris. Arrogance. CC bets on ignorance, stupidity, and gullibility of the masses. The science is not sound. The data is manipulated. The models are biased. Sources or excised or outright excluded.

The climate is changing. It has always been changing. Violent changes have been so frequent as to be consistent. Cyclic changes are so consistent as to be patterns. Cosmic influences are so demonstrable as to be inescapable, and marked. The coasts of the world's continents are littered with off shore cities that have often submerged in a day or two, in other cases within a few years. History also records the same fanatical, absurd reasoning of survivors that human behavior caused the sky to fall, the seas to rise, the cities to submerge. Indeed, in the account of Noah and other Persian sources they were specifically warned human behavior brought about the turmoil. Sound familiar? It should. Same retarded reasoning, different epoch.

So, if one can assert "but in this case Man is causing the damage" not the interplay of cosmic/terrestrial forces please advise how "in this case," Man's socialist UN prescriptions secure the cooperation of the sun, the moon, the planets, and our orbits as part of the solution. ? ? ? Nothing? Really. Not even factoring the co2 impact of the solar radiation on the world's oceans? Nothing? Not even part of the debate is it? Its the sun, stupid!

It cannot be offered because all these factors are totally excluded, and they are the primary factors in our climate. It is a farce.

Climate Change is an Ideology, not an observed phenomena of Man.

[up2u2]

Cosmoclimatology and paleoclimatology make overwhelmingly clear that while Man certainly has the power to shape this planet he most definitely is not a primary tera-former; and this is the argument offered by the Ideology of Climate Change- man has been tera-forming Earth since the industrial revolution, tilted its homeostasis, and now must reverse tera-form with conveniently ready and appropriate social prescriptions.

If it was not so absurd it would read like an Orwellian novel. Hubris. Arrogance. CC bets on ignorance, stupidity, and gullibility of the masses. The science is not sound. The data is manipulated. The models are biased. Sources or excised or outright excluded.

The climate is changing. It has always been changing. Violent changes have been so frequent as to be consistent. Cyclic changes are so consistent as to be patterns. Cosmic influences are so demonstrable as to be inescapable, and marked. The coasts of the world's continents are littered with off shore cities that have often submerged in a day or two, in other cases within a few years. History also records the same fanatical, absurd reasoning of survivors that human behavior caused the sky to fall, the seas to rise, the cities to submerge. Indeed, in the account of Noah and other Persian sources they were specifically warned human behavior brought about the turmoil. Sound familiar? It should. Same retarded reasoning, different epoch.

So, if one can assert "but in this case Man is causing the damage" not the interplay of cosmic/terrestrial forces please advise how "in this case," Man's socialist UN prescriptions secure the cooperation of the sun, the moon, the planets, and our orbits as part of the solution. ? ? ? Nothing? Really. Not even factoring the co2 impact of the solar radiation on the world's oceans? Nothing? Not even part of the debate is it? Its the sun, stupid!

It cannot be offered because all these factors are totally excluded, and they are the primary factors in our climate. It is a farce.

Climate Change is an Ideology, not an observed phenomena of Man.

The science is sound the, data is not manipulated, the models are accurate, no sources are excluded.

Total solar irradiation from the Sun is relatively constant. It does have a mild 11 year cycle over the past 7 years Total Solar Irradiation has declined whilst global surface temperatures and Ocean temperatures have soared. Greenhouse gas effect act independently of TSI.

Earth's Orbit does change the aspect of Earth in relation to the Sun. Obliquity 41,000 years, Eccentricity 100,000 years and Procession 23,000 years. As these orbits are so slow they have no effect on GW / CC.

Oceans are a crucial part of GW / CC some 23,000 temperature buoys are positioned, shallow mid and deep Oceans are measured for temperature CO₂ content. Satellites assay Ocean levels continually. All shipping intake temperature measurement are collected as they criss cross the Oceans. 97% of the heat from excess CO₂ greenhouse gas is absorbed into the Ocean.

Climate Change is based on scientific evidence it is not an ideology and is both observed data and proxy data taken from numerous separate sources of investigation that all arrive at the same conclusion.

Noah? What on Earth has Noah got to do with the price of eggs? Good grief.

All a lot of 'sciency' gobbledygook.

[sirineou]

Cosmoclimatology and paleoclimatology make overwhelmingly clear that while Man certainly has the power to shape this planet he most definitely is not a primary tera-former; and this is the argument offered by the Ideology of Climate Change- man has been tera-forming Earth since the industrial revolution, tilted its homeostasis, and now must reverse tera-form with conveniently ready and appropriate social prescriptions.

If it was not so absurd it would read like an Orwellian novel. Hubris. Arrogance. CC bets on ignorance, stupidity, and gullibility of the masses. The science is not sound. The data is manipulated. The models are biased. Sources or excised or outright excluded.

The climate is changing. It has always been changing. Violent changes have been so frequent as to be consistent. Cyclic changes are so consistent as to be patterns. Cosmic influences are so demonstrable as to be inescapable, and marked. The coasts of the world's continents are littered with off shore cities that have often submerged in a day or two, in other cases within a few years. History also records the same fanatical, absurd reasoning of survivors that human behavior caused the sky to fall, the seas to rise, the cities to submerge. Indeed, in the account of Noah and other Persian sources they were specifically warned human behavior brought about the turmoil. Sound familiar? It should. Same retarded reasoning, different epoch.

So, if one can assert "but in this case Man is causing the damage" not the interplay of cosmic/terrestrial forces please advise how "in this case," Man's socialist UN prescriptions secure the cooperation of the sun, the moon, the planets, and our orbits as part of the solution. ? ? ? Nothing? Really. Not even factoring the co2 impact of the solar radiation on the world's oceans? Nothing? Not even part of the debate is it? Its the sun, stupid!

It cannot be offered because all these factors are totally excluded, and they are the primary factors in our climate. It is a farce.

Climate Change is an Ideology, not an observed phenomena of Man.

Ok fair enough

can you please supply links to the supporting science, from reputable sources, the models that assert natural occurrences that are causing climate change, and how the release of the sequestrated carbon is not contributing.

[arjunadawn]

Cosmoclimatology and paleoclimatology make overwhelmingly clear that while Man certainly has the power to shape this planet he most definitely is not a primary tera-former; and this is the argument offered by the Ideology of Climate Change- man has been tera-forming Earth since the industrial revolution, tilted its homeostasis, and now must reverse tera-form with conveniently ready and appropriate social prescriptions.

If it was not so absurd it would read like an Orwellian novel. Hubris. Arrogance. CC bets on ignorance, stupidity, and gullibility of the masses. The science is not sound. The data is manipulated. The models are biased. Sources or excised or outright excluded.

The climate is changing. It has always been changing. Violent changes have been so frequent as to be consistent. Cyclic changes are so consistent as to be patterns. Cosmic influences are so demonstrable as to be inescapable, and marked. The coasts of the world's continents are littered with off shore cities that have often submerged in a day or two, in other cases within a few years. History also records the same fanatical, absurd reasoning of survivors that human behavior caused the sky to fall, the seas to rise, the cities to submerge. Indeed, in the account of Noah and other Persian sources they were specifically warned human behavior brought about the turmoil. Sound familiar? It should. Same retarded reasoning, different epoch.

So, if one can assert "but in this case Man is causing the damage" not the interplay of cosmic/terrestrial forces please advise how "in this case," Man's socialist UN prescriptions secure the cooperation of the sun, the moon, the planets, and our orbits as part of the solution. ? ? ? Nothing? Really. Not even factoring the co2 impact of the solar radiation on the world's oceans? Nothing? Not even part of the debate is it? Its the sun, stupid!

It cannot be offered because all these factors are totally excluded, and they are the primary factors in our climate. It is a farce.

Climate Change is an Ideology, not an observed phenomena of Man.

Ok fair enough

can you please supply links to the supporting science, from reputable sources, the models that assert natural occurrences that are causing climate change, and how the release of the sequestrated carbon is not contributing.

Hello sirineou

Nah, can't chase down as requested but will look for the solar ocean co2 model later.

The fact that one would have to 'search' for models asserting natural occurrences are causing climate change, ipso facto, proves my point- they are by and large excised from the discourse or diminished. There are cosmockimatologists who also contest the notion that man caused climate change is 'primary.' All the current sky is falling does not remotely anticipate cosmic forces. In fact, that is pretty much the primary thing that matters. Diagnosis- fraud!

I never said man does not leave our signature. I've only stated we are not primary Tera formers. We are not. The notion that man could prod and push the global climate negative feedback system and only in the case of man the system make no adjustments is fraudulent. Man is not the primary mover of climate. Period.

There is one vital point I will hunt down and it involves the accordion effect of the oceans. The solar forces on the vast, vast bodies of ocean have a result in heat and co2-- but it's delayed for some hundreds of years because of the volume of oceans. The delay in oceans increasing co2 secondary to solar forces is proven. I'll look for this. It's also a single great source fir consistent co2 each year lately.

Hoping your well.

[DM07]

Read the headline, knew what was coming!

You right wingers should all pack and move to the Solomon Islands...

[up2u2]

The Oceans both absorb atmospheric CO₂ (338Gtns) and release CO₂ (332GTns) into the atmosphere each year

Vegetation and Land both absorb atmospheric CO₂ (450Gtns) and release CO₂ (439Gtns) into the atmosphere each year.

This is the Natural Carbon Cycle

The burning of Fossil Fuels releases 29GTns of excess CO₂ per year into the atmosphere absorbing none. Fossil Fuel CO₂ is easily identified as it contains a signature isotope than natural occurring CO₂

If the Natural Progression of CO₂ collects in the atmosphere for the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ to register an increase of 100ppm that would take between 5,000 to 20,000 years.

With the burning of Fossil Fuels the release of an extra 29GTns compounding year on year of CO₂ an increase of atmospheric CO₂ by 100ppm has only taken 120 years to achieve.

So is the CO₂ released during the course of the Natural Ocean Carbon Cycle causing the pollution of the atmosphere with CO₂?

Answer: No

ipso facto or otherwise

[sirineou]

The Oceans both absorb atmospheric CO₂ (338Gtns) and release CO₂ (332GTns) into the atmosphere each year

Vegetation and Land both absorb atmospheric CO₂ (450Gtns) and release CO₂ (439Gtns) into the atmosphere each year.

This is the Natural Carbon Cycle

The burning of Fossil Fuels releases 29GTns of excess CO₂ per year into the atmosphere absorbing none. Fossil Fuel CO₂ is easily identified as it contains a signature isotope than natural occurring CO₂

If the Natural Progression of CO₂ collects in the atmosphere for the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ to register an increase of 100ppm that would take between 5,000 to 20,000 years.

With the burning of Fossil Fuels the release of an extra 29GTns compounding year on year of CO₂ an increase of atmospheric CO₂ by 100ppm has only taken 120 years to achieve.

So is the CO₂ released during the course of the Natural Ocean Carbon Cycle causing the pollution of the atmosphere with CO₂?

Answer: No

ipso facto or otherwise

I just had the conversation with my daughter about spending a week this summer in the Florida keys and getting her PADI scuba diving certification. I want her to experience the coral reefs before they are gone.

" Our oceans absorb about a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans produce by burning fossil fuels each year, and that's changing their basic chemistry. This is particularly bad for creatures with calcium carbonate in their shells or skeletons, like mollusks, crabs, and corals. Acidic water makes it harder for them to grow those shells, so many of them are going to have a hard time surviving as our seas change. "

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-you-need-know-about-ocean-acidification?gclid=CjwKEAjwpqq6BRC99aKUkaSjuDsSJAC0pNTVKnS3B3ZKiWa3BLkjk2cBIh5Q-kvRVRy3EPtAR1NmMhoCEAnw_wcB

If we dont reverse what is happening I foresee a near future where we will describe to our grandchildren how wondrous coral reefs used to be.

And seafood would be Tilapia.

[arjunadawn]

The Oceans both absorb atmospheric CO₂ (338Gtns) and release CO₂ (332GTns) into the atmosphere each year

Vegetation and Land both absorb atmospheric CO₂ (450Gtns) and release CO₂ (439Gtns) into the atmosphere each year.

This is the Natural Carbon Cycle

The burning of Fossil Fuels releases 29GTns of excess CO₂ per year into the atmosphere absorbing none. Fossil Fuel CO₂ is easily identified as it contains a signature isotope than natural occurring CO₂

If the Natural Progression of CO₂ collects in the atmosphere for the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ to register an increase of 100ppm that would take between 5,000 to 20,000 years.

With the burning of Fossil Fuels the release of an extra 29GTns compounding year on year of CO₂ an increase of atmospheric CO₂ by 100ppm has only taken 120 years to achieve.

So is the CO₂ released during the course of the Natural Ocean Carbon Cycle causing the pollution of the atmosphere with CO₂?

Answer: No

ipso facto or otherwise

I just had the conversation with my daughter about spending a week this summer in the Florida keys and getting her PADI scuba diving certification. I want her to experience the coral reefs before they are gone.

" Our oceans absorb about a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans produce by burning fossil fuels each year, and that's changing their basic chemistry. This is particularly bad for creatures with calcium carbonate in their shells or skeletons, like mollusks, crabs, and corals. Acidic water makes it harder for them to grow those shells, so many of them are going to have a hard time surviving as our seas change. "

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-you-need-know-about-ocean-acidification?gclid=CjwKEAjwpqq6BRC99aKUkaSjuDsSJAC0pNTVKnS3B3ZKiWa3BLkjk2cBIh5Q-kvRVRy3EPtAR1NmMhoCEAnw_wcB

If we dont reverse what is happening I foresee a near future where we will describe to our grandchildren how wondrous coral reefs used to be.

And seafood would be Tilapia.

I wish you good fortune and health for family... But it's all going bye bye anyway. It always has been slowly going bye bye. It's a fairly arrogant assertion that Man is causing the seas to rise when the past 12.500 years (it actually started 22,000 years ago but younger dryas era escalated)... have seen seas constantly rise.

Car, boat, gas, not gas... doesn't matter. It's the sun! It's the sun, our ecliptic orbit, the precession, and the interplay with local aspects. Changing social economic models to address this is about as nefarious as imaginable. In this context agents observe impending doom, try to qualify it, but subordinate it to political machinations. There is a threat to earth, but it's not Man. There is a threat to Man, and it's not earth.

One good thing about the ideology of climate change are its actors. Socialist agents cannot but fail. Always under the banner of 'everyone' the chosen percolate to the top of their leftist pyramid and show their true colors. So it is good that all shall know them by their works. Regrettably, the ideology of climate change is a part of supra government forming in regional blocs, hand in glove both are inexorably moving ahead in their Fabian design; so when people finally realize they've been duped they will be unable to act.

Tip: if everyone began riding horses tomorrow to fix the imagined problem [they'd] argue next methane needed regulation. Do ppl really not see this! It's not climate that's being regulated, it's humans! (That's why climate Change is pregnant with socialists).

[sirineou]

The Oceans both absorb atmospheric CO₂ (338Gtns) and release CO₂ (332GTns) into the atmosphere each year

Vegetation and Land both absorb atmospheric CO₂ (450Gtns) and release CO₂ (439Gtns) into the atmosphere each year.

This is the Natural Carbon Cycle

The burning of Fossil Fuels releases 29GTns of excess CO₂ per year into the atmosphere absorbing none. Fossil Fuel CO₂ is easily identified as it contains a signature isotope than natural occurring CO₂

If the Natural Progression of CO₂ collects in the atmosphere for the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ to register an increase of 100ppm that would take between 5,000 to 20,000 years.

With the burning of Fossil Fuels the release of an extra 29GTns compounding year on year of CO₂ an increase of atmospheric CO₂ by 100ppm has only taken 120 years to achieve.

So is the CO₂ released during the course of the Natural Ocean Carbon Cycle causing the pollution of the atmosphere with CO₂?

Answer: No

ipso facto or otherwise

I just had the conversation with my daughter about spending a week this summer in the Florida keys and getting her PADI scuba diving certification. I want her to experience the coral reefs before they are gone.

" Our oceans absorb about a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans produce by burning fossil fuels each year, and that's changing their basic chemistry. This is particularly bad for creatures with calcium carbonate in their shells or skeletons, like mollusks, crabs, and corals. Acidic water makes it harder for them to grow those shells, so many of them are going to have a hard time surviving as our seas change. "

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-you-need-know-about-ocean-acidification?gclid=CjwKEAjwpqq6BRC99aKUkaSjuDsSJAC0pNTVKnS3B3ZKiWa3BLkjk2cBIh5Q-kvRVRy3EPtAR1NmMhoCEAnw_wcB

If we dont reverse what is happening I foresee a near future where we will describe to our grandchildren how wondrous coral reefs used to be.

And seafood would be Tilapia.

I wish you good fortune and health for family... But it's all going bye bye anyway. It always has been slowly going bye bye. It's a fairly arrogant assertion that Man is causing the seas to rise when the past 12.500 years (it actually started 22,000 years ago but younger dryas era escalated)... have seen seas constantly rise.

Car, boat, gas, not gas... doesn't matter. It's the sun! It's the sun, our ecliptic orbit, the precession, and the interplay with local aspects. Changing social economic models to address this is about as nefarious as imaginable. In this context agents observe impending doom, try to qualify it, but subordinate it to political machinations. There is a threat to earth, but it's not Man. There is a threat to Man, and it's not earth.

One good thing about the ideology of climate change are its actors. Socialist agents cannot but fail. Always under the banner of 'everyone' the chosen percolate to the top of their leftist pyramid and show their true colors. So it is good that all shall know them by their works. Regrettably, the ideology of climate change is a part of supra government forming in regional blocs, hand in glove both are inexorably moving ahead in their Fabian design; so when people finally realize they've been duped they will be unable to act.

Tip: if everyone began riding horses tomorrow to fix the imagined problem [they'd] argue next methane needed regulation. Do ppl really not see this! It's not climate that's being regulated, it's humans! (That's why climate Change is pregnant with socialists).

How is the Sun increasing the CO2 in the Atmosphere to be absorbed in the oceans change the PH and cause ocean acidification?

[up2u2]

The Oceans both absorb atmospheric CO₂ (338Gtns) and release CO₂ (332GTns) into the atmosphere each year

Vegetation and Land both absorb atmospheric CO₂ (450Gtns) and release CO₂ (439Gtns) into the atmosphere each year.

This is the Natural Carbon Cycle

The burning of Fossil Fuels releases 29GTns of excess CO₂ per year into the atmosphere absorbing none. Fossil Fuel CO₂ is easily identified as it contains a signature isotope than natural occurring CO₂

If the Natural Progression of CO₂ collects in the atmosphere for the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ to register an increase of 100ppm that would take between 5,000 to 20,000 years.

With the burning of Fossil Fuels the release of an extra 29GTns compounding year on year of CO₂ an increase of atmospheric CO₂ by 100ppm has only taken 120 years to achieve.

So is the CO₂ released during the course of the Natural Ocean Carbon Cycle causing the pollution of the atmosphere with CO₂?

Answer: No

ipso facto or otherwise

I just had the conversation with my daughter about spending a week this summer in the Florida keys and getting her PADI scuba diving certification. I want her to experience the coral reefs before they are gone.

" Our oceans absorb about a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans produce by burning fossil fuels each year, and that's changing their basic chemistry. This is particularly bad for creatures with calcium carbonate in their shells or skeletons, like mollusks, crabs, and corals. Acidic water makes it harder for them to grow those shells, so many of them are going to have a hard time surviving as our seas change. "

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-you-need-know-about-ocean-acidification?gclid=CjwKEAjwpqq6BRC99aKUkaSjuDsSJAC0pNTVKnS3B3ZKiWa3BLkjk2cBIh5Q-kvRVRy3EPtAR1NmMhoCEAnw_wcB

If we dont reverse what is happening I foresee a near future where we will describe to our grandchildren how wondrous coral reefs used to be.

And seafood would be Tilapia.

I wouldn't wait too long to visit the Coral Reefs around the world. They are extremely susceptible to warmer Oceans causing bleaching. 35% of the Great Barrier Reef in Central and part of the Northern Reef are bleached and dead.

[up2u2]

The Oceans both absorb atmospheric CO₂ (338Gtns) and release CO₂ (332GTns) into the atmosphere each year

Vegetation and Land both absorb atmospheric CO₂ (450Gtns) and release CO₂ (439Gtns) into the atmosphere each year.

This is the Natural Carbon Cycle

The burning of Fossil Fuels releases 29GTns of excess CO₂ per year into the atmosphere absorbing none. Fossil Fuel CO₂ is easily identified as it contains a signature isotope than natural occurring CO₂

If the Natural Progression of CO₂ collects in the atmosphere for the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ to register an increase of 100ppm that would take between 5,000 to 20,000 years.

With the burning of Fossil Fuels the release of an extra 29GTns compounding year on year of CO₂ an increase of atmospheric CO₂ by 100ppm has only taken 120 years to achieve.

So is the CO₂ released during the course of the Natural Ocean Carbon Cycle causing the pollution of the atmosphere with CO₂?

Answer: No

ipso facto or otherwise

I just had the conversation with my daughter about spending a week this summer in the Florida keys and getting her PADI scuba diving certification. I want her to experience the coral reefs before they are gone.

" Our oceans absorb about a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans produce by burning fossil fuels each year, and that's changing their basic chemistry. This is particularly bad for creatures with calcium carbonate in their shells or skeletons, like mollusks, crabs, and corals. Acidic water makes it harder for them to grow those shells, so many of them are going to have a hard time surviving as our seas change. "

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-you-need-know-about-ocean-acidification?gclid=CjwKEAjwpqq6BRC99aKUkaSjuDsSJAC0pNTVKnS3B3ZKiWa3BLkjk2cBIh5Q-kvRVRy3EPtAR1NmMhoCEAnw_wcB

If we dont reverse what is happening I foresee a near future where we will describe to our grandchildren how wondrous coral reefs used to be.

And seafood would be Tilapia.

I wish you good fortune and health for family... But it's all going bye bye anyway. It always has been slowly going bye bye. It's a fairly arrogant assertion that Man is causing the seas to rise when the past 12.500 years (it actually started 22,000 years ago but younger dryas era escalated)... have seen seas constantly rise.

Car, boat, gas, not gas... doesn't matter. It's the sun! It's the sun, our ecliptic orbit, the precession, and the interplay with local aspects. Changing social economic models to address this is about as nefarious as imaginable. In this context agents observe impending doom, try to qualify it, but subordinate it to political machinations. There is a threat to earth, but it's not Man. There is a threat to Man, and it's not earth.

One good thing about the ideology of climate change are its actors. Socialist agents cannot but fail. Always under the banner of 'everyone' the chosen percolate to the top of their leftist pyramid and show their true colors. So it is good that all shall know them by their works. Regrettably, the ideology of climate change is a part of supra government forming in regional blocs, hand in glove both are inexorably moving ahead in their Fabian design; so when people finally realize they've been duped they will be unable to act.

Tip: if everyone began riding horses tomorrow to fix the imagined problem [they'd] argue next methane needed regulation. Do ppl really not see this! It's not climate that's being regulated, it's humans! (That's why climate Change is pregnant with socialists).

It has been clearly demonstrated that the science simply does not support your view. The Younger Dryas, Total Solar Irradiation (the Sun), Natural Ocean Carbon Cycle, Earth Orbit Aspect Ratio are not contributing factors in the increase in atmospheric CO₂ levels that is causing GW leading to Climates Changing, Oceans rising and acidification, melting of Polar Caps and Glaciers and currently a very slight increase in extreme weather events (the Earth is just warming up on these events) Heatwaves, 1000 year droughts and floods, unprecedented snow and ice storms and record breaking Hurricane wind speeds. Only very slight at the moment, much more to come as GW moves closer to +2^Oc, +3^Oc and +4^Oc.

It is fine for you to rant on that it is all a Socialist Leftist conspiracy, a ploy to regulate and control humans by some sinister unknown group of people. Man's arrogance in thinking it cannot pollute the Earth or effect its environment but what you shouldn't do is vaguely suggest that there is one shred of scientific evidence that supports your politically based view.

On political issues I am unashamedly Left Wing and advocate a balance of Capitalism, Socialism and Communism to construct a healthy productive inclusive robust society. When it comes to GW / CC my view is not politically based but based 100% on the scientific evidence.

I would gladly accept your political ideology if the scientific evidence supported your view but it simply doesn't.

[ilostmypassword]

One assertion I've noted here is that because high and low temperature record are being set every year, then this means nothing. It's just a matter of cherry picking. This is an invalid criticism. What's important is the ratio of low vs. high or the average date of the records being set. I found this for the United States. High temperature records vastly outnumber low temperature records in the United States.

http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/record-highs-vs-record-lows

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/more-heat-records-compared-to-cold-records

Unfortunately I couldn't find such granular data for the world. What I did find was the dates of record highs and lows for most of the countries in the world on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records#Lowest_temperatures_ever_recorded

I made my own spreadsheet out of it and here is the result. The average date for a low record temperature is September 1, 1958. The average date for a high temperature record is Sep 4, 1990. In other words, worldwide, a lot more hot temperature records have been set recently than cold ones.

(Actually, my results were slightly biased in that they make the low temperature dates slightly younger than they should be since excel doesn't treat any date prior to Jan 1, 1900 as a number. So I had to assign the date of Jan 1, 1900 to 4 or 5 dates that actually were from the 19th century)

Edited May 30, 2016 by ilostmypassword

[thaibeachlovers]

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.

Guess I will be buying a second air conditioning unit.

Hope my emissions are low, but I plan on staying cool.

Air conditioners, cars, trucks, lights, microwaves, houses, dishwashers, machinery, buses, ships, are not the problem.

You are correct. Overpopulation is, but no one is talking about that.

Never mind, Gaia is gearing up to solve the problem. The first completely untreatable disease has appeared- the coming epidemic will make Spanish flue seem like a cold in comparison.

[thaibeachlovers]

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.

That's right, and the Antarctic land mass used to have trees growing on it till it got cold.

It's not about what is happening- we all know that- it's what is going to be done about it that counts, and currently ZERO is being done that will actually change anything. Taxes and windmills won't do it.

[ilostmypassword]

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.

Guess I will be buying a second air conditioning unit.

Hope my emissions are low, but I plan on staying cool.

Air conditioners, cars, trucks, lights, microwaves, houses, dishwashers, machinery, buses, ships, are not the problem.

You are correct. Overpopulation is, but no one is talking about that.

Never mind, Gaia is gearing up to solve the problem. The first completely untreatable disease has appeared- the coming epidemic will make Spanish flue seem like a cold in comparison.

Actually not untreatable. Untreatable by current antibiotics. Not only are some new antibiotics in the works, but there is also phage therapy which is still widely used in some parts of the old soviet union. It is a bit more cumbersome to use since it depends on targeting the right viruses (phages) at the bacteria in question but its eminently doable. Phage therapy used to be a think in the United States too until antibiotics came along. In fact, there's a Sinclair Lewis novel, Arrowsmith, which features an heroic doctor battling against the medical establishment to use phages to cure infections.

[ilostmypassword]

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.

Guess I will be buying a second air conditioning unit.

Hope my emissions are low, but I plan on staying cool.

Air conditioners, cars, trucks, lights, microwaves, houses, dishwashers, machinery, buses, ships, are not the problem.

You are correct. Overpopulation is, but no one is talking about that.

Never mind, Gaia is gearing up to solve the problem. The first completely untreatable disease has appeared- the coming epidemic will make Spanish flue seem like a cold in comparison.

actually, it's not quite as simple as overpopulation. This is a somewhat outdated statistic now but it once was the case that the average american consumed 25 times as much as the average Indian. I'm sure the ratio is still pretty high. So an incurable epidemic with a high mortality rate in America would have a far more beneficial environmental effect than one in India.

[thaibeachlovers]

The Oceans both absorb atmospheric CO₂ (338Gtns) and release CO₂ (332GTns) into the atmosphere each year

Vegetation and Land both absorb atmospheric CO₂ (450Gtns) and release CO₂ (439Gtns) into the atmosphere each year.

This is the Natural Carbon Cycle

The burning of Fossil Fuels releases 29GTns of excess CO₂ per year into the atmosphere absorbing none. Fossil Fuel CO₂ is easily identified as it contains a signature isotope than natural occurring CO₂

If the Natural Progression of CO₂ collects in the atmosphere for the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ to register an increase of 100ppm that would take between 5,000 to 20,000 years.

With the burning of Fossil Fuels the release of an extra 29GTns compounding year on year of CO₂ an increase of atmospheric CO₂ by 100ppm has only taken 120 years to achieve.

So is the CO₂ released during the course of the Natural Ocean Carbon Cycle causing the pollution of the atmosphere with CO₂?

Answer: No

ipso facto or otherwise

I just had the conversation with my daughter about spending a week this summer in the Florida keys and getting her PADI scuba diving certification. I want her to experience the coral reefs before they are gone.

" Our oceans absorb about a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans produce by burning fossil fuels each year, and that's changing their basic chemistry. This is particularly bad for creatures with calcium carbonate in their shells or skeletons, like mollusks, crabs, and corals. Acidic water makes it harder for them to grow those shells, so many of them are going to have a hard time surviving as our seas change. "

https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-you-need-know-about-ocean-acidification?gclid=CjwKEAjwpqq6BRC99aKUkaSjuDsSJAC0pNTVKnS3B3ZKiWa3BLkjk2cBIh5Q-kvRVRy3EPtAR1NmMhoCEAnw_wcB

If we dont reverse what is happening I foresee a near future where we will describe to our grandchildren how wondrous coral reefs used to be.

And seafood would be Tilapia.

If we dont reverse what is happening

Given that they have been twittering on about this for many years, but have actually done ZERO to change it, what chance do you think they are ever going to?

I don't know how long we have, but the end of humanity is inevitable, just as happened to dinosaurs and the life forms before them. Whether we caused it or not is irrelevant as they aren't even trying to do anything that would make a difference.

NB flying a lot of people to conferences in exotic places does not constitute "doing something".

[thaibeachlovers]

Air conditioners, cars, trucks, lights, microwaves, houses, dishwashers, machinery, buses, ships, are not the problem.

You are correct. Overpopulation is, but no one is talking about that.

Never mind, Gaia is gearing up to solve the problem. The first completely untreatable disease has appeared- the coming epidemic will make Spanish flue seem like a cold in comparison.

Actually not untreatable. Untreatable by current antibiotics. Not only are some new antibiotics in the works, but there is also phage therapy which is still widely used in some parts of the old soviet union. It is a bit more cumbersome to use since it depends on targeting the right viruses (phages) at the bacteria in question but its eminently doable. Phage therapy used to be a think in the United States too until antibiotics came along. In fact, there's a Sinclair Lewis novel, Arrowsmith, which features an heroic doctor battling against the medical establishment to use phages to cure infections.

Ah, it is but the first of the many to come. Faced with 100 million people infected, how is your phage therapy going to do?

They'd better hurry up with the cure.

Also, let's not forget that new disease transmitted by mosquitoes that produces brain defective babies ( Zika ). That is also untreatable at present.

[up2u2]

One assertion I've noted here is that because high and low temperature record are being set every year, then this means nothing. It's just a matter of cherry picking. This is an invalid criticism. What's important is the ratio of low vs. high or the average date of the records being set. I found this for the United States. High temperature records vastly outnumber low temperature records in the United States.

http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/record-highs-vs-record-lows

http://www.climatecentral.org/blogs/more-heat-records-compared-to-cold-records

Unfortunately I couldn't find such granular data for the world. What I did find was the dates of record highs and lows for most of the countries in the world on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records#Lowest_temperatures_ever_recorded

I made my own spreadsheet out of it and here is the result. The average date for a low record temperature is September 1, 1958. The average date for a high temperature record is Sep 4, 1990. In other words, worldwide, a lot more hot temperature records have been set recently than cold ones.

(Actually, my results were slightly biased in that they make the low temperature dates slightly younger than they should be since excel doesn't treat any date prior to Jan 1, 1900 as a number. So I had to assign the date of Jan 1, 1900 to 4 or 5 dates that actually were from the 19th century)

ALL data sets can be downloaded here

Includes data sets and analysis methodology.