UN sounds alarm over record-breaking temperature rise

[RickBradford]

Recently India has and is suffering from extreme weather events caused in part by GW so it will be interesting to see if they adjust their Climate Change strategy. Looking at the cost of mitigating the impacts of Climate Change and the cost of investing and moving faster to clean and renewable energy sources. They have an extremely difficult balance to strike.

They (and China) have an extremely easy balance to strike -- carry on doing what they planned to do anyway, with the blessing of the UN. They couldn't give a flying <deleted> about renewable energy sources, except what they can sell to the West and do a bit of showboating at the same time.

India is one of the most vocal supporters of CBDR (common but differentiated responsibility), which broadly states that "Western countries caused global warming, so they should pay for it." Prime Minister Modi made this point very forcefully at the "historic" climate conference last December. The binding commitment now is that India gets to increase its CO2 emissions by over 60% between now and 2030, as well as expecting tens of billions of dollars of climate reparation funds.

I'm always amazed by the simplistic Kumbaya view of the world taken by the Green/Left (though I shouldn't be, any more), but if you think the Indian government is going to "adjust their Climate Change strategy" because of a heat wave this year, then you are hopelessly naive. They're winning big time, why would they change course?

Whether you like it or not (and I'm guessing you don't), annual global CO2 emissions are projected to rise by 20% between now and 2030. If you think that's going to fry the earth, well, real estate in Norilsk is fairly cheap.

[up2u2]

China is probably the most advanced Nation in Climate Change strategy. If you look at the CO₂ emissions trajectory from 10 years ago to today there is no comparison it has been dramatically reduced. The West needs to be very careful if China gets the jump on clean energy technology, which at the moment they are, then the West will be playing catch up and China will dominate the sector.

The best news for India is the El Nino Southern Oscillation has broken. The past three years have seen heatwave and drought conditions in many areas causing thousands to die and unsustainable economic losses. You are always going to struggle getting sensible decisions from a conservative Right Wing government like Modi. A little like the US Republican Party they are always going to side with the Corporates that fund them. It is why convention like Paris are so important because it brings face to face pressure to make better decisions.

In the end the science wins through.

[RickBradford]

It is why convention like Paris are so important because it brings face to face pressure to make better decisions.

Agreed. The pressure that the virtue signallers of the UN put on themselves to get an agreement at any cost in Paris, has given all the big developing countries -- China and India, of course, but also Russia, Indonesia and Brazil -- a free hand to use as much fossil fuel as they please for the next 15 years, which will benefit their own citizens enormously.

[DrTuner]

If you think that's going to fry the earth, well, real estate in Norilsk is fairly cheap.

So is anything above the arctic circle in the Nordic countries. But you'll need a 15-20 degree rise, not a measly degree or two.

[up2u2]

If you think that's going to fry the earth, well, real estate in Norilsk is fairly cheap.

So is anything above the arctic circle in the Nordic countries. But you'll need a 15-20 degree rise, not a measly degree or two.

The Permian Extinction or The Great Dying saw Global surface temperatures rise by +8^Oc. 96% of all living creatures were wiped out. At +2^Oc the Earth is 25% the way there.

[RickBradford]

If you think that's going to fry the earth, well, real estate in Norilsk is fairly cheap.

So is anything above the arctic circle in the Nordic countries. But you'll need a 15-20 degree rise, not a measly degree or two.

The Permian Extinction or The Great Dying saw Global surface temperatures rise by +8^Oc. 96% of all living creatures were wiped out. At +2^Oc the Earth is 25% the way there.

Gee, I'm surprised that Greenpeace hasn't used that in one of their press releases - it's the kind of non-sequitur they're fond of.

[thaibeachlovers]

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.

You don't have to be in much of a hurry. Coral is going to be around for a long.... long.... time...

Coral first appeared about 550 million years ago or so..... when atmospheric CO2 levels were in the thousands of ppm.

For most of the history of coral.....CO2 levels in the atmosphere were much higher than now... . Coral survived it.. and spread around the world with the higher CO2 levels..

Coral has survived ice ages, times so cold the continents were almost totally covered in ice. Coral has survived periods when it was so warm there was no ice at all on the planet..

Coral survived the Permian Mass Extinction, the great Siberian Traps Eruptions....... Coral survived the great Chicxulub Asteroid Impact Event.. Coral has survived abrupt climate change of as much as ten degrees C up or down in as little as a decade over the past 550 million years.... It certainly survived the last Glacial Period, it survived the Holocene Climatic Optimum Warming... (much warmer than now)... survived the following cooling,,, survived the Minoan Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age...

Coral survived the very fast sea level rise of about 35mm - 60mm per year... beginning about 22,000 years ago to 8,000 years ago following the last Glacial Period. Sea level rise today is nothing like that.... now it's only about 3mm per year.

But now.. for some reason... some people want to scare us into believing that 400ppm CO2, and 0.85 C increase over a 132 year period (1880 - 2012 I.P.C.C.), as we come out of the Little Ice Age represents some kind of threat to coral.

If our little 400ppm CO2 level and 0.85 degree increase over 132 years is some kind of threat to coral... then all those previous times would have killed it all off already and there wouldn't be any coral today. The fact is.... it can let a whole lot warmer.. or a whole lot colder.... at fast or slow rates with a lot higher CO2... and coral will still be around....

Just thirty miles from where I live.. you can break various types of fossil coral out of the quarry rock from when my area was a shallow tropical sea.. 350 million years ago.

Coral ain't about to go extinct... And Global (Gore Bull) Warming/Climate Change Alarmists are suffering from delusional paranoia...

The argument against this point is so obvious that I can't believe it needs to be stated. Yes, Coral first evolved in a time when CO2 levels were higher. But now it's adapted to much lover levels. A drastic change in CO2 levels means Corals don't have time to adapt. Oh, maybe a few will. And in 100,000 or a million years coral may make a comeback.But for the present, when it goes it won't go alone but take with it the millions of species that have adapted to life on it.

Ancient corals and other life forms were able to adapt to high carbon dioxide concentrations because they have had millions of years to react to slower, natural climate change. Monckton ignores the vast difference in the rate of these changes compared to the present rate; he incorrectly argues that the present rapid increase in carbon dioxide is harmless. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Press_Release.pdf

So, according to the "humans did it theory" it took billions of people decades to reach this point. Just how is imposing taxes and building a few windmills going to reverse it when China and India continue to breed past the billion and pollute without end?

Species have been killed off ever since life evolved. Who said coral should be the exception, and come to it, why do humans think they will survive, while breeding themselves into extinction?

[up2u2]

So, according to the "humans did it theory" it took billions of people decades to reach this point. Just how is imposing taxes and building a few windmills going to reverse it when China and India continue to breed past the billion and pollute without end?

Species have been killed off ever since life evolved. Who said coral should be the exception, and come to it, why do humans think they will survive, while breeding themselves into extinction?

Yes just decades to pollute the atmosphere with CO₂ by burning Fossil Fuels that if the Earth proceeded along the natural Carbon Cycle would take between 5,000 to 21,000 (glaciation rate will dictate time frame) years to accumulate. Given that modern day 'civilised' Humans have only existed over the past 6000 years it is possible given 5,000 to 21,000 years we could survive a mass extinction. To plonk modern humans right into the beginning of the Permian Mass Extinction (+8^Oc) would be un-survivable as a species. It would not be an extinction from natural progression it would actually be a swift extinction of our own doing.

A Carbon Tax is simply a 'price signal' to the market that restricts the economic profitability of conducting a tertian activity. It doesn't generate any Tax revenue it is an artificial impediment. It also creates a launching pad for new technologies to gradually find a niche in the market place.

It would be pointless to build windmills. They are actually used to grind grain into flour. So they will reverse nothing.

If the Oceans continue to warm Coral and Coral Reefs will become extinct. However the Coral larvae that construct Coral reefs may survive in the Oceans and in a few million years the conditions may make it possible for the larvae to recolonise and establish Coral Reefs as we know them today. The Coral larvae have done this over 500M years in the past. Even our ancient mitochondrial ancestors survived the Permian Mass Extinction but they had hundreds of thousands of years to evolve and adapt to able to survive at oxygen levels that of being on top of Mount Everest without dying. Place any of us or our great great grandchildren on top of Everest they will simply perish within 15 minutes.

[RickBradford]

^^

This really is some of the most aggravated and bigoted nonsense it is possible to imagine.

'civilised' Humans have only existed over the past 6000 years.

Perhaps you don't consider the Australian aborigines to be civilised humans, as they colonised the continent almost 50,000 years ago, along with their rich culture which we spend a lot of time honouring these days. The famous Lascaux cave paintings go back 17,000 years. Agriculture is 12,000 years old. Or do you subscribe to the Catholic view that the earth was created in 4004BC?

A Carbon Tax is ... an artificial impediment. It also creates a launching pad for new technologies...

Try explaining to an economist how a tax on anything, any "impediment" to doing business, creates "a launching pad for new technologies" and you will be laughed out of the building.

Place any of us or our great great grandchildren on top of Everest they will simply perish within 15 minutes.

Would you like to tell us what that has to do with global warming?

And what, pray, is a "tertian activity"? It sounds like something out of Bucky O'Hare and the Toad Wars.

Edited June 3, 2016 by RickBradford

[up2u2]

^^

This really is some of the most aggravated and bigoted nonsense it is possible to imagine.

'civilised' Humans have only existed over the past 6000 years.

Perhaps you don't consider the Australian aborigines to be civilised humans, as they colonised the continent almost 50,000 years ago, along with their rich culture which we spend a lot of time honouring these days. The famous Lascaux cave paintings go back 17,000 years. Agriculture is 12,000 years old. Or do you subscribe to the Catholic view that the earth was created in 4004BC?

A Carbon Tax is ... an artificial impediment. It also creates a launching pad for new technologies...

Try explaining to an economist how a tax on anything, any "impediment" to doing business, creates "a launching pad for new technologies" and you will be laughed out of the building.

Place any of us or our great great grandchildren on top of Everest they will simply perish within 15 minutes.

Would you like to tell us what that has to do with global warming?

And what, pray, is a "tertian activity"? It sounds like something out of Bucky O'Hare and the Toad Wars.

tertian is actually a type of Malaria.

Typo 'certain' not 'tertian'

[RickBradford]

^^^

And the Aborigines, with their 50,000 year history.

Civilised human beings, in your opinion, or not?

[arjunadawn]

Civilized people have been around for "6000 years" is a specific statement, precise, but so incredibly wrong it's foolish. furthermore. Without agreeing to 'civilized,' it's useless as intended.

But let's start with 4000BP. The temp has been consistently rising for 12500 years. This is what enabled the rebuilding of civilizations by survivors and alphabets REemerging.

In fact, temps have been steadily rising since the end of the younger dryas, as it has always done cyclically.

[RickBradford]

Civilized people have been around for "6000 years" is a specific statement, precise, but so incredibly wrong it's foolish.

Foolish, yes, but also profoundly bigoted against the rich and diverse cultures which came before ours and without whose developing awareness we would not have reached our present state.

Leftists always remind me of someone sitting at the end of a branch, placidly sawing it off at the base where it meets the trunk. It's like nothing of consequence happened before they were born, in fact it was all useless and evil, and needs to be discarded, in favour of a Leftist Year Zero, leading to utopia and New Soviet Person.

They'll still be busy virtue signalling about a Carbon Tax (and transgender bathrooms) when Isis sticks a nuke on us.

[boomerangutang]

Come on folks, let's not squabble about what the word 'civilized' means. It's an imprecise word. One could say it dates to when humans first farmed and/or built villages larger than 3 or 4 families. Some could even argue that human have not yet become civilized. Cutting off heads of others who don't share the same belief system, or putting tiger kits in freezers, ....is that civilized?

A big reason why GW (yes, I still use the older term) is important is in relation to time. People have become so adapted to micro-habitats (desert-dwellers or those who live on little boats in marshes, for example). that a slight change in conditions can have big effects.

So, we're not so much concerned about climate fluctuations from past eons. The climate debate relates to what's going on now and in the near future.

[up2u2]

Civilized people have been around for "6000 years" is a specific statement, precise, but so incredibly wrong it's foolish. furthermore. Without agreeing to 'civilized,' it's useless as intended.

But let's start with 4000BP. The temp has been consistently rising for 12500 years. This is what enabled the rebuilding of civilizations by survivors and alphabets REemerging.

In fact, temps have been steadily rising since the end of the younger dryas, as it has always done cyclically.

So back too 'this science is 100% accurate' but 'all this science is not' strategy.

Your science is wrong anyway but this has been explained to you 10 times.

[up2u2]

Civilized people have been around for "6000 years" is a specific statement, precise, but so incredibly wrong it's foolish.

Foolish, yes, but also profoundly bigoted against the rich and diverse cultures which came before ours and without whose developing awareness we would not have reached our present state.

Leftists always remind me of someone sitting at the end of a branch, placidly sawing it off at the base where it meets the trunk. It's like nothing of consequence happened before they were born, in fact it was all useless and evil, and needs to be discarded, in favour of a Leftist Year Zero, leading to utopia and New Soviet Person.

They'll still be busy virtue signalling about a Carbon Tax (and transgender bathrooms) when Isis sticks a nuke on us.

Your argument gets a little bizarre after a while. Now back to the science. You know the stuff you want to keep a thousand miles away from.

[RickBradford]

Now back to the science.

The science part of global warming, regrettably, is irrelevant, as several UN and EU bigwigs have made quite clear. It wouldn't matter to them if a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere led to a 1C increase or a 3C increase in global temperature. Apparatchiks such as Christina 'Tinkerbell' Figueres, Ottmar Edenhofer, Hans Joachim Schnellnhuber and Connie Hedegaard have been quite open in stating that it is the politics alone that is important.

And finally, after the "historic" Paris Agreement, the politics is settled and bound in law. All the big developing nations such as China, India, Russia, Brazil and Indonesia get to burn as much fossil fuel as they like, leaving the West to self-flagellate and cover the landscape with massively subsidised windmills.

A lousy deal whether you believe in the perils of global warming or not.

[up2u2]

Now back to the science.

The science part of global warming, regrettably, is irrelevant, as several UN and EU bigwigs have made quite clear. It wouldn't matter to them if a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere led to a 1C increase or a 3C increase in global temperature. Apparatchiks such as Christina 'Tinkerbell' Figueres, Ottmar Edenhofer, Hans Joachim Schnellnhuber and Connie Hedegaard have been quite open in stating that it is the politics alone that is important.

And finally, after the "historic" Paris Agreement, the politics is settled and bound in law. All the big developing nations such as China, India, Russia, Brazil and Indonesia get to burn as much fossil fuel as they like, leaving the West to self-flagellate and cover the landscape with massively subsidised windmills.

A lousy deal whether you believe in the perils of global warming or not.

Yep not much science there lol

[NumbNut]

Now back to the science.

The science part of global warming, regrettably, is irrelevant, as several UN and EU bigwigs have made quite clear. It wouldn't matter to them if a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere led to a 1C increase or a 3C increase in global temperature. Apparatchiks such as Christina 'Tinkerbell' Figueres, Ottmar Edenhofer, Hans Joachim Schnellnhuber and Connie Hedegaard have been quite open in stating that it is the politics alone that is important.

And finally, after the "historic" Paris Agreement, the politics is settled and bound in law. All the big developing nations such as China, India, Russia, Brazil and Indonesia get to burn as much fossil fuel as they like, leaving the West to self-flagellate and cover the landscape with massively subsidised windmills.

A lousy deal whether you believe in the perils of global warming or not.

Yep not much science there lol

lol

[DrTuner]

China is probably the most advanced Nation in Climate Change strategy.

They are indeed, that one child policy has done a lot to curb emissions. Other honorable mentions go to Mao, Hitler, Stalin, etc. I find it very strange that nobody is addressing the root of the problem, overpopulation. As long as there are humans they'll pillage what ever resources are available, the more there are, the quicker the resources are depleted.

I think Stephen Hawkins has it right, the only hope is to vacate the planet and find a fresh one to scavenge: http://bigthink.com/dangerous-ideas/5-stephen-hawkings-warning-abandon-earth-or-face-extinction

[up2u2]

China is probably the most advanced Nation in Climate Change strategy.

They are indeed, that one child policy has done a lot to curb emissions. Other honorable mentions go to Mao, Hitler, Stalin, etc. I find it very strange that nobody is addressing the root of the problem, overpopulation. As long as there are humans they'll pillage what ever resources are available, the more there are, the quicker the resources are depleted.

I think Stephen Hawkins has it right, the only hope is to vacate the planet and find a fresh one to scavenge: http://bigthink.com/dangerous-ideas/5-stephen-hawkings-warning-abandon-earth-or-face-extinction

The 'one child' policy probably did slow the population growth. Unsustainable though. The root of the problem is actually using Fossil Fuels to generate power. It pollutes the atmosphere. Greed will pillage whatever resources are available, the more there are the quicker the profits.

Hawkins is correct and you can ignore global warming provided you can vacate the planet within the next 100 years or possibly less. If we continue to pollute the planet with CO₂ time is not on our species side.

[Catoni]

rapidly-warming planet triggered by human emissions.

What is the UN suggesting ? A cull ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Catoni]

If you think that's going to fry the earth, well, real estate in Norilsk is fairly cheap.

So is anything above the arctic circle in the Nordic countries. But you'll need a 15-20 degree rise, not a measly degree or two.

The Permian Extinction or The Great Dying saw Global surface temperatures rise by +8^Oc. 96% of all living creatures were wiped out. At +2^Oc the Earth is 25% the way there.

It was the massive Siberian Traps Eruptions Flood Basalt event.. that lasted for a million years. It may have been caused by a massive asteroid impact... Acid rain lasting hundreds of thousands of years.... and Global ozone collapse.

The amount of sulfur dioxide released was unimaginable... When rain fell.... for thousands, tens of thousands... hundreds of thousands of years... it had the acidity level of undiluted lemon juice. All that acidic rain.... for all those years.. ended up in the rivers and lakes and the ocean.... and changed everything on Earth...

[Catoni]

^^^

And the Aborigines, with their 50,000 year history.

Civilised human beings, in your opinion, or not?

Civilization began, when our hunter-gatherer ancestors settled down and started growing crops, and building villages and created the first writing. It was during a period much warmer than now.

This settling down to farm happened during the Holocene Climate Optimum Warm Period, roughly 9,000 to 5,000 years before today. The Sahara Desert area was green and had lakes and rivers during that time... and the dry regions of central Asia were also greener and wetter.. The change happened very fast.. the transitions into and out of this wet period occurred within decades, not millennia as previously thought. Much faster change than what we are seeing today as we continue to come out of the Little Ice ge.

"Abrupt Climate Changes Revisited: How Serious and How Likely?". USGCRP Seminar, 23 February 1998. Retrieved May 18, 2005.

[Catoni]

Yes just decades to pollute the atmosphere with CO₂ by burning Fossil Fuels that if the Earth proceeded along the natural Carbon Cycle would take between 5,000 to 21,000 (glaciation rate will dictate time frame) years to accumulate. Given that modern day 'civilised' Humans have only existed over the past 6000 years it is possible given 5,000 to 21,000 years we could survive a mass extinction. To plonk modern humans right into the beginning of the Permian Mass Extinction (+8^Oc) would be un-survivable as a species. It would not be an extinction from natural progression it would actually be a swift extinction of our own doing.

A Carbon Tax is simply a 'price signal' to the market that restricts the economic profitability of conducting a tertian activity. It doesn't generate any Tax revenue it is an artificial impediment. It also creates a launching pad for new technologies to gradually find a niche in the market place.

It would be pointless to build windmills. They are actually used to grind grain into flour. So they will reverse nothing.

If the Oceans continue to warm Coral and Coral Reefs will become extinct. However the Coral larvae that construct Coral reefs may survive in the Oceans and in a few million years the conditions may make it possible for the larvae to recolonise and establish Coral Reefs as we know them today. The Coral larvae have done this over 500M years in the past. Even our ancient mitochondrial ancestors survived the Permian Mass Extinction but they had hundreds of thousands of years to evolve and adapt to able to survive at oxygen levels that of being on top of Mount Everest without dying. Place any of us or our great great grandchildren on top of Everest they will simply perish within 15 minutes.

What level of atmospheric CO2 would be acceptable in your opinion? 400 ppm ? 300ppm ? 200 ppm? 75 ppm ? 50 ppm ?

If it was possible to bring the level of CO2 down to 20 ppm or even 10 ppm... should we do that ? ?

[RickBradford]

If it was possible to bring the level of CO2 down to 20 ppm or even 10 ppm... should we do that ? ?

^^

Hardly. Plants can't survive at all under about 150ppm. That's why greenhouses pump CO2 in up to 1000ppm or more -- the plants love it.

We're only at 400ppm today, but already the benefits are being felt.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries has just published a study titled "Greening of the Earth and its Drivers" in the journal Nature Climate Change showing significant greening of a quarter to one-half of the Earth's vegetated lands using data from the NASA-MODIS and NOAA-AVHRR satellite sensors of the past 33 years.

http://phys.org/news/2016-04-co2-fertilization-greening-earth.html#jCp

[Catoni]

You said: "Now if she went scuba diving around the very late Devonian Period when the mass extinction occurred she would have to wait 100M years through the Carboniferous Period and pretty much all the Permian Period before the Coral Reefs re-established themselves the Permian - Triassic Period mass extinction knocked them into extinction again."

So coral has gone extinct at least once before... and probably a few times at least? Really ?

Would you mind explaining how coral re-appeared after it became extinct ? ? That would be like the Dodo bird or T-Rex re-establishing themselves after going extinct...

I truly doubt that could happen. So did coral come back into existence due to some "miracle" ? ?

Are you being serious Catoni

A Coral Reef is constructed by free swimming Coral Larvae. They are little living creatures. The Carol Reefs become extinct but the Coral Larvae float about the Oceans.

The Great Barrier Reef began construction 500,000 years ago. The vast diversity of the current day Reef has been constructed and added to over the past 6,000 to 8,000 years.

Coral Bleaching occurs when the water becomes slightly warmer the Coral Larvae vacate the Reef. The Reef dies very quickly. The Reef becomes extinct.

There is no evidence of Coral Reefs for most of the 40M years of the Cambrian Period, Sulurian period 50M years, Carboniferous and Cambrian Periods 100M years, start of the Triassic Period 20M years, beginning of the Jurassic Period 10M years and mid Cretaceous Period 40M years there were no Coral Reefs on Earth. The Reefs were all rendered extinct from Mass Extinctions.

Did you get this 'Coral Reefs survived Mass Extinctions' from the dipshit Monkton? The man's a total lying deceitful fool.

Coral reefs are very much the 'canary in the coal mine'. If the Canary starts getting a little unsteady on the perch you know you have some serious problems going on.

How is it that we have fossil coral reefs 350 million years old 25 miles from where I live... (Port Colborne quarries) with many types of coral ? ? ?

Did the high CO2 levels back then... (THOUSANDS OF PPM..) hurt the coral ? ? Did the last several Glacial Period maximums kill them off ?

Did past warm periods like the Holocene Climate Optimum Warm Period... the Minoan Warm Period... the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period also kill off the coral reefs ? ?

Where was the Great Barrier Reef during the last Glacial maximum 25,000 years ago when the sea level was more than 300 feet lower ? ?

I think if you are truly paranoid about a bit of warming and little CO2 rise since the end of the Little Ice Age circa 1850,.... perhaps you should see your doctor for a counselling referral or some medication to calm you a bit. Being worried and alarmed so much must make it difficult to get to sleep at night..

Best wishes to you... .

[Catoni]

If it was possible to bring the level of CO2 down to 20 ppm or even 10 ppm... should we do that ? ?

^^

Hardly. Plants can't survive at all under about 150ppm. That's why greenhouses pump CO2 in up to 1000ppm or more -- the plants love it.

We're only at 400ppm today, but already the benefits are being felt.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries has just published a study titled "Greening of the Earth and its Drivers" in the journal Nature Climate Change showing significant greening of a quarter to one-half of the Earth's vegetated lands using data from the NASA-MODIS and NOAA-AVHRR satellite sensors of the past 33 years.

http://phys.org/news/2016-04-co2-fertilization-greening-earth.html#jCp

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

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

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

[RickBradford]

If it was possible to bring the level of CO2 down to 20 ppm or even 10 ppm... should we do that ? ?

^^

Hardly. Plants can't survive at all under about 150ppm. That's why greenhouses pump CO2 in up to 1000ppm or more -- the plants love it.

We're only at 400ppm today, but already the benefits are being felt.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries has just published a study titled "Greening of the Earth and its Drivers" in the journal Nature Climate Change showing significant greening of a quarter to one-half of the Earth's vegetated lands using data from the NASA-MODIS and NOAA-AVHRR satellite sensors of the past 33 years.

http://phys.org/news/2016-04-co2-fertilization-greening-earth.html#jCp

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

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

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

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

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

[up2u2]

How is it that we have fossil coral reefs 350 million years old 25 miles from where I live... (Port Colborne quarries) with many types of coral ? ? ?

Did the high CO2 levels back then... (THOUSANDS OF PPM..) hurt the coral ? ? Did the last several Glacial Period maximums kill them off ?

Did past warm periods like the Holocene Climate Optimum Warm Period... the Minoan Warm Period... the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period also kill off the coral reefs ? ?

Where was the Great Barrier Reef during the last Glacial maximum 25,000 years ago when the sea level was more than 300 feet lower ? ?

I think if you are truly paranoid about a bit of warming and little CO2 rise since the end of the Little Ice Age circa 1850,.... perhaps you should see your doctor for a counselling referral or some medication to calm you a bit. Being worried and alarmed so much must make it difficult to get to sleep at night..

Best wishes to you... .

Good grief Catoni. Port Colbourne Quarries just up Second Concessions Road, right. It's a bloody QUARRY!!! Dead Coral Extinct Coral it is no more or any longer. If it has been dated to 350M years ago (when it was alive) it would have formed during the Devonian Period and it would have been extinct after the Late Devonian Extinction. Not Global Warming but Global Cooling killed all the Coral Reefs.

Holocene, Minoan, Roman and Medieval warm periods. No they were only short and regional only not global.

The last Glaciation was 10K years ago not 25K. The Great Barrier Reef was still growing. It has been forming over the last 500K years.

Little Ice Age was regional not global. Didn't effect Global Temperatures to any great extent.