There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[rushmc 18]

And still no one refutes the info

[gowlerk 1,913]

23 minutes ago, rushmc said:

Like a body paying any attention at all did not know this?

 

https://www.westernjournal.com/media-hysteria-climate-change-heat-records-huge-data-manipulation/

 

“Media Hysteria: Climate Change ‘Heat Records’ Are a Huge Data Manipulation”

Yes Marc. It must be true because it's published on one of your favourite right wing opinion sites. In the meantime........glaciers are melting, air is warming, sea is rising, and CO2 concentrations are increasing. All those things are facts. The "Western Journal" is opinion.

[kallend 1,623]

25 minutes ago, rushmc said:

westernjournal.com

You just can't help yourself, can you?

[kallend 1,623]

26 minutes ago, rushmc said:

And still no one refutes the info

The "info" you quote is garbage.

If you want real data, I suggest you go to the National Academies, where real science is reported.

[gowlerk 1,913]

9 minutes ago, kallend said:

If you want real data, I suggest you go to the National Academies, where real science is reported.

Just for Marc, I have taken the time to find a link to where real science is reported.

http://sites.nationalacademies.org/sites/climate/sites_190724

You're welcome.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

1 hour ago, rushmc said:

Like a body paying any attention at all did not know this?

 

https://www.westernjournal.com/media-hysteria-climate-change-heat-records-huge-data-manipulation/

 

“Media Hysteria: Climate Change ‘Heat Records’ Are a Huge Data Manipulation”

That is an Op-Ed by The Heartland Institute and the International Climate Science Coalition. Both are known denier groups who tend to look for confirmation of their own bias.

[DJL 232]

4 hours ago, rushmc said:

And still no one refutes the info

Speaking of refuting things you know that Trump is the President with his appointees in place and even two years in those individuals with all of the information, research grants, secret behind the scenes access have not been able to refute the claims that the increase in the rate of change in the climate is due to human activity.

Can you offer an explanation to this?

[Phil1111 911]

3 minutes ago, DJL said:

Speaking of refuting things you know that Trump is the President with his appointees in place and even two years in those individuals with all of the information, research grants, secret behind the scenes access have not been able to refute the claims that the increase in the rate of change in the climate is due to human activity.

Can you offer an explanation to this?

How about this explanation?

Documents detail multimillion-dollar ties involving EPA official, secretive industry group

"The nation’s biggest coal-burning power companies paid a top lobbying firm millions of dollars to fight a wide range of Obama-era environmental rules, documents obtained by POLITICO reveal — shortly before one of the firm’s partners became President Donald Trump’s top air pollution regulator. "

There are reasons why there are so many leaks from the trump gangster regime. Corruption, the swamp, insider profiteering, racketeering, etc. Take your pick.

Back to Marc. To answer the question.

[billvon 2,400]

5 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

That is an Op-Ed by The Heartland Institute and the International Climate Science Coalition. Both are known denier groups who tend to look for confirmation of their own bias.

 . . . and it was posted by the same guy who, 13 years ago, claimed that global warming ended in 1998.

[DJL 232]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

 . . . and it was posted by the same guy who, 13 years ago, claimed that global warming ended in 1998.

If there's any more proof that this like talking to a brick wall...

[richravizza 25]

 

On 2/21/2019 at 1:47 PM, billvon said:

 . . . and it was posted by the same guy who, 13 years ago, claimed that global warming ended in 1998.

or,Was that James Hansen or Al Gore you were refering to that said, the Poles would be ice free and Manhattan under water.

 

On 2/21/2019 at 8:40 AM, SkyDekker said:

That is an Op-Ed by The Heartland Institute and the International Climate Science Coalition. Both are known denier groups who tend to look for confirmation of their own bias.

I really don't think either of those "denier sights" actually deny AGW,just the amount of excellerated warming that is atributted to AGW.

They are also sceptical of AGW theroies predictions compared to empirical data, that said.

The reason  for the my post was not to defend those site,but to elevate the debate away from the typical hysteria and denial.

  

 

 

Edited February 24, 2019 by richravizza
specific times 32;25

[jakee 1,255]

1 hour ago, richravizza said:

or,Was that James Hansen or Al Gore you were refering to that said, the Poles would be ice free and Manhattan under water.

By when?

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, richravizza said:

 

I really don't think either of those "denier sights" actually deny AGW,just the amount of excellerated warming that is atributted to AGW.

They are also sceptical of AGW theroies predictions compared to empirical data, that said.

 

The official position of the Heartland Institute is that "most scientists do not believe human greenhouse gas emissions are a proven threat to the environment or to human well-being, despite a barrage of propaganda insisting otherwise coming from the environmental movement and echoed by its sycophants in the mainstream media."

Keep in mind that there are several denier positions:

1) The climate is not changing

2) OK the climate is changing but we have nothing to do with it

3) OK we might have something to do with it but it's minor and will benefit us, not harm us

The Heartland Institute, like most denial organizations, jumps back and forth between those positions as is politically expedient.

Also note that this is nothing new.  They were heavily funded by the tobacco industry in the 1990's to deny the health effects of smoking.  Today they are heavily funded by oil industries to deny climate change.  A leaked document in 2012 revealed that they funnel millions from oil companies to paid deniers like James Watts (author of the WattsUpWithThat denier blog.)

[SkyDekker 1,123]

20 hours ago, richravizza said:

I really don't think either of those "denier sights" actually deny AGW,

You would really be wrong.

[Phil1111 911]

Australia breaks weather records with hottest ever summer

"The 2018-19 summer, which produced near 50C days and topped temperature highs across the country, has officially exceeded the previous record set in 2012-13, which was 1.28C above what is considered normal. Climate analysts say it falls into a pattern of human-induced global warming.

January alone had already been confirmed as the hottest month ever recorded in Australia, with a mean temperature across the nation of 30.8C, which was 2.9C above the average for January temperatures (calculated between 1961–1990) of 27.9C."

Climate change will hit Australia harder than rest of world, study shows, Jan 26,2015

"Science agency the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology predict temperature rises of up to 5.1c in Australia by 2090 in their most comprehensive forecast yet "

[mr2mk1g 10]

18 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Australia breaks weather records with hottest ever summer

Cue tweet from Trump dismissing it as fake news because it's winter right now.

 

Edited March 1, 2019 by mr2mk1g

[DJL 232]

58 minutes ago, mr2mk1g said:

Australia breaks weather records with hottest ever summer

Cue tweet from Trump dismissing it as fake news because it's winter right now.

You're missing the update on denial: "Oh, so it's hot in Australia in the summer? Next you're going to say it's cold in LA: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-cold-february-20190228-story.html "

[AlanS 1]

This climate model is rather disturbing and suggests we could be closer to a runaway feedback loop than previously thought. 

 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/striking-study-finds-a-climate-tipping-point-in-clouds/

The TL;DR; is if CO2 levels get above 1400 ppm (which is more than 100 years away if we do nothing), the already assumed 4-degree Celsius increase could add another 8-degrees.   For the Fahrenheit to Celcius conversion that is a 50-degree Farenhite increase.

 

This is a pretty good video describing the last time the Globe Warmed.  We are increasing CO2 levels faster now then this timeframe.

 

 

 

 

 

[billvon 2,400]

9 hours ago, AlanS said:

This climate model is rather disturbing and suggests we could be closer to a runaway feedback loop than previously thought. 

 

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/striking-study-finds-a-climate-tipping-point-in-clouds/

The TL;DR; is if CO2 levels get above 1400 ppm (which is more than 100 years away if we do nothing), the already assumed 4-degree Celsius increase could add another 8-degrees.   For the Fahrenheit to Celcius conversion that is a 50-degree Farenhite increase.

An 8C rise is equivalent to a 14F rise in temperature.

[kallend 1,623]

According to NOAA, the last 12 months have been the wettest March-to-February period on record for the 48 contiguous US states, with a nationally averaged 35.67” of precipitation. 

So now rain clouds have joined in the so-called "climate change" conspiracy, along with NASA, scientists, coral polyps, migrating birds, the Pentagon, Arctic ice, glaciers, and Billvon.

Edited March 10, 2019 by kallend

[kallend 1,623]

On 3/4/2019 at 11:13 AM, billvon said:

An 8C rise is equivalent to a 14F rise in temperature.

[kallend 1,623]

Apparently plants have joined scientists, glaciers, sea ice, and coral in this so-called "climate change" hoax.

https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/09/13/food-nutrients-carbon-dioxide-000511?fbclid=IwAR3ZAal4POnnkqLP_aSLU9M5t1S2MNek_HJIDtDwYqRnnAjLvUQp31sB5Xw

</sarcasm>

[billvon 2,400]

One of the climate change denier memes over the past few years has been "CO2 makes plants grow BETTER!  So more food for us!  Stupid alarmists."

And it turns out that. . . that might not really be correct, oddly enough.

=============================================

Rising CO2 Is Reducing The Nutritional Value Of Our Food

Fiona McMillan / Science / FORBES

Currently, around 815 million people are chronically food-insecure, many of whom are malnourished. This figure — up from 777 million in 2015 — is 815 million too many, particularly in light of the fact that there is enough food in the world to feed everyone.

Difficulties in food distribution and access play a central role in this. Indeed, conflict is a major contributor to food insecurity; more than half of the chronically food-insecure people in the world live in conflict zones.

But climate change and severe weather events also limit food production. Such climate-linked food insecurity is not only a significant problem in its own right, but can also exacerbate existing conflicts and trigger new ones.

Because plant growth and development is exquisitely temperature sensitive, there are legitimate concerns that increasing global temperatures due to rising CO2 levels are going to make this worse.

Every plant has a particular genetically-determined temperature range in which it grows quite happily, but temperatures outside this range can wreak havoc on that plant’s life cycle. Thus, increases in surface temperatures in tropical and subtropical regions, such as those expected by the end of this century, are predicted to reduce rice and maize harvests by 20% to 40%.

Now, a new study published in the journal Science Advances has become the latest in an increasing number of studies to show that rising CO2 levels also threaten food security in another way: by directly decreasing the nutritional value of major crops.

.  . . .

We now know that high levels of CO2 lead to lower concentrations of important dietary micronutrients like zinc and iron in major food crops. High CO2 also has a negative effect on the nutrient value of staple crops like soy and sorghum.

Moreover, rising CO2 can also cause some food crops to produce more toxins. Around 60% of crop species produce molecules called cyanogenic glyocosides, which can break down into cyanide. This is actually not unusual, many plants produce low levels of cyanogenic glycosides as part of their metabolic processes and for fending off insects, but some plants like cassava produce a relatively high amount.  Currently, cassava is an important crop for millions, and the current levels of cyanogenic glycosides are already a problem.

In concentrated doses, cyanide is of course deadly, but chronic cyanide exposure can also lead to health problems. As such, efforts are being directed toward lowering cyanogens in staple crops like cassava. The problem is, higher CO2 appears to increase cyanogenic glycosides in cassava, thus rising CO2 may bring a risk of widespread chronic cyanide poisoning in people whose caloric intake relies heavily on the crop.

Vitamins in Rice

Meanwhile, for the two billion people in the world whose diet relies primarily on rice, rising CO2 could reduce access to adequate levels of important vitamins.

In May 24, 2018, people were busy planting rice seedlings in terraced fields in the high level terraced fields in gang Bian Township, Congjiang County, Guizhou Province,China. (Photo credit should read Luo Jinglai / Barcroft Media via Getty Images)

In the new paper, researchers in China, Japan, the US and Australia collaborated to conduct a multi-year series of free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiments. These studies took place in a rice growing region near the Yangtze River Delta in China, and in a farming region in the Ibaraki Prefecture of Japan, between Tokyo and Fukushima.

At both locations multiple varieties of rice were exposed to high levels of CO2in line with those expected by the end of the century (approx. 570ppm CO2; for comparison, we just officially passed 410ppm CO2).

Analysis confirmed declines in protein, iron and zinc, as expected. Researchers also observed declines in vitamins B1 (thiamine), B2 (riboflavin), B5 (pantothenic acid) and B9 (folate).  Though, curiously, there was an increase in vitamin E.

Why? It seems high CO2 affects the plants ability to build molecules containing nitrogen. B vitamins, which contain nitrogen, tended to decrease while nitrogen-free carbon-rich compounds, like vitamin E, increased.

As the authors explain in their paper, the reduction of rice quality due to rising CO2 “may represent a fundamental, but underappreciated, human health effect associated with anthropogenic climate change.”

=========================

 

[DJL 232]

20 minutes ago, billvon said:

Every plant has a particular genetically-determined temperature range in which it grows quite happily, but temperatures outside this range can wreak havoc on that plant’s life cycle. Thus, increases in surface temperatures in tropical and subtropical regions, such as those expected by the end of this century, are predicted to reduce rice and maize harvests by 20% to 40%.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a full redistribution of plant life around the world.  The Appalachian Mountains used to harbor foliage that was more like those seen in tropical area so that may return.  One aspect is that we'll end up with plantlife and insect life that has developed over millions of years and will be at odds with each other.  The result will definitely be die-offs and mono-culture as various regions collapse and redevelop.

[rushmc 18]

Very good article!

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/16/make-america-greater-approve-the-pccs/