[snakeoil]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... d-for-co2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The world just passed another round-numbered climate milestone. Scientists predicted it would happen this year and lo and behold, it has.

The world just passed another round-numbered climate milestone. Scientists predicted it would happen this year and lo and behold, it has.

On Tuesday, the Mauna Loa Observatory recorded its first-ever carbon dioxide reading in excess of 410 parts per million (it was 410.28 ppm in case you want the full deal). Carbon dioxide hasn’t reached that height in millions of years. It’s a new atmosphere that humanity will have to contend with, one that’s trapping more heat and causing the climate to change at a quickening rate.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ecord-high" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased at record speed last year to hit a level not seen for more than three million years, the UN has warned.

The new report has raised alarm among scientists and prompted calls for nations to consider more drastic emissions reductions at the upcoming climate negotiations in Bonn.

“Globally averaged concentrations of CO2 reached 403.3 parts per million (ppm) in 2016, up from 400.00 ppm in 2015 because of a combination of human activities and a strong El Niño event,” according to The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, the UN weather agency’s annual flagship report.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased at record speed last year to hit a level not seen for more than three million years, the UN has warned.

The new report has raised alarm among scientists and prompted calls for nations to consider more drastic emissions reductions at the upcoming climate negotiations in Bonn.

“Globally averaged concentrations of CO2 reached 403.3 parts per million (ppm) in 2016, up from 400.00 ppm in 2015 because of a combination of human activities and a strong El Niño event,” according to The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, the UN weather agency’s annual flagship report.

This acceleration occurred despite a slowdown – and perhaps even a plateauing – of emissions because El Niño intensified droughts and weakened the ability of vegetation to absorb carbon dioxide. As the planet warms, El Niños are expected to become more frequent.

http://www.who.int/globalchange/news/fs ... health/en/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; From the tropics to the arctic, both climate and weather have powerful impacts, both direct and indirect, on human life. While people adapt to the conditions in which they live, and human physiology can handle substantial variation in weather, there are limits.

Marked short-term fluctuations in weather can cause acute adverse health effects:

Extremes of both heat and cold can cause potentially fatal illnesses, e.g. heat stress or hypothermia, as well as increasing death rates from heart and respiratory diseases.
In cities, stagnant weather conditions can trap both warm air and air pollutants -- leading to smog episodes with significant health impacts.
These effects can be significant. Abnormally high temperatures in Europe in the summer of 2003 were associated with at least 27,000 more deaths than the equivalent period in previous years1 .

Other weather extremes, such as heavy rains, floods, and hurricanes, also have severe impacts on health. Approximately 600,000 deaths occurred world-wide as a result of weather-related natural disasters in the 1990s; and some 95% of these were in poor countries. Some examples:

In October 1999, a cyclone in Orissa, India, caused 10,000 deaths. The total number of people affected was estimated at 10-15 million;
In December 1999, floods in and around Caracas, Venezuela, killed approximately 30,000 people, many in shanty towns on exposed slopes.

From the tropics to the arctic, both climate and weather have powerful impacts, both direct and indirect, on human life. While people adapt to the conditions in which they live, and human physiology can handle substantial variation in weather, there are limits.

Marked short-term fluctuations in weather can cause acute adverse health effects:

Extremes of both heat and cold can cause potentially fatal illnesses, e.g. heat stress or hypothermia, as well as increasing death rates from heart and respiratory diseases.
In cities, stagnant weather conditions can trap both warm air and air pollutants -- leading to smog episodes with significant health impacts.
These effects can be significant. Abnormally high temperatures in Europe in the summer of 2003 were associated with at least 27,000 more deaths than the equivalent period in previous years1 .

Other weather extremes, such as heavy rains, floods, and hurricanes, also have severe impacts on health. Approximately 600,000 deaths occurred world-wide as a result of weather-related natural disasters in the 1990s; and some 95% of these were in poor countries. Some examples:

In October 1999, a cyclone in Orissa, India, caused 10,000 deaths. The total number of people affected was estimated at 10-15 million;
In December 1999, floods in and around Caracas, Venezuela, killed approximately 30,000 people, many in shanty towns on exposed slopes.

In addition to changing weather patterns, climatic conditions affect diseases transmitted through water, and via vectors such as mosquitoes. Climate-sensitive diseases are among the largest global killers. Diarrhoea, malaria and protein-energy malnutrition alone caused more than 3.3 million deaths globally in 2002, with 29 % of these deaths occurring in the Region of Africa.

[RealJustme]

On Tuesday, the Mauna Loa Observatory recorded its first-ever carbon dioxide reading in excess of 410 parts per million

That's been debunked dude!

Just thirty miles from the observatory, Kilauea's Pu`u O`o vent sends 3.3 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. That's enough to change local CO2 concentrations without producing the kind of SO2 volumes needed to have worldwide temperature effects. Pu`u O`o has been erupting continuously since 1983. Since 2008 it has been joined by a second eruption even closer to the Observatory -- from Halema`uma`u Crater at the top of Kilauea. The U.S. NOAA openly admits to producing a CO2 record which "contains no actual data." NOAA temperature stations sited in ways that artificially inflate temperatures have been exposed over the past two years. CO2 observatories have similar flaws. Two of the five NOAA "baseline" stations which includes the Mauna Loa Observatory are downwind from erupting volcanoes. All five are subject to localized or regional CO2 sources.

An Inconvenient Truth!

[Intrepid]

Until one of you global warming hysterics can tell me WTF happened to the ice age that was supposed to have killed us all by now, and why that's different from today, I'm not really interested in any more of your blather.

[RealJustme]

Cold silence from the left.

[snakeoil]

Definitely not from the Left but...

From Wikipedia

The principal components of volcanic gases are water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur either as sulfur dioxide (SO2) (high-temperature volcanic gases) or hydrogen sulfide (H2S) (low-temperature volcanic gases), nitrogen, argon, helium, neon, methane, carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Other compounds detected in volcanic gases are oxygen (meteoric), hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen bromide, nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur hexafluoride, carbonyl sulfide, and organic compounds. Exotic trace compounds include mercury, halocarbons (including CFCs), and halogen oxide radicals.

The abundance of gases varies considerably from volcano to volcano. Water vapour is consistently the most common volcanic gas, normally comprising more than 60% of total emissions. Carbon dioxide typically accounts for 10 to 40% of emissions.[1]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... are_btn_tw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The increase of 3.3 ppm is considerably higher than both the 2.3 ppm rise of the previous 12 months and the average annual increase over the past decade of 2.08ppm. It is also well above the previous big El Niño year of 1998, when the rise was 2.7 ppm.

The study, which uses monitoring ships, aircraft and stations on the land to track emissions trends since 1750, said carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now increasing 100 times faster than at the end of the last ice age due to population growth, intensive agriculture, deforestation and industrialisation.

The last time Earth experienced similar CO2 concentration rates was during the Pliocene era (three to five million years ago), when the sea level was up to 20m higher than now.

You can't cherry-pick the science you want to believe. I can't understand how people who have no formal education in the climate sciences can disbelieve and debate those with 4-8 years or more of formal climate science education and decades of measurement and study of the climate. I challenge you to read the book "The Sixth Extinction" by Elizabeth Kolbert.

[RealJustme]

Definitely not from the Left but...

From Wikipedia

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[Intrepid]

Not a single one of the global warming hysterics can answer my simple question.

Because to try to answer it would force them to face up to their lunacy and the political agenda of the global warming hoax.

[snakeoil]

Intrepid...Please enlighten us with your credentials as a climate scientist. I have posted info from educated climate scientists.

[snakeoil]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... kend-chart" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A stormy weekend led to free electricity in Germany as wind generation reached a record, forcing power producers to pay customers the most since Christmas 2012 to use electricity. Power prices turned negative as wind output reached 39,409 megawatts on Saturday, equivalent to the output of about 40 nuclear reactors. To keep the grid supply and demand in balance, negative prices encourage producers to either shut power stations or else pay consumers to take the extra electricity off the network.

Oh, that nasty renewable energy causing such a problem.

[RealJustme]

Power prices turned negative as wind output reached 39,409 megawatts on Saturday, equivalent to the output of about 40 nuclear reactors.

LOL, the output of 40 nuclear reactors would have fried the whole network. It's stories like that which causes everyone to laugh at the whole climate hoax.

[Clownkicker]

Tool, a typical reactor operates at about 500 to 1000 megawatt capacity.

Thus, 40 reactors would operate at 20,000 to 40,000 megawatts. If anything, the "40 reactors" thing is a low figure.

The German grid handles over 150 gigawatts a year. 40,000 megawatts on a given day is not going to "fry" anything.

[Intrepid]

Snake, since you are the one posting all the global warming blather, how about YOU giving us YOUR credentials?

I'm just one person pointing out the flaws in your Ass-ertions.

But if you have time, check out a site called "What's up with that?"
It details how the oceans, which drive all climate everywhere are actually cooling.
More inconvenient facts.

[snakeoil]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Claims that the ocean has been cooling are correct. Claims that global warming has stopped are not. It is an illogical position: the climate is subject to a lot of natural variability, so the premise that changes should be ‘monotonic’ – temperatures rising in straight lines – ignores the fact that nature doesn’t work like that. This is why scientists normally discuss trends – 30 years or more – so that short term fluctuations can be seen as part of a greater pattern. (Other well-known cyclic phenomena like El Nino and La Nina play a part in these complex interactions).

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ng-rapidly" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As humans put ever more heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, the Earth heats up. These are the basics of global warming. But where does the heat go? How much extra heat is there? And how accurate are our measurements? These are questions that climate scientists ask. If we can answer these questions, it will better help us prepare for a future with a very different climate. It will also better help us predict what that future climate will be.

The most important measurement of global warming is in the oceans. In fact, “global warming” is really “ocean warming.” If you are going to measure the changing climate of the oceans, you need to have many sensors spread out across the globe that take measurements from the ocean surface to the very depths of the waters. Importantly, you need to have measurements that span decades so a long-term trend can be established.

These difficulties are tackled by oceanographers, and a significant advancement was presented in a paper just published in the journal Climate Dynamics. That paper, which I was fortunate to be involved with, looked at three different ocean temperature measurements made by three different groups. We found that regardless of whose data was used or where the data was gathered, the oceans are warming.

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/ ... ocean-heat" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Key Points

In three different data analyses, the long-term trend shows that the oceans have become warmer since 1955 (see Figure 1).
Although concentrations of greenhouse gases have risen at a relatively steady rate over the past few decades (see the Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases indicator), the rate of change in ocean heat content can vary from year to year (see Figure 1). Year-to-year changes are influenced by events such as volcanic eruptions and recurring ocean-atmosphere patterns such as El Niño.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/0310 ... al-warming" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Earth's temperature is rising, and it isn't just in the air around us. More than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions has been absorbed into the oceans that cover two-thirds of the planet's surface. Their temperature is rising, too, and it tells a story of how humans are changing the planet.

This accrued heat is "really the memory of past climate change," said Kevin Trenberth, the head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and co-author of a new paper on ocean warming.

It's not just the amount of warming that is significant—it's also the pace.

The rate at which the oceans are heating up has nearly doubled since 1992, and that heat is reaching ever deeper waters, according to a recent study. At the same time, concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been rising.

The charts that follow show how the oceans are changing and what they're telling us as a thermometer of global warming.

This will start you off but I doubt that you'll read it. As to my credentials on climate science; My education is in construction engineering. I do rely on the sturdies of scientists of other disciplines assist me as I need and to form my opinions. When I had my appendix out I did not question the person (Doctor) who had studied medical science but relied on his education in the medical sciences and his experience. When I pick up my cell phone I do not tell the maker of the phone that there is no way that cell phone will work. A person better educated than me in the sciences required to design cell phones has the education and knowledge of the sciences required to make the cell phone work.

[RealJustme]

President Trump, has called global warming a hoax. There is no man on this planet that has more resources available to him than Trump. He has nothing to gain by calling it a hoax if he felt man is changing the climate and something could be done. The ONLY ones who have something to gain are those who want vast sums of money dumped into programs to fight the hoax. After trillions of dollars are handed out across the world, in 10 years when man kind is still alive, they would claim their actions saved the planet but they still need more money to keep it safe.

[snakeoil]

I really want to reply to this post but there's no way that I can remain civil so I'll just let it go. Justme....rerea what you wrote.

[Intrepid]

There is no denying the leaders of global warming (what they started out calling it before they realized their dire predictions weren't consistent with the facts) hysteria are being driven by a political agenda.
Once you factor that in, all the data becomes invalid.

[Clownkicker]

Tool, he has the resources but he doesn't read anything. He doesn't even want his daily intelligence briefings that are spoon fed to him. Do you really think he's going to read climate science? :lol:

Trump doesn't know anything that he doesn't get from FOXnews or one of his handlers, like Bannon or Putin Facebook propaganda feeds.

He has EVERYTHING to gain by calling it a hoax. That is how he keeps his ignorant base voter happy and loyal. He feeds into their ignorance. You are the perfect example. He has you calling 98% of experts in the field "frauds" and it never even occurs to you that they actually know more about the field than Trump does. That's how clueless you are. Somehow EVERYONE in the country is a liar except Trump, even though it has been demonstrated hundreds of times that he's a liar. So you keep supporting the oil and coal companies despite the disaster brought on by continued use of fossil fuels.

You have just seen a mild preview of our future with three killer hurricanes this fall. Despite your ringside seat to environmental disaster, somehow you are still deluding yourself into believing everything is normal and nothing needs to change. So you want to give tax breaks to Trump and the mega-rich rather than repair bridges, highways, infrastructure, provide minimum health care to your fellow citizens, or even pay down some of the debt that you believe is so terrible. Instead, you are now clamoring for a "tax reform" bill that will balloon the deficit and debt after raving for eight years that that is a bad thing if "Obama does it." That's what Trump has to gain by bamboozling you, dummy.

[Clownkicker]

"There is no denying the leaders of global warming (what they started out calling it before they realized their dire predictions weren't consistent with the facts) hysteria are being driven by a political agenda."-Insipid

You're missing the point, which is the SCIENTISTS are the ones you should be paying attention to. Regardless of who's "leading" the politics involved in changing your ignorant behavior, the science would scare you if you had any intelligence at all.

You pretend to be all upset about those who might profit from a change in our behavior, but for some reason you ignore those who already DO profit from your present behaviors. That's just fine with you for some reason. They don't give a flying fuck about you, dummy. They are using your blissful and willful stupidity to get rich right now. Wake up, fer cripes sake. Your handlers are not your friends. They are looking out for themselves, not for you or the rest of the human race.

[RealJustme]

Everyone knows it's a hoax, the climate will do what it's going to do no matter how many trillions of dollars are dumped into money making schemes. It's all about slowing down the advanced countries so the other countries can catch up to make the world more fair. I'm 100% sure of that. That's why the Democrats are so hell bent on importing as many of the lowest scum they can into the United States, to make us more like them.

[snakeoil]

http://grist.org/briefly/the-trump-admi ... orecasted/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Clean Power Plan’s health benefits are better than ever, Trump’s EPA discovers.

The climate rule would prevent 4,500 premature deaths per year by 2030, according to a recent study by the EPA. President Donald Trump still plans to repeal it, though.

The Clean Power Plan, finalized by the Obama administration in 2015, targets U.S. coal-fired power plants in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The rule encourages a shift away from coal toward cleaner power sources like natural gas, wind, and solar.

The plan would decrease the United States’ contribution to climate change, but that’s not all.

Coal-fired power plants emit high levels of harmful pollutants, which are linked to a host of health conditions including heart disease and lung cancer. Plants that rely on natural gas and renewables produce fewer of those pollutants.

That’s why the Obama administration projected the rule could save 1,500 to 3,600 lives every year. But the Trump administration’s more recent analysis now puts that number much higher.

[johnforbes]

I remember when the EPA was being formed, and I naively thought that young idealistic scientists would staff and run it.

What happened, though, was predictable in D.C.

It was headed by political appointees, not scientists, and it was staffed by the pals of politicians looking to burrow into the bureaucracy.

Bear in mind, I actually wanted the EPA to improve the environment, but it became yet another bureaucracy dominated by ideology rather than science.