Study Confirms Climate Models are Getting Future Warming Projections Right

And your source is still 8 years old.

Meanwhile the article from the OP was released in the last month.

 

....and yours is 5 without much being fixed.

 

Tell me about it.

 

That's not an answer.

 

Far from it
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018...h-warns-planet-cant-cope-with-overpopulation/

 

Yes, burning the Amazon so it can be used as farmland produces lots of CO2.
India, minimum daily wage between $2.46 and $12
Brazil, $262 per month.
South Africa, $1.39 per hour.

 

So what ???

How much CO2 is produced in Brazil by burning the forests ???

 

Yes it is. As person that's promoting yet another climate hoax, I'm sure you are at least aquainted with the legions of doomsayers that have preceeded you.

 

Even though recent, that is old news and failed news. You may not remember the 'population explosion' fear mongering of the past that failed to materialize.

 

I am aware that none claimed humans would be extinct as the result of climate change, and certainly not by 2020.

 

I'm not aware of the acceleration of glacial melting in Iceland beginning in the mid-1800's.

Over the past 60 to 100 years, glaciers worldwide have tended to retreat. Alpine glaciers, which are typically smaller and less stable to begin with, seem particularly susceptible to retreat. Over 90 percent of the measured alpine glaciers in the world are retreating, in almost every major glaciated region. The causes of this widespread retreat are varied, but the underlying primary causes are a warming climate and the effects of increased soot and dust in areas of higher agricultural and industrial activity.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/life-glacier.html

As noted earlier that's only part of the picture. If rate of snow accumulation < rate of melting/ablation, then the glacier retreats. The global rise in average atmospheric & sea temperatures has accelerated glacial retreat because it's not allowing time for snow to accumulate & turn to compact/dense ice. So the rate of melting/ablation has far exceeded the effects of snow accumulation.

Oh...so you now admit that glaciers MELT! Good, you're making progress. But the underside is not where the melt occurs.

Glacier retreat, melt, and ablation result from increasing temperature, evaporation, and wind scouring.

Movement along the underside of a glacier is slower than movement at the top due to the friction created as it slides along the ground's surface, and in some cases where the base of the glacier is very cold, the movement at the bottom can be a tiny fraction of the speed of flow at the surface.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/questions/move.html

Iceland's minister of fisheries (Katrín Gunnarsdótti) and its fishermen would disagree with you...

Climate change ‘harming fish stocks’
https://www.fishfarmermagazine.com/news/climate-change-harming-fish-stocks/

Climate change is impacting on the global distribution of fish stocks, Iceland’s fisheries minister has told an international conference on the state of the world’s seas and oceans.

She said only responsible, robust and flexible fisheries management was able to cope with this challenge – and Iceland has a good track record in sustainably managing its main fish stocks.

‘But fisheries management is deemed to fail unless we have healthy, clean oceans,’ she said.

‘Therefore, ocean pollution, plastic particles and acidification of the oceans – due to uptake of carbon dioxide – are deeply troubling.

--------------------------------------------------------

Iceland's Fisheries Show Environmental Stewardship Can Boost Business
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2019/12/11/iceland-fisheries-environment-sustainable

[fisherman] Asbjörnsson has seen major changes in recent years, including the disappearance last year of the capelin fish. He speculates that rising sea temperatures are at least partly to blame.

“I do believe it is,” he says, explaining that mackerel, which are warmer water fish, have come north and replaced the capelin, which is “ not necessarily good for business.”

“Even though we have the same quota, it affects the cod because capelin is the biggest food source for the cod,” he says. “And we saw that after the cod spawning, it took a month more [for the cod] to get to the same weight as the year before when the capelin was present."

Asbjörnsson says he fears more changes. The cod, he says, is moving north to cooler temperatures, away from their spawning grounds in the south of the country.

“We have less ice from the glaciers and less freshwater coming in in the spring,” he says, “and we want this salty/icy water in the spring because it's around the time when the cod is spawning and it protects the roe [eggs] from bacteria.”

He says he fears that the loss of the fresh glacial water, with all its nutritive components, would cause a gradual decline in fish stocks.

 

You are not aware of the start of the current warming period ??

Nobody is claiming that global warming does not exist. But it is snow fall patterns which cause glaciers to recede. The rate of global warming at ~ 0.03 degree C per year has nothing to do with it.

Where does the melt water from the bottom of the glaciers come from ?? It's not global warming.

Iceland fishing is not being impacted by global warming. All the article talks about is speculation. The acidification of the oceans comment is ludicrous.

 

I showed you the answer to your argument that pollution and hence global warming is caused by poor countries, then went on to show that judging by their wages they were indeed in poverty, and your only reply is "So what"

 

It is more than a threat--it is our fate.

 

Those are not poor countries. Brazil hosted the last summer Olympics. India is one of the world’s largest economies. South Africa is one of the leading countries in Africa.

Brazil and South Africa both are at 1% of global CO2 emissions and India is at 7%. China is at 27% and the US is at 15%.

 

And the reason India's economy is doing so well is because the US is using it's poverty and lack of any sort of safety standards for profit.
Show me a US factory where they pour molten iron in bare feet.

 

“In other words, Watts says the data show that global warming is due relatively more to increased urbanization than to greenhouse gases.”

https://www.foxnews.com/science/dis...d-criticism-theyre-situated-to-report-warming

In other words, Watts says anthropogenic global warming is real, and man-made, but he wants to separate out the effects of heat islands from CO2, because somehow CO2 increases, which are a hallmark of urbanization, he thinks is not the main cause of a global increase but somehow mostly local “concrete” or urbanization is.

Watts also says urbanization is “relatively more” responsible than greenhouse gases, which also means CO2 is too somewhat responsible if we buy what he says.

Still though, we are left with what is likely more local than global effects to discuss. Say, you have your rural house in the middle of two acres of concrete in summer; I guarantee it will be hotter locally than your next-door neighbor who can sit under an 80-foot oak tree that shades his house. Certainly, your concrete will reflect more to the greenhouse gases emitted mainly by the urban “jungle” than by the rural area, locally it’s more of a radiant heat, take my word for it, your neighbor will be fine.

Side note: depending upon where you live plant the fig tree next to the south-facing barn, that wall probably isn’t doing squat to global warming, but it will make one hell of a fig tree (buy a ladder) compared to those twenty feet away that freeze down because they don’t have a wall.

“look in areas that have not been affected by urbanization to find the true signal” (Watts, ibid)

Like asking for the impossible because you just said, “localized CO2 emissions do not translate into localized atmospheric temperature effects,” which means finding places immune to urban CO2 emissions, which go elsewhere in the atmosphere, is pretty much impossible.

 

That’s ridiculous. How is the US using India’s poor to make profits ???

 

The urban heat island effect has nothing to do with localized CO2 emissions.

 

Do urban heat islands produce more or less CO2 than the surrounding countryside?

 

I have no idea what city you are looking at, but last time I checked urban environments produce more CO2 than rural. We could change that somewhat without destroying our economy, if Republicans get their monster trucks out of their ass, but first I have to convince you to stop campaigning for Democrats like AOC and Warren…

More CO2 from the urban areas, where the forcing mostly happens, then moves out of the area in to trees and oceans and the atmosphere because wind blows, out into the rural areas, so there is no place to go that has “not been affected by urbanization.”

The heat island is mainly a bubble, especially if the city is in a basin; my example of the concrete yard was to illustrate your neighbor is fine under his tree; you on the other hand will fry in your heat island bubble praying for a breeze.

To illustrate the thing, true story, I once bought a heavily wooded acre with a trailer at 17% Cotter Pin interest, and my father comes out one day and without telling me cuts down all my trees, afraid I’ll be killed if one falls on the trailer; you talk about pissed, it was hot a freaking hell after that. I was like coating my roof with silver crap, didn’t help much.

 

Are there more people in urban areas ??

 

And the CO2 produced in those cities has nothing to do with the higher temperature in cities.

 

Are there more cars and manufacturing facilities in urban areas?

 

Of course there are. And all of those cars, houses, public buildings, factories, .... produce heat aka urban heat island.