CO2 levels higher than any time in last 800,000 years

I would hate to be part of their pessimistic world.

I tell those types to not worry. They don't see actual solutions being proposed by the Feds yet.

Carbon Dioxide is a very important gas to the world. Nature has a way of leveling things out anyway.

Another thing I tell them when they whine it is warming. Think how great it is to be able to get to the Great Lakes or make use of the land on the East Coast that once was under a mass of ice. That but for warming, Yosemite Valley would still be filled by a huge Glacier.

I am quite happy it is still warming.

 

Yes and all the rice fields that are water intensive. There are vast commercial farmlands from Far Northern CA to Sacramento. The Federal government controls all the large reservoirs up north as well as levels in the Sacramento River and the canal.

 

The issue is not CH4 or Methane in it's Gel Form escaping out of WATER ICE as CH4 that is trapped within ice STAYS IN ICE as long as the ice does not melt.

The PROBLEM is that CH4 METHANE GEL exists at the bottom of all the Earth's seas and oceans as well is locked under permafrost and exists at the bottom of all frozen swamps and arctic circle lakes.

That CH4 Gel will turn into Methane Gas at a temp. well above freezing but because it is so cold but not cold enough to freeze fresh or salt water at the bottom of the oceans, seas and Arctic lakes this CH4 Methane exists as a GEL.

Because of man made CO2 emissions trapping heat in our atmosphere which in turn causes greater global evaporation of water which in turn causes greater amounts of Water Vapor in the Earth's Atmosphere which in turn results in more energy placed into our weather system causing greater and more powerful storms which in turn causes the creation of even more cloud cover and more evaporation which in turn helps create a GREENHOUSE EFFECT.......which now has increased GLOBAL SEA WATER AND FRESH WATER TEMPERATURE INCREASES which are only an increase of just a few degrees since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution........

.......BUT......just a few degrees F. increase in water temps. was ENOUGH.....to cause the at one time CH4 Methane Gel at the bottom of all seas, oceans and arctic lakes to BUBBLE UP AS CH4 METHANE GAS!!!

CH4 METHANE GAS......holds in over 72 TIMES MORE HEAT IN EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE THAN CO2 GAS!!!!!

And at this point we have ALREADY PASSED A THRESHOLD.....and there is absolutely NOTHING at this point in time that we can do to stop it.

Perhaps in 50 years we might have the available technology to REVERSE Global Warming but right now the only thing we can do is try to slow it down.

AA

 

I worked on local bridges next to rice fields at one time. Best I recall is they flood the fields and only add water as needed. Watched a huge Garter snake gagging as it tried to eat a large fish one time.

It was so hot me and the crew were really suffering. The job thermometer showed a temperature over 130 degree. Officially the temp was 115.

 

I will let Dr. Lindzen do my talking.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/...ature-of-the-defense-of-global-warming-alarm/

Lindzen: A recent exchange in the Boston Globe clearly illustrated the sophistic nature of the defense of global warming alarm
Anthony Watts / December 26, 2015
Guest essay by Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT

A recent exchange in the Boston Globe clearly illustrated the sophistic nature of the defense of global warming alarm.

In the December 3, 2015 edition of the Boston Globe, the distinguished physicist, Freeman Dyson, had on op-ed, “Misunderstandings, questionable beliefs mar Paris climate talks.” His main point, stated immediately, is that any agreement reached in these talks would “likely do more harm than good.” In an otherwise, thoughtful commentary, however, Dyson begins with a common error. He attributes the basis for climate alarm to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

For reasons that I will address shortly, this is an entirely understandable error. Dyson’s description of the IPCC position is

“The IPCC believes climate change is harmful; that the science of climate change is settled and understood; that climate change is largely due to human activities, particularly the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by industrial societies; and that there is an urgent need to fight climate change by reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide.”

To be sure, it would be hard to identify the ‘beliefs’ of the IPCC, but I take it that he means their position. Obviously, the IPCC does not claim that the ‘science is settled;’ that would destroy the raison raison d’être for the existence of the IPCC.

Also, insofar as the IPCC is not supposed to make policy recommendations, it does not claim “that there is an urgent need to fight climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide.” That climate change is harmful is, of course, the basis for the existence of the IPCC, and is an intrinsic source of regrettable bias. The IPCC does not claim that climate change is mostly due to human activities generally; it restricts itself to the period since about 1970, which was the end of the most recent cooling period (a period which gave rise to global cooling concerns). Even the IPCC recognizes that climate change has always occurred – including a warming episode from about 1919 to 1940 that was almost identical to the warming episode from about 1978 to 1998 that the IPCC does identify with human activities. However, all the claims cited by Dyson are frequently made by politicians and environmental activists (including Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the UN), and the IPCC scientists never really object. Why should they? Support for climate science (a rather small backwater field) has increased from about $500 million per year to about $9 billion.

Dyson, further notes that the ice ages were major examples of climate change that we don’t fully understand, and that lacking this understanding suggests that we don’t really understand climate change. As another example of something that we don’t understand, he cites the potential role of the sun. Dyson then goes on to praise environmentalism in general, to approve of the increasing wealth of China and India, and their understandable unwillingness to forego this, and finally notes the well-known fact that CO2 is plant food whose increase has been associated with extraordinarily valuable increases in agricultural productivity.

In the December 13, 2015 Boston Globe, 8 members of the MIT faculty (three physicists, two hydrologists, one meteorologist, and two atmospheric chemists) attacked both Dyson and his claims. Their letter was entitled “So much more is understood about climate change than skeptic admits.”

They proceed to express their dismay with Dyson’s “limited understanding and short-sighted interpretation of basic elements of climate science.” There follow 3 disingenuous objections to Dyson’s scientific examples. As concerns ice ages, the MIT professors argue that they took thousands of years, allowing humans to adapt. They ignore the Dansgard-Oeschger events (episodes of dramatic change within glacial periods) which involved major changes in decades as well as the onset of the Younger Dryas (where glaciation suddenly reoccurred after the initial deglaciation of the last major glaciation) that also involved major changes setting on in decades. With respect to the sun, they argue that solar activity changes have been minor, ignoring the potential amplification due to solar impacts on cloud formation, most recently explored by Svensmark and Shaviv, but already suggested by Dickinson in the 1970’s. With respect to the role of CO2 as plant food, the letter writers appeal, without justification, to other limiting factors, ignoring that the greatest limiting factor, water, is alleviated with elevated levels of CO2. They also ignore literally hundreds of observational studies.

The letter writers then propose that ‘prospects’ in renewable energy, energy efficiency and safe and secure nuclear energy should presumably justify the abandonment of cheap, safe and available fossil fuels by developing nations. Yes, safe. Control of real pollutants is well developed already.

The letter writers go on to their only unambiguously correct claim: namely, that the IPCC does not declare that the science is settled. They then present the iconic statement if the IPCC’s Working Group 1 (the one dealing with the scientific assessment – as opposed to the remaining 2 working groups that generally begin with worst case scenarios in order to claim impacts and design mitigation strategies): “The IPCC report presents strong evidence that more than half of the climate change seen in recent decades is human-driven.” One may readily disagree with the claim of ‘strong evidence’ since the claim (based on model results) depends on the assumption that models correctly display natural internal variability which very clearly they don’t.

That said, the claim that most of the climate change since 1960 is due to human activities, refers to more than half of a change on the order of only 0.5C, and is entirely consistent with the possibility that the sensitivity is low and far from dangerous – especially since model projections for warming since 1978 have almost all exceeded what has been observed (regardless of ‘adjustments to the data). Indeed, the warming since the end of the little ice age (around 1800) of about 1C has been accompanied by improvements in virtually all measures of human welfare. Why another 1C should be considered planet threatening is rarely explained. The letter writers’ conclusion that the observed warming implies “a great risk that increasing greenhouse gases will result in future climate change with destructive consequences for humanity and the natural environment” does not follow from the iconic statement; nor is it made by the IPCC. Rather, it is, as has already been noted, the conclusion that is added by environmental activists and politicians.

A careful reading of the letter of the 8 professors leaves one wondering whether the dismay they express over Dyson’s “limited understanding and short-sighted interpretation of basic elements of climate science” is not merely a projection of their own limitations and biases.

 

Actually I am

- - - Updated - - -

I will let every science a academy on the planet do my talking

 

you introduced politics into the discussion. That you don't understand that understanding climate change is not an exclusively leftist phenomenon is evidence that you live in a bubble.

From your post it is clear that you don't know the difference between weather and climate. You migh also want to look into what we can expect from climate change if you think that your weather provides examples that climate change is not occurring.

 

have you ever looked at global population distribution?

Its not all about you.

 

We have seen increased evaporation with increased temperatures, and with increased rainfall in the warmer months rather yhan the cooler months.

 

Climate Change Happens!​

Biblical times and the Hebrews sojourning to Egypt.
Some climatic catastrophe circa 1200 BC.
The Medieval Climate Optimum that let loose the Vikings
The Little Ice Ace when people of Amsterdam could ice skate on frozen canals.
Climate change happens. We have "written" descriptions from those times.
AND I ain't gonna pay no mind to it until Scandinavian sheep and cattle can be grazed in Greenland
as was the case around 1000 AD.

Why do you guys need to feel so significant as to take responsibility for climate change?

And what do ice core bubbles represent, per above?​

Moi

 

Evaporation is, of course, a given. The canal is in disrepair and needs a lot of work and is leaking as well. A better solution would be more local reservoirs. Unless you catch it, the rainfall goes back to the ocean.

 

Rice requires a lot of water for sure and at those temperatures evaporation is significant. Yep, proving what I said, that much of CA is like a desert. The central valley can be brutal during the summer but, the soil is fertile and arable.......Just add water.

 

This job was about 261 miles north of Fresno which is in the Central Valley.

Not too far from Chico, CA, well north of Sacramento.

The rice fields were very large and I did not locate where they added water.

Ever see a 5 ft long Garter snake? They normally are a lot smaller. But it was eating a fish head first and when I assumed the snake was about to swallow, the snake spit it out. And the snake was as large in the body as a beer can or larger perhaps.

We were so hot on the job, only cold water and salt tablets kept us from fainting. That was the hottest job I ever worked on and we were over stripped soil where the heat reflected back at us. The soil in that area is different than the soil further down in the Central Valley. But the Central valley soil is natures best.

 

This is not the case here in California.

 

There was just a question that you ducked. All you had to do was be truthful to the question.

From my posts, clearly I know a lot about climate. That you question it says more about yourself than about me.

To date, nobody that I read says climate is not changing. This happens every year and doubtful it will change.

Why do you think at the Arctic there were once mosquitos the size of some smaller birds? Why do you think the Arctic was once tropical?

Why do you think that so much snow falls in the Antarctic and the ice gets so much deeper?

[video=youtube;mIUsmqEJU3w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIUsmqEJU3w[/video]

 

Another very good video to watch

[video=youtube;q0-pO4-NRvg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0-pO4-NRvg[/video]

 

I hear ya, the heat seems to be coming from the ground. I have personally experienced that in Far Northern CA.

 

OK...listen.....there is only ONE VIABLE SOURCE of Climate Data...JUST ONE and I will give you a LINK.

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center

The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) is the primary climate-change data and information analysis center of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). CDIAC is located at DOE's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and includes the World Data Center for Atmospheric Trace Gases.

LINK....http://cdiac.ornl.gov/

Now the LINK goes to the CDIAC which is run by the DOE or U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science....at OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABS.

Let me explain who these people are.

These are the same NICE PEOPLE who provide Weapons Grade Uranium and Plutonium for the vast U.S. Military's Nuclear Deterrent...ie....USAF Minuteman III and Trident D-5 Thermonuclear Missiles.....and let's not forget about all those Thermonuclear Bombs available for use for B-2's.

Point is.....these are the VERY BEST PHYSICISTS, CHEMISTS AND CLIMATOLOGISTS ON THE FACE OF PLANET EARTH!!!

If you look at the top of the CDIAC website page there is a CHART.

Now that chart changes every 10-20 seconds and gives you different data.

THAT DATA is the same and ONLY DATA that the U.S. MILITARY TRUSTS to be used and data entered into U.S. Military Networked Super and Quantum Computers running CLIMATE CHANGE DRIVEN WAR GAMES AND SIMULATED DISASTERS AND RESULTING CLIMATE CHANGE DRIVEN OUTBREAKS OF WAR, POVERTY, DISEASE.....ETC....24/7....365.25 Days a year!!!

THIS...is the ONLY VIABLE DATA!!

AA

 

Ca is suffering from a drought. At one time meso America suffered from a drought that is thought to have caused the collapse of the mayan civilization. A very long drought. Without fossil fuel based co2. So global warming does not necessarily cause deserts to grow. In fact, from the big picture the earth is greening up more with the higher co2.

I have little doubt man is helping the warming, but there may be a natural cycle involved as well, so a combination. But its not the end of the world, or humanity. Sea levels will rise, people will have to relocate. It has happened before since man has been on earth.

This isn't an extinction event. The climate will always change and cycle. There is much hysteria about it. And the fact is, even if we stopped all man made co2 production, the warming would continue on. And the fact is, we will be off of fossil fuels not that far into the future anyway. Man will do what he has always done. Hang on, and ride the bucking bronco.

 

No...it's not an ELE.....but it could result in the deaths of Millions and possibly a Billion.

As I have posted before the U.S. Military using Climate Data from the CDIAC which is part of the U.S. DOE's Office of Science at Oak Ridge National Laboratories.

The CDIAC is the Carbon Dioxide Information and Analysis Center.

The CDIAC data is the ONLY VIABLE DATA used by the U.S. Military and that data is entered to U.S. Military War Game Networked Super Computers and Quantum Computers.

All these things do is run war game scenarios 24/7 365.

The areas of the Globe that are most likely potential future war zones as coastal flooding will cause mass migration of 100's of Millions of people inland upon the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladesh shorelines as well as many other areas in Indonesia and South East Asia.....as such migration will cause vast competition for food, fresh water, jobs and other resources.

Even in the United States every large city up and down the Eastern Seaboard from Boston to New York, New Jersey to Delaware, to Georgia to Florida and Louisiana.....BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT....on Sea Water Pumping Stations.

Miami has spent over $1 Billion all on it's own as sea levels are so high even moderate tropical storms are completely flooding the streets of Miami and overwhelming South Beach.

The U.S. Cities have already begun massive construction over a decade ago to mitigate sea level rise....and so has London and many other seashore European Cities.....but cities like VENICE....well it look's like Venice will not make it.

But even the loss of Venice is NOTHING compared to the possible flooding, war, disease and carnage that will occur as it is not a question of IF...but just a question of WHEN....in India and that region of the world.

AA

 

Not necessarily. It may sink into artesian reservoirs, and when you talk about reservoirs you might need to be more specific.

 

Nevertheless, it is occurring in many places around the globe, and scientists have highlighted that this is a likely impact of global warming.

 

yes the climate has always changed, do you honestly think scientists don know that? There is real concern about the current warming because of the impact it is likely to have, and is already having.

scientists from virtually every field have already identified issues that are occurring, and which are likely tonlead to extinctions. Most likely humans will not become extinct, but we will not be unaffected.

 

Have not seen any evidence on this forum that you have a clue about this issue. Why do you think there is so much snow fall in antarctica .... could it be happening becausevthe earth is getting warmer?

You know, higher temps equals higher evaporation, hence greater precipitation ... you know ... what goes up must come down?

Over the years I have posted a lot of information relating to this issue and have demonstrated that the issue is of concern to scientists working in many disciplines, not only those working in climate science. we need to understand the basis of what is happening and why as a background.

I really can't be bothered reinventing the wheel every time i encounter another poster who consciously chooses to pretend climate change is not happening because american right wing politics is their religion.

 

Maybe a quick trip to Venus and a " You mean this is where we are headed ?" Moment might help.