ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

Just to drive home the point. The link includes maps.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/

Issued 5 November 2015

Deficiencies expand in the southeast following a very dry October

October rainfall was below average for most of Australia. Rainfall was in the lowest 10% of historical totals (decile 1) for much of the South West Land Division in Western Australia, a stretch along the southern coast from around Ceduna in South Australia through to South Gippsland in Victoria, all of Tasmania, large areas in central Australia and western Queensland, and smaller parts of southern New South Wales, eastern South Australia, and the Top End. Rainfall was the lowest on record for October for most of Tasmania and an area spanning the southwest of Victoria and southeastern South Australia.

Deficiencies have increased in both severity and extent at all monitored timescales for South Australia, Victoria, and Tasmania. Compared to the last Drought Statement, slight increases in deficiencies have also occurred in southwest Western Australia and Queensland south of the Cape York Peninsula, while on the Peninsula there has generally been little change.

Rainfall in eastern Australia has been very much below average for large areas for periods of about 3 years' duration (since the conclusion of the last La Niña in autumn 2012). Long-term deficiencies also exist in eastern Australia over the 17 years since 1998.

The southern wet season, which spans April to November, continues to track below average rainfall for the season so far in most of Victoria, southeastern South Australia, Tasmania, and across most of the South West Land Division in Western Australia. For the most recent 3-months (August to October) rainfall has very much below average over most of Victoria (except most of Gippsland and some areas along the New South Wales border), the southeast of South Australia, and nearly all of Tasmania. This particularly dry end to the southern growing season has seen serious deficiencies (lowest 10% of historical observations) extend further north into northwestern Victoria, and severe deficiencies (lowest 5% of historical observations) cover a larger area of Victoria, Tasmania, and southeastern South Australia than at the 6-month timescale.

Rainfall over eastern Australia in recent days (see totals for 1–4 November) has brought cumulative totals of 15 to 50 mm over large areas of eastern Victoria, eastern New South Wales, southern, central and northwestern Queensland, and the central south coast of South Australia; with some townships in western Queensland receiving more than 100 mm of rainfall. Further falls in the range of 15 to 50 mm are expected over eastern Queensland, central to eastern New South Wales, and much of Victoria and Tasmania in coming days (see forecast rainfall for 5–12 November). However, these totals are much less than cumulative rainfall deficits for the 6-month period, which exceed 125 mm in affected areas of Victoria and southeast South Australia, and are between 50 mm and 125 mm in Queensland. Cumulative rainfall deficits for the 37-month period exceed 350 mm over much of Victoria, Queensland, and parts of southeastern South Australia, Tasmania, and eastern New South Wales.
6-month rainfall deficiencies

Below-average October rain resulted in a significant increase in the area of serious rainfall deficiencies (lowest 10% of historical records for similar periods) at the 6-month timescale (May to October 2015) in Victoria, southeast South Australia, and coastal Tasmania. Much of Victoria, southern South Australia, Tasmania, and southern New South Wales have received below-average rainfall for the six-month period and for the cool season to date. Smaller increases were also seen in southwest Western Australia and along a line between the Alice Springs district and central Queensland.

Serious rainfall deficiencies (lowest 10% of historical records) extend from southeastern South Australia and parts of the Fleurieu Peninsula across most of Victoria except the northwest border region and eastern Victoria. Serious rainfall deficiencies are also in place across northern, eastern and coastal western Tasmania, an area of Queensland extending inland from the Central Coast district and smaller pockets between this region and the southwest of the Northern Territory. Severe deficiencies (lowest 5% of historical records for similar periods) persist over most of southwest Western Australia (the area southwest of a line between Jurien Bay and Bremer Bay) and adjacent to the Central Coast district in Queensland, with pockets of severe deficiencies also present in far southeastern South Australia, central Victoria, eastern and west coast Tasmania.

16-month rainfall deficiencies
For the 16 months July 2014 to October 2015, deficiencies have generally increased in extent or severity in all affected regions.

Severe or serious deficiencies (lowest 5% or lowest 10% of historical records) persist in an area extending from northwestern South Australia, along the coast of South Australia, and across most of Victoria except Gippsland and parts of the Alps. Rainfall for the period remains lowest-on-record for an area spanning southeastern South Australia and adjacent parts of western Victoria. Serious or severe deficiencies also persist across most of Tasmania except an area of the southeast.

Much of southeastern Australia has seen below-average April–November rainfall during three of the last four years, with monthly rainfall also below average from August last year for much of this region (apart from well-above-average January rainfall, and above-average March and May rainfall in Tasmania).

Deficiencies also persist in western parts of the South West Land Division in Western Australia, and in areas of northern Queensland extending across the southern and central Cape York Peninsula, roughly from Kowanyama to Townsville, along the southern coast of the Gulf of Carpentaria, and in an area of inland central Queensland near Longreach.

37-month rainfall deficiencies

At the 37-month timescale (October 2012 to October 2015), rainfall deficiencies have increased slightly in extent or severity in all affected regions.

Severe or serious deficiencies (lowest 5% or lowest 10% of historical records) persist in an area spanning southeast South Australia and most of Victoria except Gippsland and parts of the Alps, areas of the west and east coasts of Tasmania, and parts of the central South West Land Division in Western Australia along a line roughly from Jurien Bay to Albany. Deficiencies also persist in Queensland, extending from the base of the Cape York Peninsula, through central Queensland into parts of central southern Queensland and northern New South Wales to the west of the Great Dividing Range.

Deficiencies also persist at a range of even longer timescales, with most of eastern Australia having received below-average rainfall following the conclusion of the 2010–12 La Niña events, and large parts of Queensland having experienced poor wet-season rainfall in successive years.

Soil moisture

Soil moisture in the upper layer for the week ending 1 November had increased across the eastern mainland and northwestern to central Western Australia compared to the week ending 27 September, but had decreased across the Northern Territory, northern Queensland, South Australia, and the western half of Victoria.

Upper layer soil moisture was below to very much below average in the west of the South West Land Division in Western Australia, across most of the Northern Territory and South Australia, most of Victoria except Gippsland, all of Tasmania, parts of southern and eastern New South Wales, and large parts of western and northern Queensland. Upper layer soil moisture was above average in parts of northwestern, central and southeastern Western Australia and some parts of the east of the South West Land Division, parts of central to southeastern Queensland, extending into some areas of New South Wales west of the Great Dividing Range.

Lower-layer soil moisture for the week ending 1 November decreased in southeastern Australia, compared to the week ending 27 September, markedly along the Great Dividing Range in Victoria and in much of Tasmania, with more moderate decreases also seen in southeastern Queensland and southwest Western Australia. Lower layer soil moisture increased across much of northern Australia.

Lower-layer soil moisture was above average for a large area of Western Australia between the northwest and southeast, the inland Northern Territory, far eastern Victoria and southeastern New South Wales, parts of western New South Wales, and parts of South Australia but not the southeast. Soil moisture was below average in western parts of the South West Land Division in Western Australia, and also for some areas of coastal northern Queensland and around the Gulf coast, an area in the central Top End, areas between central Queensland and northern New South Wales, a large area running from the Great Dividing Range in southeastern New South Wales, across most of Victoria and southeastern South Australia, and much of Tasmania.
 
jimw1960 said:

The GWPF, or Global Warming Policy Foundation, is a "charitable organization" set up to spread misinformation and lobby against any action to address carbon emissions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

"In 2014 the Charity Commission ruled that the GWPF had has breached rules on impartiality in its climate change coverage, blurred fact and comment and demonstrated a clear bias."

"The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its funding sources on at least four different occasions."


Yes, we were just discussing this article earlier in the thread. This article does nothing to refute the warming aspect; it suggests that increased snowfalls in western Antarctica are more than making up for the ice losses in eastern Antarctica. More snowfall does not mean no warming. It is undisputed that surface temperatures in Antarctica are warming as they are in most of the world. However, temperatures are still below freezing year-round so when snow falls, it eventually gets buried, compacted, and becomes ice. That's fairly good news for sea level rise, but does not refute the warming trend caused by carbon emissions.

Why you should never trust IPCC, they get caught lying more than they speak the truth(just one of many examples):
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.no/2014/11/new-paper-finds-huge-false-physical.html

That tired old accusation about the "hockey stick" emails. Take a watch of this video and hear the real story from Michael Mann, the scientist whose emails were hacked and taken out of context, and tell me where he is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3j9j6WNpRM


Ted Cruz? You're kidding, right? And Ted Cruz got his Ph.D. in climate science from where?

So since Antarctica have more snow and ice, and the same for Greenland, Nasa can not find increased ocean tempreature, what is global warming then? No increase in extreme weather either.
http://www.thegwpf.com/greenland-blowing-away-all-records-for-ice-gain/

Again, GWPF's sole purpose is to spread misinformation. Greenland is currently losing ice at a rate of several hundred cubic kilometers per year.

Lastly, if you want to keep contending that we can put 30 billion tons of CO2 into the air every year and NOT warm the climate, the show me YOUR model. Show me a physics based model that has undergone peer review that shows how that can happen. If it was possible someone surely would have done it by now, but they can't so they just rely on spreading doubt and misinformation. This point is made brilliantly by Dr. Richard Alley in this interview beginning at 18:15, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation

So when an organization is found guilty of not sharing their sources they are discredited in you view? Following that logic we should not listen to IPCC or almost any other GW-prganization, since almost any of them is caught manipulating data or holding back their source/raw data. Good to know

Just to keep it short.

-With the current melting in Greenland, how long will it take before Greenland is ice free?
-Why is it bad that Greenland is ice free, when it has been so before and we know that people had agriculture there for a long time
-NASA say that the ocean's temperature is stable(no increase the last decades), how is it possible that we don't observe any increased temperature in the troposphere from Co2 or in the ocean. Where does the increased temperature(energy) accumulate?
-Clouds counter the heat that Co2 potentially produce, do you refute this fact?
-How much Co2 is produced by nature each year to put your 30 billion number in context?

If you think that your model can be used for much good, how come that all the model has predicted is wrong? Is it not ironic that the predicted best case temperature from your model is still higher than the temperature rise we see today? That the scare tactics is just hogwash and lies? I won't even mention the worst case the model predicted, because that qualify for pure fantasy.
 
jimw1960 said:
Here is a good discussion of why it is near impossible to change someone's mind with facts if they have already incorporated their belief into their world view. I can see a lot of this going on here. You present someone with facts, but they just cling even more strongly to their beliefs and look for "evidence" (such as articles on the GWPF website) to enforce their belief that your "facts" are part of some global conspiracy. This is why it is pretty much impossible to persuade a climate science denier no matter how many facts are on your side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9It19FHt50g

And another one on how deniers will attack and threaten scientists whose research threatens their world view:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeSNhayqGcI

I think from now on, when confronted by a denier, I'm not going to bother trying to explain anything about how climate actually works, because it only reinforces their belief to the contrary. Instead, I'm just going to say, "Show me your model."

I want to address this. First of, you claim by this that the science is settled, you have the truth and I have a misguided view. Every fact I present is a part of a denier club "fact" that should not be taken serious, since you have patented the truth. Do I get it right? Did you even see how much manipulation that is gong on? 99% of all scientist agree on global warming? Have you read that piece of garbage science article? The head of a major GW organization used that as a proof of GW. If that is as good as it gets, we don't need science anymore, since the quality of the work is utter shit.

Second, by stating that I am "believing" that there is a global warming conspiracy you try to take away my credibility. This is why I want to have you accounted for your opinion, when using arguments like that. If you want to silence you opponent since you have patented the truth, you should also be part of the group that pays back every cent of stolen tax money back to the people when the global warming scam is uncovered. Do you agree? It should not be any problem for us to catalog everyone that proclaim global warming and stealing peoples money to get rich. If you are right, everything is fine, if not, you should pay back everything and/or be put in jail until the debt is payed. Remember that the GB-deniers don't steal or take anyone's money, only your side does that, on a global scale, stealing billions of dollars each year, for nothing.
 
Ratking said:
-With the current melting in Greenland, how long will it take before Greenland is ice free?
-Why is it bad that Greenland is ice free, when it has been so before and we know that people had agriculture there for a long time

*very* quick google search (Wikipedia):

The ice in the current ice sheet is as old as 110,000 years.[3] The presence of ice-rafted sediments in deep-sea cores recovered off of northeast Greenland, in the Fram Strait, and south of Greenland indicated the more or less continuous presence of either an ice sheet or ice sheets covering significant parts of Greenland for the last 18 million years.

And:

Agriculture involving domestication of plants was developed around 11,500 years ago separately in both the Fertile crescent and at Chogha Golan in modern day Iran, where wild barley, wheat and lentils were cultivated and with domesticated forms of wheat appeared about 9,800 years ago.

Also, the Earth used to be entirely covered in lava. Your argument seems to be that because something occurred before it cannot be bad now.
 
Punx0r said:
Ratking said:
jimw1960 said:
-With the current melting in Greenland, how long will it take before Greenland is ice free?
-Why is it bad that Greenland is ice free, when it has been so before and we know that people had agriculture there for a long time

*very* quick google search (Wikipedia):

The ice in the current ice sheet is as old as 110,000 years.[3] The presence of ice-rafted sediments in deep-sea cores recovered off of northeast Greenland, in the Fram Strait, and south of Greenland indicated the more or less continuous presence of either an ice sheet or ice sheets covering significant parts of Greenland for the last 18 million years.

And:

Agriculture involving domestication of plants was developed around 11,500 years ago separately in both the Fertile crescent and at Chogha Golan in modern day Iran, where wild barley, wheat and lentils were cultivated and with domesticated forms of wheat appeared about 9,800 years ago.

Also, the Earth used to be entirely covered in lava. Your argument seems to be that because something occurred before it cannot be bad now.

An answer like that only damage your reputation, so I would like Jim to try to answer. Good try though :p
 
jimw1960 said:
@Ratking and Punx0r. Show me your model.

Let me put it this way, no one have a model that is worth anything. A good model replicate the real world. Why do you ask for something that does not exist?
But I take it you can not answer my simple questions, that is all right. Other readers can conclude themselves.
 
Ratking said:
So when an organization is found guilty of not sharing their sources they are discredited in you view? Following that logic we should not listen to IPCC or almost any other GW-prganization, since almost any of them is caught manipulating data or holding back their source/raw data. Good to know

No, but I think you can guess they type of sources for their funding and why they don't want to tell us. The reason they are not credible is because (1) they are not a scientific body, (2) they have been found to be breaking rules of impartiality, (3) after a cursory review of a sample of their web articles, it should be clear to anybody who knows anything about earth science that their articles are just a series of "facts" taken out of context and outright fabrications (like Greenland gaining ice).

Ratking said:
Just to keep it short.

-With the current melting in Greenland, how long will it take before Greenland is ice free?
-Why is it bad that Greenland is ice free, when it has been so before and we know that people had agriculture there for a long time
How long is not easy to assess because the rate is accelerating and who knows how bad it can get, or if we will eventually take sensible action, but we're probably talking on the order of a couple hundred years. You say that Greenland has been ice free before, when was that? Certainly not in the last million years. Sure if you want to go all the way back to the days of Pangea when that land mass was at an entirely different latitude, maybe it was ice free.

Ratking said:
-NASA say that the ocean's temperature is stable(no increase the last decades), how is it possible that we don't observe any increased temperature in the troposphere from Co2 or in the ocean. Where does the increased temperature(energy) accumulate?
I don't know where you are getting your source from NASA, but any simple google search for ocean heat content will lead you to numerous articles that show that the worlds oceans are steadily gaining heat. This series of charts from NOAA might convince you: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ . You can't just cherry pick a limited set of sea surface temperature data and conclude that oceans are not warming. You have to look at total heat content.

-Clouds counter the heat that Co2 potentially produce, do you refute this fact?

I do refute that fact for being too simplistic. Clouds do reflect light in the visible spectrum back into space at a higher rate than land or sea, but at night they also trap heat by blocking the infrared spectrum from reflecting back to space from land and oceans. Do you have some data that cloud cover is increasing in proportion to CO2 emissions? If so, I would be very interested to see that. If not, and cloud cover is relatively stable, then no, it does not counter heat trapped by GHG effect.

-How much Co2 is produced by nature each year to put your 30 billion number in context?

As I mentioned earlier in the thread the 30 billion tons of CO2 that is emitted by human activity each year is approximately 100 times all other natural sources combined, including the oft-mentioned volcanoes. Of course, natural emissions are somewhat variable, but even in a year with high volcanic activity, natural CO2 is overwhelmed by human emissions.

If you think that your model can be used for much good, how come that all the model has predicted is wrong? Is it not ironic that the predicted best case temperature from your model is still higher than the temperature rise we see today? That the scare tactics is just hogwash and lies? I won't even mention the worst case the model predicted, because that qualify for pure fantasy.

The great statistician, George Box has a great quote: "All models are wrong, but some are useful." I'm not sure what you are referring to as my model, as I do not have a global climate model with my name on it. In what model is the "best case" prediction higher than what we see today? Here is a link to a chart of several model forecasts run forward from the year 2000: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-spm-5.html . You can see there is a range of predictions, but ALL of them show warming trends and, 15 years later, we are currently trending toward the higher of the forecast temperature increases. And these are just surface air temperatures; the models also include absorbtion of heat by the oceans, which is where most of the heat goes. Of course some "charitable organization" like GWPF can cherry pick the model with the highest projected temperature gain and call it the "best case" for that particular model and say, "look the model is wrong! It hasn't gotten as hot as the model predicted."

Again, I challenge you to show me a physically based model that shows stable or cooling global average surface, air, and ocean temperatures with current rates of CO2 emissions. You don't think some brilliant scientist would have some up with such a model by now if it was possible?
 
jimw1960 said:
@Ratking and Punx0r. Show me your model.

Apologies, I messed up the quote function in my previous post - my comments were directed solely at RatKing, who seems to think that an ice-free Greenland in the past was good for agriculture there, when even the most cursory research suggests that Iceland hasn't been ice-free since a very long time before the advent of agriculture.
 
Punx0r said:
jimw1960 said:
@Ratking and Punx0r. Show me your model.

Apologies, I messed up the quote function in my previous post - my comments were directed solely at RatKing, who seems to think that an ice-free Greenland in the past was good for agriculture there, when even the most cursory research suggests that Iceland hasn't been ice-free since a very long time before the advent of agriculture.

The south has been used for agriculture by the vikings for producing barley used in beer production year 1000. It does not matter anyway, because Greenland will not melt away any day soon, or in this millennium. If what I read is true, the opposite is happening, ice and snow is increasing.
 
Looks like the situation is worsening. The UK Met Office has stated that the global temperature will have one degree above pre-industrial times for the first time ever. That leaves us with just a degree to play with and that's ignoring the cascade effect of all the previous CO2 we have placed in the atmosphere.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2015/global-average-temperature-2015
 
What do you mean year 1000?

Using ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland, researchers have extended the climate record back 800,000 years and have shown that the world's largest island may have been sealed in ice for at least that long
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/proof-on-ice-southern-greenland-green-earth-warmer/
 
"'Catastrophe' climate warnings as carbon levels break new records"
http://news.yahoo.com/life-planet-stake-france-warns-climate-ministers-meet-025111971.html
At the same time, the World Meteorological Organization said concentrations of climate-altering greenhouse gases in the atmosphere broke new records last year.

"Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are now reaching levels not seen on Earth for more than 800,000, maybe even one million years," WMO chief Michel Jarraud told reporters.
 
"Scientists say Greenland just opened up a major new ‘floodgate’ of ice into the ocean"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-a-major-new-floodgate-of-ice-into-the-ocean/

As the world prepares for the most important global climate summit yet in Paris later this month, news from Greenland could add urgency to the negotiations. For another major glacier appears to have begun a rapid retreat into a deep underwater basin, a troubling sign previously noticed at Greenland’s Jakobshavn Glacier and also in the Amundsen Sea region of West Antarctica.

And in all of these cases, warm ocean waters reaching the deep bases of marine glaciers appears to be a major cause.

:evil:
 
This is the fourth mention of "permafrost" in this thread. "Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb?":
http://news.yahoo.com/permafrost-hiding-climate-time-bomb-055447532.html

In part:
"There is twice as much carbon in permafrost than in the atmosphere," said Florent Domine, a researcher with France's National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS).

"So if we transformed all the carbon in the permafrost into CO2, we would triple the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that would mean the end of the world as we know it."

Article uses weird words and phrases like "catastrophic". And "the end of the world as we know it".
 
The Ilulissat Glacier in Western Greenland back in May, 2008:
[youtube]hC3VTgIPoGU[/youtube]
 
LockH said:
This is the fourth mention of "permafrost" in this thread. "Permafrost: hiding a climate time bomb?":
http://news.yahoo.com/permafrost-hiding-climate-time-bomb-055447532.html

In part:
"There is twice as much carbon in permafrost than in the atmosphere," said Florent Domine, a researcher with France's National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS).

"So if we transformed all the carbon in the permafrost into CO2, we would triple the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that would mean the end of the world as we know it."

Article uses weird words and phrases like "catastrophic". And "the end of the world as we know it".
If your looking for terrifying read this but warn you it's probably better not to.
http://robertscribbler.com/2014/10/15/ignoring-the-arctic-methane-monster-royal-society-goes-dark-on-arctic-observational-science/
 
maydaverave said:
If your looking for terrifying read this but warn you it's probably better not to.
http://robertscribbler.com/2014/10/15/ignoring-the-arctic-methane-monster-royal-society-goes-dark-on-arctic-observational-science/

:) In [C]omments to that article, author Scribbler responds "That about sums it up." to another comment:
qzw2642
(Classic See-Speak-Hear No Evil monkeys.)
 
LockH said:
maydaverave said:
If your looking for terrifying read this but warn you it's probably better not to.
http://robertscribbler.com/2014/10/15/ignoring-the-arctic-methane-monster-royal-society-goes-dark-on-arctic-observational-science/

:) In [C]omments to that article, author Scribbler responds "That about sums it up." to another comment:
qzw2642
(Classic See-Speak-Hear No Evil monkeys.)
Honestly that's getting to be the way I feel :(
 
Ratking said:
From what I have read from many sources and claimed before, this German professor have found sever tampering with data from Nasa:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/

Anything from Breitbart is pure conservative propaganda. I'm trying to have a discussion of actual science here. I guarantee with ten minutes of google search I could destroy that little piece of misinformation from Breitbart. You could do the same thing yourself, but you don't want to upset your world view by realizing that these "news" sources you have been believing all these years has just been a steady string of lies and misinformation.
 
jimw1960 said:
Ratking said:
From what I have read from many sources and claimed before, this German professor have found sever tampering with data from Nasa:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...nasa-fiddled-climate-data-unbelievable-scale/

Anything from Breitbart is pure conservative propaganda. I'm trying to have a discussion of actual science here. I guarantee with ten minutes of google search I could destroy that little piece of misinformation from Breitbart. You could do the same thing yourself, but you don't want to upset your world view by realizing that these "news" sources you have been believing all these years has just been a steady string of lies and misinformation.

I am going to meet some competent people to discuss this article and other issues tonight. Btw, they have read some of your posts, and they was not impressed by your arguments. When I presented you as a scientist they did not believe it(not that you care, but I do want to know the truth about our climate). Do you have a name and some work to show?
 
Ratking said:
I am going to meet some competent people to discuss this article and other issues tonight. Btw, they have read some of your posts, and they was not impressed by your arguments. When I presented you as a scientist they did not believe it(not that you care, but I do want to know the truth about our climate). Do you have a name and some work to show?

When you discuss, ask about how it is possible that all the glacial retreat that is observed around the world can be occurring if your Breitbart article is correct and the Earth has actually been cooling since 1880. Ask your "competent people" to show you a peer-reviewed physics based model that shows how it is possible to add 30 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year and not cause significant warming. NASA is not the only organization that monitors surface temperatures around the globe; did everyone else fake their data too? That's getting to be some big conspiracy. How is it the oceans are warming and acidifying if the planet is actually cooling and CO2 is not going up? Did NOAA fake the ocean temperature too? Ask them when was the last time CO2 levels in the atmosphere were this high (hitting 404 ppm this year)? Hint: it is in the millions of years. And if they refer you to anything from Breitbart or some other conservative blogger source then they are nothing but people with a political agenda. I could not care less about what they do or do not believe about me.

In another thread I was recommending this video by Dr. Richard Alley as a good overview of the role of CO2 over 4.6 billion years of Earth's history. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujkcTZZlikg
Give it a watch and let me know if you take exception to any of the information he presents.
 
Back
Top