Well there always a summer after winter.

Not always.
The Medieval Volcanic Eruption That Triggered a Year Without Summer

True.
There was also a “year without a summer” in France when Benjamin Franklin was an ambassador there.
He wrote about it at the time.
And of course.
The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa in the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) that began in the afternoon of August 26, 1883.
Average Northern Hemisphere summer temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 °C (2.2 °F).[9] Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years, and temperatures did not return to normal until 1888.
A problem with volcanic eruptions is though that they emit a HUGE amount of CO2 giving warmer climate later.

Rainy day, dream away
Ah let the sun take a holiday
Flowers bathe an' ah see the children play
Lay back and groove on a rainy day.
https://vimeo.com/15226604

As far as surface temperatures go, it doesn’t matter whose data you use (NASA, NOAA, JMA, Hadley Centre) the results are the same. 2016 is going to blow 2015 out of the water.

Further temperature measurements in the oceans, where 93% of the extra heat is stored are the best proof of global warming can be seen Here

That the sea temperature is rising is scary to say the least.
Not only because of rising sea levels.
There are also LOTS of organic matter in the sea that will turn into methane and other GW gases when warmed.
It has happened before and caused mass extinction.

That the sea temperature is rising is scary to say the least.
Not only because of rising sea levels.
There are also LOTS of organic matter in the sea that will turn into methane and other GW gases when warmed.
It has happened before and caused mass extinction.

Yes, it has been determined that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe. In addition to the methane conversion of organic matter in the northern seas, the methane locked in the permafrost surface soils has not been released since before the main glaciation first started some 110,000 years ago.

Here is NASA and NOAA's Long-Term Warming Trend, 1880-2015 for Earth

That the sea temperature is rising is scary to say the least.
Not only because of rising sea levels.
There are also LOTS of organic matter in the sea that will turn into methane and other GW gases when warmed.
It has happened before and caused mass extinction.

Yes, it has been determined that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe. In addition to the methane conversion of organic matter in the northern seas, the methane locked in the permafrost surface soils has not been released since before the main glaciation first started some 110,000 years ago.

Here is NASA and NOAA's Long-Term Warming Trend, 1880-2015 for Earth

Well, of COURSE we are in a long-term warming trend over that time period. We are getting over the 'Little Ice Age' (about 1300 - 1850). Prior to the little ice age, there was the 'Medieval Warm Period' (also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum) from about 950 - 1250.

You have to be careful to separate, as best as you can, the effects of Anthropogenic Climate Change due to GHG from the natural climate variability (we are currently in the 'warm up' phase of that).

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Well, of COURSE we are in a long-term warming trend over that time period. We are getting over the 'Little Ice Age' (about 1300 - 1850). Prior to the little ice age, there was the 'Medieval Warm Period' (also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum) from about 950 - 1250.
You have to be careful to separate, as best as you can, the effects of Anthropogenic Climate Change due to GHG from the natural climate variability (we are currently in the 'warm up' phase of that).

Well, even as your 1,000 year Warming is divided into small warming and cooling peaks and dips, so too have the last 10,000 years had a series of warmer and cooler stages due to all sorts of reasons. Even the 110,000 year old cooling, a.k.a. the Ice Ages, were also divided into a series of cooling periods or ice ages.
There are so many variables/factors; sun cycles, volcanic/tectonic, tilt and wobble, that the only way to even begin to discern Anthropogenic changes from Natural variability is to study the rate of changes in CHG of recent years with what we know about the atmospheric conditions and temperature clues found in ice core samples from the Greenland ice pack.
We know almost nothing about long term radiational cycles from the sun. The rate of current changes when directly compared to other known factors causing changes in the past is our clue to the impact of man made changes we are currently witnessing. It is through the elimination of quantifiable and known factors to our alarming rate of current change that give us what we know about the GHG contribution of the post industrial age as a factor.

Well, of COURSE we are in a long-term warming trend over that time period. We are getting over the 'Little Ice Age' (about 1300 - 1850). Prior to the little ice age, there was the 'Medieval Warm Period' (also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum) from about 950 - 1250.
You have to be careful to separate, as best as you can, the effects of Anthropogenic Climate Change due to GHG from the natural climate variability (we are currently in the 'warm up' phase of that).

The periods you mention are natural and takes many centuries to notice.
What we see today, especially to us living near the Arctic Circle, is a very rapid change in climate.
Personally I can see how the climate have changed during only the last 30 years.
Just by opening my door.
Both fauna and flora have become different here since I was young.
In Russia it's even worse.
Vanishing Arctic: how warming climate leaves remote permafrost islands on the precipice
http://siberiantimes.com/other/others/news/n0753-vanishing-arctic-how-warming-climate-leaves-remote-permafrost-islands-on-the-precipice/

"The Norse Vikings arrived in Greenland around 980 AD, during a 300-year-long warm period. Starting around 1100, however, the climate cooled rapidly. Average temperature dropped 4 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit) in only 80 years. Since the Norse—Viking fame aside—were largely farmers, this drop in temperature likely hit them hard. They began to leave Greenland shortly thereafter, and by the mid-15th century their settlements lay abandoned."
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/05/31/climate-change-froze-the-vikings-out-of-greenland-say-scientists/#.WA1ZKo_x7IU
Dug through Modern Day Permafrost?
There wasn't Permafrost during Viking Greenland Settlements back then?
Hmmmm

Hmmmm:)
I forgot that.
Something extraordinary must have happened when the Vikings settled down both in Greenland and Newfoundland aka Vinland.
And during the Scandinavian bronze age, 4000 to 3000 years ago, there was a warm period. It was about 5 degrees Celsius warmer here back then.
Well those rapid changes were not trigged by humans.

The #1 place to start to solve ALL of the problems faced by humanity depends on a sustainable population, which depends on reversing population growth.

Many countries has already a reversing population growth.
Reversing population growth will take 2 generations or more to make any effect.
There are no children growth in the world but we live longer now.
Thats why the population is growing.
Distribution of wealth can however stop the population growth in Africa and parts of Asia. The "only" parts of the world that has population growth because of giving birth on average to more then 2 children.

This is true...give people more money, more gadgets, more computers, more cars, more travel arrangements, ... & they'll start spending time on those! Making kids is a 2nd on all those Bucket list...
;)

Do I hear some sarcasm? :)
I'm talking of distribution of wealth. Not giving people more.
And giving birth to more than 3 children is by far more dangerous to GW then that people have more money.

Not at all...& it's not socialism I'm talking about!

Example:
In ex-Yugoslavia on Kosovo Serbs implemented "suppression from government", not so much money, no industry -> people only fucked to produce more children!
Same time, Slovenia & Croatia had some industry development, had more money in fluctuation, had more development -> less children produced!

Some thing can be implemented in Capitalism...as state can give privileges for a factory to be developed in some area, while not in other...while Socialism only produce factories from the state money!
Solution's the same: put factory somewhere there...& people will have less time to think about sex & more time to think about making more money!

So, in order to "distribute more wealth", we need to find a way to industrialize more poverty nations -> not to give them money...to teach them not to "take given fishes", but "fishing fishes"! ;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

Food for thought.

If we are warming it means that there is more heat energy retained in the atmosphere and the surface skin of the planet. CO-2 production is up. However, CO-2 comes from and correlates with combustion: either fast from engines, lighting and power plant cycles; or slow from digestion of food and oxidation of rotting vegetation. All combustion releases heat into the atmosphere. Heat (man-made and solar-related) may be the cause of any alleged warming; not CO-2 per se.

When I get up sometimes in the middle of the night the sky is aglow from the street lights of Nashville which is 15 miles away from where I live. There are more and more people, more and more automobiles which pour 2/3 of their gasoline derived energy into heat rejection (and ultimately all of this energy since energy cannot be destroyed).

So rather than suggest ruinous policies form taxing or sequestering carbon --maybe we could suggest policies that may be more practical for reducing heat itself or of deflecting it out into space more efficiently. Energy cannot be created or destroyed but it can be moved around, either deflected or radiated away from the Earth itself.

...If we are warming it means that there is more heat energy retained in the atmosphere and the surface skin of the planet. CO-2 production is up. However, CO-2 comes from and correlates with combustion: either fast from engines, lighting and power plant cycles...

True.

...from digestion of food and oxidation of rotting vegetation. All combustion releases heat into the atmosphere. Heat (man-made and solar-related) may be the cause of any alleged warming; not CO-2 per se.

Yes and No. Infrared radiation (heat) IS "man-made and solar-related". However, it is the increased trapping of infrared wavelengths in the atmosphere that causes "global warming". Carbon dioxide (CO2) is only one of a number of gasses that have this effect but is itself by no means the most powerful, it simply the most abundant. Other than water vapor and carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4) and ozone (O3) are the primary greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. Moreover, there are a number of entirely human-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as the halocarbons and other chlorine- and bromine-containing substances. The increased radiational trapping by ALL of these gasses is the CAUSE of the warming. Without an atmosphere, the earth would be as cold as Mars. With a change of atmosphere by adding "greenhouse gasses", the earth becomes even warmer than it is.

...So rather than suggest ruinous policies form taxing or sequestering carbon --maybe we could suggest policies that may be more practical for reducing heat itself or of deflecting it out into space more efficiently. Energy cannot be created or destroyed but it can be moved around, either deflected or radiated away from the Earth itself.

It is quite a bit more complex of a problem than is "fixed" by ignoring solutions. To suggest that a difficult part of the solution be abandoned over another less demanding, is to suggest that the problem is not serious enough to warrant ALL our efforts combined.
The amount of heat Earth has to get rid of is entirely determined by the amount it receives from the Sun in the first place minus the portion it immediately reflects back into space. The small amount of actual heat generated by human activity is very small compared to the heat (infrared radiation) falling on the earth from the sun. To reflect more radiation back into space requires Glaciers which are quickly disapearing, and consistent yearly snow cover which is slowing due to warming.

Further "Food for Thought"
Human emissions of carbon dioxide

The rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is readily documented by direct measurements and by the results of ice core studies (from the polar regions). However, the precise contribution to this rise from human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide is not so readily determined. Estimation of future carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels can be accomplished by analyzing the production and use of coal, petroleum and hydrocarbon gas as reported by multinational corporations and by various nations and then applying the appropriate statistics. Other smaller contributions to emissions like cement production by heating of carbonate, which also releases carbon dioxide, can also be estimated with some confidence.
Big uncertainties arise from estimating the contributions from burning of wood and dung as fuel and from destruction of grasslands and forests and deforestation in general. The reason is that most of such burning goes on at a small scale in a large number of poorly developed countries and is not reported with a high degree of accuracy. Deforestation, which is proceeding quite rapidly in many countries, can be monitored best by using spacecraft. However, the conversion of images from space of burning forests or changes in forest cover into units of tons of carbon released is not straightforward.

So you see, even the quantifying of CO2 emissions is difficult and complicated.
To ignore one part of an unknown over another is irresponsible and foolish. All parts of the solution deserve our full attention.

"The Norse Vikings arrived in Greenland around 980 AD, during a 300-year-long warm period. Starting around 1100, however, the climate cooled rapidly. Average temperature dropped 4 degrees Celsius (7 degrees Fahrenheit) in only 80 years. Since the Norse—Viking fame aside—were largely farmers, this drop in temperature likely hit them hard. They began to leave Greenland shortly thereafter, and by the mid-15th century their settlements lay abandoned."
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/05/31/climate-change-froze-the-vikings-out-of-greenland-say-scientists/#.WA1ZKo_x7IU
Dug through Modern Day Permafrost?
There wasn't Permafrost during Viking Greenland Settlements back then?
Hmmmm

Hmmmm:)
I forgot that.
Something extraordinary must have happened when the Vikings settled down both in Greenland and Newfoundland aka Vinland.
And during the Scandinavian bronze age, 4000 to 3000 years ago, there was a warm period. It was about 5 degrees Celsius warmer here back then.
Well those rapid changes were not trigged by humans.

There seems to be a misunderstanding of what permafrost is and how it is formed.
Every year the summer heat thaws a few inches or so of the top layer of soil and vegetation. Stuff grows. Animals thrive. Seasons change.
After a short warm summer the freezing temperatures come again and freeze the thawed protion of the ground, leaving the vegitation and previous years growth buried a little deeper each year. It never gets a chance to compost and rot completely before eventually becoming part of the permafrost.
That is the danger of a thawing permafrost; the vegetation begins to rot and releases centuries or milennia worth of extra methane gas.

One of the world's leading institutes for researching the impact of global warming has repeatedly claimed credit for work done by rivals – and used it to win millions from the taxpayer.

An investigation by The Mail on Sunday also reveals that when the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) made a bid for more Government funds, it claimed it was responsible for work that was published before the organisation even existed. Last night, our evidence was described by one leading professor whose work was misrepresented as 'a clear case of fraud – using deception for financial gain'. The chairman of the CCCEP since 2008 has been Nick Stern, a renowned global advocate for drastic action to combat climate change.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3863462/Exposed-university-helped-secure-9million-money-passing-rivals-research-bankroll-climate-change-agenda.html

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

So this pig Stern and his CCCEP has taken real studies with real data and claimed that it was all done by them in order to FRAUDLENTLY get their grubby mitts on UK taxpayers money.
That is quite disgusting on a number of levels. The worst harm done is that all of the studies that they misrepresented as their own are all now going to be disregarded by the climate change deniers.
Because of the Fraud perpetrated by CCCEP, the hard science they co-opted authorship of will be assumed by the unthinking public to be invalid.

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming.
Simply more grist for the denial disinformation mill. Never mind the data. Not to worry about the consequences.

Not sure if this should go in the "Solutions" or "Denial"... Or perhaps we need a third thread of "Climate Change Political & Financial Corruption"?...


Here goes...

Note how for 'whatever reasons', there is no direct electricity grid measure recorded for UK solar power generation. All the solar output merely magically reduces the electricity demand that is recorded!

All too convenient for cooking the numbers?...

Instead now, we have some very enterprising research that has very cleverly filled in the missing data:

PV_Live Shortlisted for Award

Live PV generation

Installed GB capacity: 11.50 GWp
Effective GB capacity: 11.20 GWp
All time peak generation: 8.19 GW

That site estimates the solar power output for the UK by sampling a number of known sites to then calculate for the rest.


The example peak output for today was just over 3GW to give about 10% of electricity demand. Meanwhile, wind power is holding steady at over 6GW for contributing nearly 20% of UK demand for today.

More can yet be done...


And then in contrast, for squandering £11Billion:

Smart Meter rollout delayed again. Cost us £11bn, eh?


That could buy a lot of renewable energy supply and infrastructure to quickly power the country...

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Another small step to reduce some of our pollution:


Four major cities move to ban diesel vehicles by 2025

The leaders of four major global cities say they will stop the use of all diesel-powered cars and trucks...

... The diesel ban is hugely significant. Carmakers will look at this decision and know it's just a matter of time before other city mayors follow suit.

The history of vehicle manufacture shows that firms that do not keep up with environmental improvements will fail in a global market. The biggest shapers of automobile design are not carmakers, but rulemakers. There is already a rush to improve electric and hydrogen cars and hybrids. That will now become a stampede.

There is an ironic twist to this. Governments originally promoted diesel vehicles because they produce fewer of the CO2 emissions that are increasing climate change. But manufacturers misled governments about their ability to clean up the local pollution effects, so now diesel vehicles are being banned to clean up local air.

In their place will come electric and hydrogen vehicles, which are perfect for climate policy, if the power comes from renewables. Strange world...


Too small a step too late? Or really the start of a world-saving stampede?

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Another small step to reduce some of our pollution:


Four major cities move to ban diesel vehicles by 2025

The leaders of four major global cities say they will stop the use of all diesel-powered cars and trucks...

... The diesel ban is hugely significant. Carmakers will look at this decision and know it's just a matter of time before other city mayors follow suit.

The history of vehicle manufacture shows that firms that do not keep up with environmental improvements will fail in a global market. The biggest shapers of automobile design are not carmakers, but rulemakers. There is already a rush to improve electric and hydrogen cars and hybrids. That will now become a stampede.

There is an ironic twist to this. Governments originally promoted diesel vehicles because they produce fewer of the CO2 emissions that are increasing climate change. But manufacturers misled governments about their ability to clean up the local pollution effects, so now diesel vehicles are being banned to clean up local air.

In their place will come electric and hydrogen vehicles, which are perfect for climate policy, if the power comes from renewables. Strange world...


Too small a step too late? Or really the start of a world-saving stampede?

All on our only one planet,
Martin

Germany already has that & it's the best system with TUV sticker:
https://www.tuev-nord.de/en/private/traffic/car-motorcycle-caravan/emissions-sticker/
;)

---

non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU

There are a lot of hot spots around the world where more of this can be utilised:


World's hottest borehole nearly complete

... The researchers want to bring steam from the deep well back up to the surface to provide an important source of energy.

"We hope that this will open new doors for the geothermal industry globally to step into an era of more production,"...

... it is this supercritical steam that the team wants to bring back up to the surface to convert into electricity. They believe its special properties mean it could produce up to 10 times as much energy as the steam from conventional geothermal wells.

"If this works, in the future we would need to drill fewer wells to produce the same amount of energy, meaning we would touch less surface, which means less environmental impact and hopefully lower costs...



All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

T'others locked.
Scientists confirm that warm ocean water is melting the biggest glacier in East Antarctica

These waters, the paper asserts, are causing the ice shelf to lose between 63 and 80 billion tons of its mass to the ocean per year, and to lose about 10 meters (32 feet) of thickness annually, a reduction that has been previously noted based on satellite measurements.

This matters because more of East Antarctica flows out towards the sea through the Totten glacier region than for any other glacier in the entirety of the East Antarctic ice sheet. Its entire “catchment,” or the region of ice that slowly flows outward through Totten glacier and its ice shelf, is larger than California. If all of this ice were to end up in the ocean somehow, seas would raise by about 11.5 feet.

---

T'others locked.
Scientists confirm that warm ocean water is melting the biggest glacier in East Antarctica

These waters, the paper asserts, are causing the ice shelf to lose between 63 and 80 billion tons of its mass to the ocean per year, and to lose about 10 meters (32 feet) of thickness annually, a reduction that has been previously noted based on satellite measurements.

This matters because more of East Antarctica flows out towards the sea through the Totten glacier region than for any other glacier in the entirety of the East Antarctic ice sheet. Its entire “catchment,” or the region of ice that slowly flows outward through Totten glacier and its ice shelf, is larger than California. If all of this ice were to end up in the ocean somehow, seas would raise by about 11.5 feet.

Click bait, read a bit more:

The large loss of ice from the ice shelf doesn’t raise seas because that ice is already afloat.

---