Stunning Before and After Photographs Show the Impact of Global Warming on Greenland’s Glaciers

By Tom Yulsman | December 15, 2014 6:36 pm
global warming

Acquired 2013. (Source: NASA Earth Observatory)

global warming

Acquired 1935 (Source: NASA Earth Observatory)

I love NASA’s Earth Observatory so much that I check in with it every day knowing I’ll be rewarded with a visual treat about the Earth. But I’m a journalist, which means I have an urge to try to break news first. That includes beating the folks at EO to big, visual, Earth and environmental sciences stories (which I’m proud to say I’ve done from time to time).

Today, though, I just have to share the Earth Observatory’s imagery as is. It consists of the two photographs above of the Sukkertoppen ice cap in southwest Greenland, which is being affected by global warming. Both were shot from aircraft.

Sometimes, a picture really is worth a thousand words — except in this case, it’s two pictures. Take a minute to gaze at them…

That beautiful fjord in the top image is filled by striking emerald waters, the color no doubt the result of glacial flour — silt-sized particles of rock resulting from grinding of the bedrock by glaciers. Those glaciers ultimately help funnel ice from the vast Greenland Ice Sheet to the sea.

According to a new study published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the sheet shed ice at a rate of about 243 billion tons a year between 2003 and 2009. That was enough to raise sea level 0.68 millimeters each year during the period. That’s obviously not a whole lot, but year by year, decade by decade, it has been adding up — and building on sea level rise from glacial retreat around the world, as well as a warming and therefore expanding ocean.

Since 1880, the world’s oceans have come up by about 8 inches — one of the clearest impacts of global warming. That has been contributing to erosion of river deltas around the world, and higher, damaging storm surges.

Just how much glaciers in Greenland’s Sukkertoppen ice cap region have retreated can be seen by looking at the second photo above, taken in 1935. As today’s Earth Observatory post puts it:

By summer 2013 (top), the glacier had retreated by about 3 kilometers (less than two miles) since summer 1935 (bottom), according to researcher Anders Bjørk of the Natural History Museum of Denmark. Both photographs were acquired from aircraft, most recently in an effort by Bjork and colleagues to re-photograph the sites of Greenland’s fast-changing glaciers.

What’s going on in Greenland as a result of global warming is illustrated in this video released today by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. The visualization of ice loss is particularly revealing.

  • odin2

    There is no empirical evidence that CO2 emissions are a significant cause of atmospheric global warming. The theory that catastrophic global warming is caused by CO2 emissions is based on an unproven theory and computers which overemphasize CO2’s role in climate change and de-emphasize the role of clouds, solar cycles, ocean cycles and other natural causes of climate change. These computers have been notoriously wrong almost all of the time (when compared to real world data) and have been compared to a sports team that played the entire season without winning a game. Computers that model an imaginary planet and are programmed with guesses of a few of the many variables affecting climate are not data or empirical evidnce.

    During the last ice age CO2 levels fell to 180 ppm and plants started to shut down. If CO2 levels had reached 150 ppm or lower, plants would have died off and all plant and animal life on the planet would have died. We currently have global CO2 levels at just under 400 ppm. Green houses regularly keep CO2 concentrations at 1000-1200 ppm because the plants grow better. In the past, CO2 levels have been at several thousand parts per million and plants and animals thrived. US submarines try to keep CO2 levels below 8,000 ppm. Federal OSHA standards set CO2 maximums at 5,000 ppm. We are much closer to being CO2 deprived than we are being threatened by too much atmospheric CO2. Plants thrive on more CO2- that is a good thing. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a colorless and odorless gas that comprises only .04% of the atmosphere. The most predominant greenhouse gas is water vapor.

    The world has not experienced atmospheric global warming in the past 18 years despite increasing CO2 emissions during this period. If CO2 was a direct and significant cause of global warming, we would have experienced global warming during the 18 year pause. We did not.

    Climate change is natural and has been occurring since the formation of the planet. The 18 year pause just proves that the skeptics were right all along-natural causes of climate change are more powerful than the insubstantial effects that human generated CO2 has on the world’s climate. The hysterics’ alarms over CO2 causing catastrophic global warming have been described accurately as the flea wagging the dog.

    Proof positive that CAGW is about power, politics and greed is the fact that every time the facts change, the CAGW cult moves the goal posts . They have at least 65 excuses for the more than 18 year pause in global warming and the failure of the CAGW climate models. The CAGW cult blames any unusual (but normal) climate event on global warming with no scientific proof. This is often done with a scary picture or one that pulls on the heart strings, and the text of the article will say “could be caused”, “is consistent with”, or “may be caused by” global warming. This is code for we have no scientific evidence but we want to scare you so we can tax CO2 and promote our political agenda.

    • Windy
      • Tom Yulsman

        Many thanks Windy. That’s fascinating.

    • Phil Sparrow

      Odin2. Keep disbelieving. Good luck with that and better start thinking of what you are going to say to your grandchildren to explain why you did nothing to prevent damage to the planet.

      • odin2

        Funny, I was about to say the same thing to you. You do know that we are at a substantial risk of entering a prolonged cooling period don’t you. Cold is much worse for humans than heat.

        The real danger is another little ice age caused by solar cycles:

        Please provide the empirical evidence that CO2 emissions are a substantial cause of global warming (there has been no global warming for 18+ years).

        • Phil Sparrow

          yeah, you’re right and 95% of all world top scientists, climatologists etc etc are wrong. Astonishing the arrogance. As a side note, you really want to live in a greenhouse? Have fun with all the fungus in your armpits.

          • odin2

            Appealing to a false consensus (which has been repeatedly been debunked) is a propaganda technique and is not impressive.

          • Phil Sparrow

            I don’t think you are impressed by anyone. Interested also that 95% of peak world scientific and climate bodies have been debunked! You sure have your finger on the pulse.

          • odin2

            Straw man. I said that the claim that there is a 95% consensus has been repeatedly debunked. The use of straw men is another propaganda technique to avoid supplying scientific evidence.

          • John Samuel

            97% is the lower limit for the consensus. A dozen peer reviewed studies over the last decade confirm that.

            No peer reviewed studies contradict that number. There is no debunking of the 97% in the literature.

            But you can find blogs to “prove” anything.

          • Phil Sparrow

            got better things to do than argue here. I’m going to go an DO something about the world we live in and are busy ruining. See ya Odin.

          • odin2

            Goodbye. :)

          • Voodude


          • odin2

            ROFLOL Thanks for all of the good information.

          • John Samuel

            Another cartoon ad hominem.

          • Paul Shipley

            Actually Josh you are now quoting 2006 figures. Having trouble keeping up or just cherry picking. 2013 it was 99.93%. Get the feeling that you are in the minority. No wonder you can’t get a buyer for your cartoons. They are out of date. That’s right roll your eyes. You might get the shock that you can see your brain.

          • Voodude

            I am not Josh. I give proper attribution when I use his work. But, as for your comment that Josh, and I, are in the minority? The United Nations has taken a poll…

          • Paul Shipley

            I was sleeping, yawn, oh him again. Nutter, back to sleep.

          • Paul Shipley

            All I see here is the product of a poor education system from the land of snake oil doctors.

          • Voodude

            Oh, wow, you have to have a good education to see “Climate Change”?

          • Guest

            The simple fact is that you are in the minority. Obviously no matter what is bought to bear you will keep believing what the Republican Party sells you and ignore all the science. The terrible desperate website links you put up are just sad. Want to buy some snake oil, it has got the seal of approval from the Republican Party.

          • Voodude

            I don’t live in the USA. You Americans, you think the whole world revolves around you.

          • Paul Shipley

            So climate change does not exist because some poll asked people what they thought was important. Yes that is great proof that climate change doesn’t exist…… and only proves my earlier comment about the product of a poor education system.
            So now I challenge you. Put a peer reviewed scientific study up instead of your silly cartoons and website links that somebody, somewhere that watched a TV program put up or blogged.
            You might get an education in looking for one to support your argument. Do it if you dare.
            Then again you might fall into the category of just plain desperate.

          • Voodude

            on what subject?

          • Paul Shipley

            That there is no such thing as human climate change.

          • Voodude

            Too broad of a subject.

          • Paul Shipley

            It would seem to me that a subject that is as broad as that would offer many peer reviewed scientific studies and therefore would be easy to find.
            Couldn’t find a single one obviously. Not that I would expect that would change any of your opinions which only says to me what a poor debate you put up.
            I suppose my original thought bubble was correct.

          • Voodude

            I haven’t seen you post even a singe citation of a peer-reviewed journal’s paper. I see nothing but snide comments, though, it may be that you and I agree on GMOs.

          • Paul Shipley

            Okay, a pretty simple one for me.

            This is the link to an info-graphic on Popular Science that says of the 2258 peer reviewed climate authors only 1 author rejected man made global warming.

            And if you want to read a lot of them 1350 are here.
            Sorry I didn’t put the link into one for you that supported climate change as I couldn’t find it as the author has since changed his position.

          • Voodude

            That’s a URL (linking to some online article). While that is a good start, showing how some other source agrees with you, or influences you, it isn’t a citation in the sense that it doesn’t steer the reader to a journal-published, peer reviewed, scientific paper.

            Like this one:

            Polyakov, I. V., et al.. “Variability of the intermediate Atlantic water of the Arctic Ocean over the last 100 years.” Journal of Climate 17.23 (2004): 4485-4497.

            That is a proper citation, in my book.

            I try to follow up a citation with a URL to the paper… sometimes it is only the abstract… many papers are behind paywalls. If I can, I use a URL that points to the whole paper, like this one:


            These are the notes I took from that paper, which, by the way, never says squat about anything “Global Warming”, but says that the heat content of the water deep beneath the arctic ocean has the heat content to melt the surface ice… but it doesn’t, because of the cold, fresher-water layer above it. The salt content of the warm water keeps it near the bottom… and if something disturbs that warm, lower layer, a whole hell-of-a-lot of heat gets churned up, melting the arctic sea-ice…

            ”Isolated from drifting ice by a fresh and cold surface layer, the intermediate [warm and salty Atlantic water] carries vast quantities of heat. … Released into the upper ocean, this heat has the potential to melt substantial quantities of Arctic ice.”

            ”Enhanced transport of warmer air from lower latitudes (Serreze et al. 1997) leads to increased arctic surface air temperature (SAT; Martin et al. 1997; Rigor et al. 2000) associated with decreased arctic sea level pressure (SLP), increased polar atmospheric cyclonicity (Walsh et al. 1996), and storminess (Zhang et al. 2004). Concurrent with these atmospheric changes are reductions in arctic ice extent (Johannessen et al. 1995; Maslanik et al. 1996; Cavalieri et al 2003; Vinje 2001) and a decrease of ice thickness (Rothrock et al. 1999; Tucker et al. 2001).”

            ”Both observations (Woodgate et al. 2001) and modeling (Karcher et al. 2003) indicate a highly variable nature of the [warm and salty Atlantic water] flow, with abrupt cooling/warming events that complicate the investigation of long-term variability in the [warm and salty Atlantic water].”

          • Paul Shipley

            Si that’s a bit rich. The most recent reference is from 2004. More than a decade ago. Somebody’s living in the past.

          • Paul Shipley

            So that’s a bit rich. The most recent reference is from 2004. More than a decade ago. Somebody’s living in the past.
            All you need to do is go to the site and there are hundreds of peer reviewed papers.
            The old saying comes to mind, you can lead a horse to water…..

          • Paul Shipley

            So that’s a bit rich. The most recent reference is from 2004. More than a decade ago. Somebody’s living in the past.
            Who calls it Global warming anymore… Climate change.
            So if you want more up to date stuff, all you need to do is go to the site and there are hundreds of peer reviewed papers.
            The old saying comes to mind, you can lead a horse to water…..

          • Voodude

            … I just put that up because I was researching that subject at the moment. Strictly as an example of what a citation actually is. I take it you don’t do research. You still haven’t put up a single citation, either here, or in your GMO postings.

      • Voodude

        Spoken like a True Alarmist.

    • Skip Nordenholz

      Computer models have periodic the increase in temp. within the error bars, the computer models are not going to be 100% accurate, if you think the error bars are to broad then you have to give a reason why, nobody is saying CO2 is the only factor on global temperature, the seasons are a very important factor in determining temp. but if you get a cold day in the middle of summer you don’t cry ah the theory of season is therefore incorrect. Life depends of water to survive but that does not mean drowning in water is not possible or you can not have to much water. The fact that CO2 is colourless or odourless is irrelevant, the percentage that it makes up of the atmosphere is also irrelevant, you have to explain why the percentage is not enough to have an effect, there are lots of examples of things that have effects in small quantiites. CO2 levels in submarines are kept below a certain level not out of concern about the effect on the climate this is just irrelevant and you know this so why would you even bring it up, the same applies to green houses. Global warming science predicted that the upper atmosphere temp. would decrease as the lower increased, this prediction has come true. It predicted that parts of the world that stay under 0 degree would experience more snow because there is more moister in the air, this has become true. The idea that global warming is a conspiracy created to make money is absurd, what evidence do you have that this is a good way to make money, instead of just investing your money into normal stocks. And who is behind the conspiracy, big solar? Life has had a huge impact on the earth, the very air we breath is the product of plants getting energy from the sun, the idea that humans are some how except from effecting the earth unlike every other living thing is unscientific magical thinking.

      • odin2

        Computer generate climate models based on a mythical planet and programmed with guesses of only a few of the drivers of climate change (which overestimate the effects of CO2 and underestimate or fail to account for the effects of clouds, solar cycles, ocean cycles and other natural drivers) are not data or empirical evidence. They have been wrong 97% of the time anyway.

        My point is that CO2 is an essential gas that is essential to all life on earth and not the equivalent of mercury, particulates, cyanide gas, etc.

        More on CO2

        Please provide the empirical evidence that CO2 emissions are a substantial cause of global warming (there has been no global warming for 18+ years).

        • John Samuel

          Watts? Too funny.

          UAH shows surface warming over the last 18 years.

          Try again.

          • odin2

            Attach the source but not the substance. Another propaganda technique to avoid discussing the science.

          • John Samuel

            Defending your lack of reputable citations by accusing those who point out you have none is a propaganda technique.

            You have no science. Just blogs.

          • odin2


          • Bart_R

            When you decided to campaign in favour of fossil waste dumping, what was the thought process?

            Was it, “Oh, those smart people with their science and their lab coats, I’ll show them they can’t tell me anything!”

            Was it, “But that can’t be right, I’m entitled to do whatever I like without consequence!”

            Was it, “There’s a bunch of witty people who say mean things about science nerds, I better hang with them so they don’t pick on me, too!”

            I really would appreciate the insight into what could cause someone to become so twisted.

          • odin2

            Falling back on the tried and true propaganda technique (mockery) when you have no science Bart? You are a waste of time and I am moving on.

          • John Samuel

            The science is mocking you. Bart is just highlighting that.

        • Robert

          “….wattsupwiththat [dot] com/201…

          Please provide the empirical evidence that CO2 emissions are…..”

          I appreciated the humor in that ……

          And you get extra points for linking to a post that whinges on about Al Gore.

          And extra points for the cherrypicking in that post (try reading the rest of the chapter cited for one page….).

    • Skip Nordenholz

      Oh and “could be caused”, “is consistent with”, or “may be caused by” is because they are professional scientists not politicians and so they know there are no absolute certainties, only varying levels of probability. This is the way all good scientist talk about their science. The fact that they precise and cautions in their statements is a measure of there professionalism. And the fact you don’t understand this is a measure of your ignorance about science. There also are not 65 excuses for the pause, you just made this up, its because of a pause in the El Nino cycle, which is an import fact in low level atmosphere air temp.

      • odin2

        My comment was directed mostly at the journalists promoting the CAGW cult I have seen a number of studies use the “consistent with” language which means that ” we have no scientific evidence showing a direct link to CO2 emissions but are findings do not falsify the AGW hypothesis” . Translation. we have no direct scientific evidence of AGW but we have to make this statement to preserve our government grants.

        Please provide the empirical evidence that CO2 emissions are a substantial cause of global warming (there has been no global warming for 18+ years).

        • Robert

          “..directed mostly at the journalists promoting the CAGW cult I have seen a number of studies…”

          So, are you arguing about how the science is communicated?

          Or are you trying to claim the science is invalid?

          Either case needs a strong, one would say substantive, set of valid sources to support the claim.

        • Robert

          “Translation. we have no …”

          Really? You are claiming the entire IPCC WG1 report points to no “direct scientific evidence of AGW”?

          We’ve been treating the Earth’s geology, atmosphere, biosphere, and human culture as a science lab since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Direct observation, data collection, physics experiments……

          • Paul Shipley

            He really needs to get on a diet of light bulbs.

        • StrawCat

          How much does the Koch Brothers or their agents pay you to post these well-debunked talking points ad nauseum?

          • odin2

            I was wondering when someone would come up with the bogeyman propaganda technique.

            It appears to me that the Kochs are being used as bogeymen because the left cannot run on the issues. People don’t know who the Kochs are or what they stand for so they make perfect scapegoats for the left’s failed domestic and foreign policies. I believe that if most Americans truly understood what the Koch brothers stand for they would support their ideas 100%. Like global warming, many have bought into the smears from people like Harry Reid. People should read about the Koch brothers positions on smaller government and individual freedoms, gay marriage and the war on drugs. And, the Koch brothers run their companies well in harmony with the unions (they have kept thousands of jobs in the US instead of shipping them overseas) and in compliance with environmental regulations. They also give generously to charities (and the left protests their charitable gifts).

            When I researched the Koch brothers, I decided to give to the CATO Institute which they co-founded. CATO by the way acknowledges that global warming exists but states that the question is how much are humans contributing to global warming and how much is due to other causes? The other question is if we know the answer to the first question, what can or should be done about it?

            William F. Buckley once said that “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

            Instead of bogeymen, provide empirical evidence that CO2 have been a substantial cause of any global warming at any time more than 18+ years ago.

          • odin2

            I keep looking for the check in my mailbox- but it never comes. :)

        • John Samuel

          The world has warmed over the last 18 years.

          The surface warms.

          The oceans warm, rise and acidify.

          Ice is melting at a trillion tonnes per year.

          • odin2

            Your opinions are empirical evidence ??? LOL

    • Bart_R

      Still repeating the same cut & paste of the same many-times debunked claims?

      During every ice age CO2 levels fall to 180 ppmv. This is normal, and yet plants continue to thrive at those levels. 180 ppmv is a full 20% above the 150 ppmv where CO2 starvation begins, and is not a ‘danger’ level for plants. It’s what they’ve evolved to.

      Greenhouse growers — and I know, being from a family of greenhouse growers — struggle to lower CO2 levels at night because of CO2 locking. During the day of course many greenhouses increase CO2 artificially; plants take in CO2 during respiration, so it can be difficult to keep the levels above 50 ppmv in a really vigorous phase. If plant nutrition and conformation are not important, some will keep CO2 elevated for the ethylene and gibberrellin plant hormone effects, which divert vigour from storing nutrients to building woody mass and effectively accelerated the ripening process, so the fruiting season ends prematurely though shelf life shortens.

      The last time CO2 levels were in the thousands of ppmv, oxygen levels were 50% to 100% higher, too, and that was so many millions of years ago we cannot from the fossil record begin to speculate on the quality or distribution of life.

      Speculating wildly in some spasm of CO2 worship is not reasoned argument. It’s Marketing for fossil waste dumping.

      What sort of mind volunteers itself to market fossil pollution?

      And there’s the past 18 years, the most rapidly warming period in the past 56 million years.

      • odin2

        Me: “During the last ice age CO2 levels fell to 180 ppm and plants started to shut down. If CO2 levels had reached 150 ppm or lower, plants would have died off and all plant and animal life on the planet would have died. ”

        You: ” During every ice age CO2 levels fall to 180 ppmv. This is normal, and yet plants continue to thrive at those levels. ….180 ppmv is a full 20% above the 150 ppmv where CO2 starvation begins,…”

        18o ppm is seriously low for plant life. You have only a 30 ppm margin for error. You like to live dangerously don’t you?

        CO2 promotes nutritional value of food crops:

        CO2 promotes plant growth:

        Read the book:

        The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment, written by the son/father team of Craig D. and Sherwood B. Idso. It is encyclopedic in nature, with fifty-five different subjects treated and arranged in alphabetical order — starting with Air Pollution Stress (Non-Ozone) and ending with Wood Density — each of which entries comes with its own set of reference citations.

        Deserts Greening from rising CO2:

        You: ” The last time CO2 levels were in the thousands of ppmv, oxygen levels were 50% to 100% higher, too, and that was so many millions of years ago we cannot from the fossil record begin to speculate on the quality or distribution of life.”

        Go ahead and speculate. You speculate all the time when you try to sell the CAGW myth with pseudoscience.

        Now, instead of obfuscating, provide the empirical evidence that CO2 emissions are a substantial cause of global warming (there has been no global warming for 18+ years).

        • ziff

          There are numerous instances in the last 150 years where there were plateaus. But each plateau has been higher than the last. Your argument is basically: “this step is flat, therefore there is no staircase”.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Ziff: An excellent point. Thank you. I’d add that each of the past three decades has been warmer than everyone before it. Whether or not the warming of the past 10 years has stalled (it actually has not), this is a salient fact pointing to long-term warming of the climate system.

          • odin2

            We have been warming more or less since the LIA ended. It does not prove that CO2 emissions are a significant cause.

          • ziff

            True, but likewise saying there has been no warming in the last 18 years does not refute agw or that the long term trend has ceased.

            You might want to look into Berkeley Earth. It was started by a physicist named Richard Muller who was a vocal climate change skeptic. He felt skeptics had raised legitimate issues and set out to analyze them. For more than two years he researched and tried to fit the trends to various forcings. The only one that fit was increased greenhouse gases by humans.

            His site has a nice summary of their findings.

          • odin2


          • StrawCat

            Here’s another website to check out:
            Global Warming & Climate Change Myths vs. What the science says:

            Especially this web page:

          • John Samuel

            We have been warming more or less since the industrial revolution. We were cooling until then.

          • Voodude

            Y’all alarmists refer to the recent past as “industrial revolution” but that belies what came before it, The Little Ice Age. So, it would seem, looking back across the last 10,000 years, the earth is returning to it’s average temperature, having been depressed by The Little Ice Age. Would you rather be living in The Little Ice Age? I think not. No wonder “Temperatures already have increased by 0.85 of a degree since 1880.” … it was damn cold!

          • John Samuel

            The earth was cooling until man started emitting CO2.

            The LIA ended for a reason.

          • Voodude

            “Whether or not the warming of the past 10 years has stalled (it actually has not)…” yeah, it is cooling

          • John Samuel

            The earth is not cooling. Try again.

          • Voodude

            You may argue that the cooling trend is short, or statistically insignificant, but the linear regression analysis definitely shows a COOLING trend

          • odin2

            My argument is that there is no empirical evidence that CO2 emissions are a significant cause of global warming (the study cited by you below notwithstanding). That study was in 2006. If it provides empirical evidence of global warming it would be cited by every warmest and there would be no argument- it is not. Also, it does not explain the lack of warming since the end of the period covered by the study.

          • ziff

            I’m hypothesizing, but that may be because the underpinnings for CO2’s role were well established long before that study. So in the scientific community this study isn’t anything unexpected. The absorption spectra of CO2 has been understood for a very long time. And this is the mechanism by which it contributes energy to the atmosphere.
            Here’s another you might want to check out: open up Figure 4. It’s from the 1950’s.

          • Voodude

            Arrhenus’ argument, more accurately could be stated: “increasing Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s will result in increasing surface temperature, if nothing else changed“. However, nothing remains the same. Things DO change, and the amount of warming directly attributable to an increase, above “pre-industrial” CO2 levels is vanishingly small, and can be utterly swamped (lost in the noise) by many other dynamic processes. Water, in all its phases, has the dominant role in shaping our climate. CO2 plays a major role in surface temperature, only during so-called “snowball earth” episodes, when most of the water vapour has been frozen out of the atmosphere. Oceans are no longer working, as CO2 sinks; volcanoes, which keep on belching out CO2, gradually build up the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, until enough “greenhouse effect” shows up to begin melting the planet. If it weren’t for CO2 the earth would likely be covered in ice with no hope of ever melting; once melted, water vapour dominates.

            So, CO2 in the real atmosphere might have some “heating” effects, well below 200 ppmv. Easily demonstrated in a brass tube, as was done by the great experimental physicist John Tyndall, 150 years ago, when he experimentally verified infrared opacity in various gases. However, the gases in Tyndall’s tube did not convect, advect, evaporate, condense, or freeze, as things do in a real atmosphere. Tyndall measured the infrared opacity of the gases… he made no attempt to measure how water vapour acts to thermostatically regulate planet earth, through clouds and thunderstorms, irrespective of the infrared absorption properties that it has. Arrhenius made the claims.

            Knut Ångstrom, son of Anders Jonas Ångstrom, was the nemesis of Arrhenius. He challenged Svante immediately on the “absorptive powers of CO2″ when released in 1896. Due to the ‘horse-and-buggy’ peer review it took a while for universal rejection. See, US Monthly Weather Review, June 1901. page 268….

          • Voodude

            CartoonsByJosh dot com

          • odin2


        • Robert

          The CRAAP test

          This is a multidisciplinary guide on evaluating research sources, especially resources found on the World Wide Web.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Thank you Robert! I will share the “CRAAP” test with our science journalism students. Excellent!

          • Robert


            The librarians at UC are a great resource; I’d be mighty surprised they don’t have something similar developed also

        • Bart_R

          At the current time, we might lose 20% of the excess CO2 we’ve added from fossil sources in the next 500 years (roughly 24 ppmv) if we stopped emitting today. We’d lose on average half of the excess CO2 in 30,000-36,000 years (about 60 ppmv). The remaining 60 ppmv would take 60,000-70,000 years to remove from the atmosphere, leaving us at 280 ppmv.

          The movement from 280 ppmv to 180 ppmv takes roughly 50,000 years of the Milankovitch Cycle, though unevenly.

          At 180 ppmv, what with miles of ice covering most of the continents further from the Equator than the Tropics, we have other things to worry about, but the soonest we can expect that is 130,000 years from now.

          And that ‘dangerous’ seriously low 180 ppm; how long will it take to drop the remaining 30 ppm to the start of where plants have issues?

          A minimum of ten million years.

          You’re being an alarmist.

          • odin2

            You: You’re being an alarmist.

            LOL. It is you who are denying nature.

          • Bart_R

            Human nature is to seek a free lunch.

            So long as fossil waste dumping remains free, it will continue to be done to excess.

            That’s the issue. We’ve exceeded what nature can absorb, and need to stop.

          • Voodude


          • Voodude


          • odin2

            LOL Thanks

          • Bart_R

            Oh look. Pictures doodled by a denier.

            Always.. really, really.. repetitive.

          • Paul Shipley

            Can’t get them published anywhere else. So posts them on a blog. How pitifully sad is he.

          • Voodude

            “CO2 has a residency almost exactly the same as methane, 8-15 years, give or take a couple. When I was a climatology student we were taught CO2 residency was about 7 years. It was not until the [United Nations] IPCC wanted to build models that equipped CO2 with the abilty to drive climate that CO2 suddenly started hanging around longer. Much, much, much longer.” Gator 2011-08-15 19:34


            “The amount of 14C produced by nuclear bomb testing that entered the Atlantic Ocean by late 1972 was 1.71×10−8 μmol/cm2 of ocean surface area for the west Atlantic (36°S–45°N) and 1.18×10−8 μmol/cm2 for the east Atlantic (50°S–28°N) Geochemical Ocean Sections Study stations. There are strong latitudinal differences in the integrated amount of bomb 14C content in Atlantic waters. Bomb-produced 14C is mostly encountered near the center of the large mid-latitude gyres, whereas the equatorial region has a lower 14C inventory. The average ocean wide vertical distribution of bomb 14C in the Atlantic can be explained by a vertical eddy diffusion coefficient of 4.0 cm2/s in the surface mixed layer plus thermocline gyre reservoirs. The average 14C activity per unit area measured in the Atlantic yields an CO2 exchange rate of 23 mol/m2 yr, which is equivalent with an atmospheric CO2 residence time of 6.8 years.

            Stuiver, Minze. “14C distribution in the Atlantic Ocean.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans (1978–2012) 85.C5 (1980): 2711-2718.


            O’Neill et al. (1994) criticize the IPCC report (Houghton et al., 1990) because it “offers no rigorous definition of lifetime; for the purpose of defining Global Warming Potentials, it instead presents integrations of impulse-response functions over several finite time intervals. Each of these estimates has its own strengths and weaknesses. Taken together, however, they create confusion over what “lifetime” means, how to calculate it, and how it relates to other timescales.” IPCC’s assertion that CO2 has no real sinks, have been rejected elsewhere (Jaworowski et al., 1992 a; Segalstad, 1996).

            The atmospheric residence time (i.e. lifetime; turnover time) of CO2 has been quantified based on measurements of natural radiocarbon (carbon-14) levels in the atmosphere and the ocean surface; the changes in those levels caused by anthropogenic effects, like “bomb carbon-14” added to the atmosphere by nuclear explosions; and the “Suess Effect” caused by the addition of old carbon-14-free CO2 from combustion of fossil fuels; and the application of gas exchange theory to rates determined for the inert radioactive gas radon-222. The results from these measurements are shown in Table 2, mainly based on the compilation by Sundquist (1985), in addition to the solubility data of Murray (1992), and the carbon-13/carbon-12 mass-balance calculation of Segalstad (1992). Both of the last two recent methods happened to give a lifetime of 5.4 years based on completely different methods.

          • Bart_R


            Methane in atmosphere devolves into CO2 and water.

            I’ll take Archer’s well-founded, well-documented, thorough and openly reviewable works over some guy named after a football team you found on the interwebs.

          • Voodude

            Half of an ad-hom.

          • Bart_R

            The front half, or the top half?

            Archer’s work refutes the claims of your cited source.

            What Archer has to say about Gator personally?

            I neither know nor care.

        • ssum

          To make the claim that higher CO2 concentrations are necessarily beneficial to human purposes, significantly nutritional, is incorrect. Citing woodiness, height, etc., as evidence of value can be misleading. Researchers in Australia using 700 ppm found that these levels were harmful for the purposes of producing an important food crop, cassava; there was 80% less food production. The reason: “Because the stomata contract, plants transpire less and use less water, thus drawing
          fewer nutrients from the soil. As a result, C3 crops exposed to more CO2 show deficits
          by up to 15 percent in calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, and—most
          important—protein (Glob Chang Biol 14: 565–75, 2008)”.
          This quote was from a summary in The Scientist Vol 23, Issue 10, page 17.

          • odin2



            And also:

            The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment, written by the son/father team of Craig D. and Sherwood B. Idso. It is encyclopedic in nature, with fifty-five different subjects treated and arranged in alphabetical order — starting with Air Pollution Stress (Non-Ozone) and ending with Wood Density — each of which entries comes with its own set of reference citations.

          • John Samuel
          • odin2


            What a perfect example of the CAGW cult and its propaganda techniques. The CAGW cult uses propaganda techniques to avoid supplying scientific evidence – because there is no scientific evidence that CO2 emissions are a significant cause of global warming.

            Keep it up. You are amusing and a great example of a CAGW believer.

          • John Samuel

            You have no scientific evidence.

            Two century old physics has defeated you, the dopey denier.

          • odin2






            Observations have defeated you . See above.

            And also:


            “Arrhenius first claimed absorption of radiation from the earth by carbon dioxide but
            he did not realize that he was actually measuring water vapor.”

            From Wikipedia:

            “Svante Arrhenius was one of several leading Swedish scientists actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala, Sweden, which had originally been proposed as a Nobel Institute. Arrhenius was a member of the institute’s board, as he had been in The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics), founded in 1909.” This lead to the theory of Aryan supremacy.

          • John Samuel

            You gotta be thick to cite the hockeyshtick. :-))

          • odin2

            If you cannot explain the pause, you cannot explain the cause.

          • John Samuel

            There is no pause. Fixed it for you.

          • odin2

            Keep deluding yourself.

          • John Samuel

            Keep selling those bridges. There are other gullibles like you out there who need to fill out their collection.

          • Voodude

            There is no sense denying that the earth has warmed, just as there is no sense denying that it is cooling. What is significantly different about my point is that it is currently cooling and that your point is old news.

            Average Temperature, Annual (month will be greyed out) (generates January-December); 1895-2013, Kentucky or other state or region, Entire State;

            (check) Display Base Period 1961-1990; (check) Display Trend; (check) per Decade value cited to 2013; (leave unchecked) Smoothed Time Series
            (they only have data posted to 2013, checking 2014 makes no difference to the graph, yet…)


            The Northern Rockies and Plains shows cooling since 1997

            The West shows cooling since 1999

            Southwest since 1998

            Southeast cooling since1998

            South cooling, 1998

            Northwest 1994

            Upper Midwest 1997

            Ohio Valley 1998

            Puerto Rico 1971

            Hawai’i (Hilo) 1971

            Hawai’i (Honolulu) 1984

            Hawai’i (Kahului) 1972

            Hawai’i (Lihue) 1969

            District of Columbia 2006

            Wyoming 1997

            Wisconsin 1997

            West Virginia 1998

            Washington 1985

            Virginia 2005

            Vermont 2010

            Utah 1992

            Texas 1998

            South Dakota 1997

            South Carolina 2004

            Rhode Island 2010

            Pennsylvania 1998

            Oregon 1986

            Oklahoma 1998

            Ohio 1998

            North Dakota 1983

            North Carolina 1998

            New York 2010

            New Mexico 1998

            New Jersey 2010

            New Hampshire 2010

            Nevada 1994

            Nebraska 1997

            Montana 1997

            Missouri 1997

            Mississippi 1997

            Minnesota 1997

            Michigan 1998

            Massachusetts 2010

            Maryland 2010

            Maine 2010

            Louisiana 1998

            Kentucky 1998

            Kansas 1997

            Iowa 1997

            Indiana 1998

            Illinois 1997

            Idaho 1986

            Georgia 1997

            Florida 1990

            Delaware 2010

            Connecticut 2010

            Colorado 1994

            California 1999

            Arkansas 2004

            Arizona 1995

            Alabama 1895

            The “Eastern NWS Region” 2010

            The “Northeast” 2010

          • Bart_R

            The total surface area of the USA compared to the globe is under 2%.

            The cherry picked and contrived list you’ve extracted is.. really insignificant.

          • Voodude

            There is lots more evidence… observations… besides just the US. It may be around 2% but it is the most instrumented space on earth.

          • Bart_R

            Sure. Instrumented. And when you cherry pick out specific instrumental records while excluding the whole, you’re achieving the special goal of proclaiming yourself a manifestly purposeful deceiver.

          • odin2

            Keep it up Bart. It is amusing. You are way out of your league.

          • Bart_R

            I stop by the minors like this every once in a while to remind myself of what the shallow end of the pool is like. And mix metaphors.

          • John Samuel

            Bart is out of deniers’ league – a couple of divisions ahead of them. :-))

          • Voodude

            I don’t consider cherry picking to be applicable when the end of the data is current. If one picks a period, like, 1966-1968, both end-points “picked” … then, that is. But specifying one point, as in, a temperature series, while the other point is “now” … that’s a bit different. What, then, are the alternatives? Either I pick the starting point, or you do… somebody has to pick the starting point… So, then, what is the point in labelling a data series (that has the current point at one end) “Cherry Picking”?

          • Bart_R

            That’s hilarious. You cherry pick out subsample by subsample, instead of taking the whole universe of available results, determined only by how much it obscures the signal, and justify it because you include the most current endpoint?

            Eliminating data so you can present something with a contrary trend?

            And playing word games to deny when caught that you’re participating in intellectually dishonest behaviour?

          • Voodude

            Somebody always picks an endpoint.
            More ad homs…

          • Bart_R

            You’re picking the starting point, and the data to exclude.

            See, ad hominem has a bad rap, because it is invalid to use a person’s qualities to indict their arguments. That’s the Ad Hominem Fallacy.

            To point out that a person has qualities they’ve demonstrated, after showing their argument to be invalid or wrong on rational bases?

            That’s just incidental insult, a practice engaged in by the great rhetoricians, statesmen, literary figures and philosophers of every age.

            Maybe pick up a book?

            One not on the WUWT reading list?

          • Voodude

            The COOLING trend is global.

          • Bart_R

            The cooling trend is on a 50,000 year scale.

            The warming is happening on a 30 year scale, and is as strong as the cooling, only over a thousand times faster.. and we’re still increasing the warming forcing.

            We’ve outstripped the cooling influences by several times. You can stop talking about cooling now. In 50,000 years, you can start talking about it again, when it will have some significance.

          • Voodude

            The Cooling trend is on an EIGHT year scale, 2005-present (well, that NCDC data is 2013) showing -0.03K/decade… admittedly small, but that is averaged over the entire globe, land and ocean… not 50,000 years, the most recent eight years.

          • Bart_R

            Climate is on at least a 30 year trend.

            You don’t measure fingerprints by the nanometer. You don’t give driving directions to the nearest millimeter. You don’t describe climate in terms of eight years.

          • Bart_R

            Cute “if it does not fit you must acquit” rhetoric.. when everyone knows he did it, and everyone knows there is no pause.

            What sort of mind volunteers to lawyer for fossil waste dumping?

          • Voodude

            “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK, it has, but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”Phil Jones, University of East Anglia 5 July 2005

            “Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.”Phil Jones, University of East Anglia 7 May 2009

            Before we get worried? That makes it pretty clear that their motivation is on preserving their funding, as opposed to “saving the planet” by stopping Global Warming.

            “2014 will probably be in the top five warmest, but at the moment, it will probably not turn out to be warmer than 2010. It is impossible for it to beat 2010, by a statistically significant margin, even if we define that as only one standard deviation above the decadal mean. Even if 2014 does beat 2010, it will only be by a statistically insignificant margin, and well within the inter-annual error bars. In all probability, 2014 will continue the global surface temperature standstill in a statistically perfect manner. When will the global surface annual temperature start to rise out of the error bars of the past 18 years?”David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Forum, 28 September 2014

            NASA scientist James Hansen wrote, “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”

            POLICY, ENERGY, and CLIMATE POLITICS. “Fuel for Thought 24/3 and 4: Mid-January to Mid-April 2013.”


            “It’s fair to say that this pause is something of an embarrassment to many in the climate research community, since their computer models failed to indicate that any such thing could happen. Just how long the temperature pause must last before it would falsify the more catastrophic versions of man-made climate change obviously remains an open question for many researchers. For the time being, most are betting that it will get real hot real fast when the hiatus ends.”Ronald Bailey, Reason Online, 9 September 2014

            NOAA- “State of the Climate” – 2008

            “Near-zero, and even negative trends, are common, for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 years or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”


            “Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean, near-surface temperature, paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period.”

            Guemas, Virginie, et al. “Retrospective prediction of the global warming slowdown in the past decade.” Nature Climate Change 3.7 (2013): 649-653.



            Storch: “If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations.”

            SPIEGEL: “What could be wrong with the models?”

            Storch: “There are two conceivable explanations — and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. … The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes.”

            SPIEGEL: “That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…”

            Climate Expert von Storch: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?


            “Present-day sea-level rise is a major indicator of climate change (ref 1). Since the early 1990s, sea level rose at a mean rate of ∼3.1 mm yr−1 (refs 2,3). However, over the last decade a slowdown of this rate, of about 30%, has been recorded (refs 4–8). It coincides with a plateau in Earth’s mean surface temperature evolution, known as the recent pause in warming (refs 1,9–12).”

            1: IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

            9: Trenberth, K. E. & Fasullo, J. T. Tracking Earth’s energy. Science 328, 316–317 (2010).

            10:Foster, G. & Rahmstorf, S. Global temperature evolution 1979–2010. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 044022 (2011).

            11: Kosaka, Y. & Xie, S-P. Recent global warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling. Nature

            12: Trenberth, K. E. & Fasullo, J. T. An apparent hiatus in global warming? Earth’s Future

            Cazenave, Anny, et al. “The rate of sea-level rise.” Nature Climate Change 4.5 (2014): 358-361.


            “Application of the method shows that there is now a trendless interval of 19 years duration at the end of the HadCRUT4 surface temperature series, and of 16 – 26 years in the lower troposphere”

            McKitrick, Ross R. “HAC-Robust Measurement of the Duration of a Trendless Subsample in a Global Climate Time Series.” Open Journal of Statistics 4.07 (2014): 527.


          • Bart_R


            Phil Jones was talking about something very different from global warming of the climate. Climate moves in periods of 30 years, or 360 months. Climate affects the properties of seasons, and covers substantial portions of the globe. A climate basin is so large that there are fewer than fifty of them, globally, at the finest scale.

            We know from ice cores and sediments that global warming changes lead in the Northern Hemisphere, which is expected because there is so much a higher sea:land ratio in the Southern Hemisphere, and the Great Conveyor’s hub circulates around the Antarctic continent.

            We know that albedo is highest in winter and the Green House Effect has most direct impact in summer.

            When we look, we reliably find AGW in NH and SH, though more pronounced in the north, and we find winter more wildly variable, as expected.

            Your figures are contrived, and appear based on the completely bogus Ross McKitrick, signatory of the Cornwall Alliance Pledge to deny, deny, deny, deny, deny (yes, five times).

          • Voodude

            Ad homs. They impress…

          • Bart_R

            That’d be whom.

            And it’s not ad hom to describe a publicly known behaviour of a publicly known figure who has taken a public action that calls openly into question his authority or objectivity on the topic at hand.

            If you don’t like the Cornwall Alliance, or don’t know how it’s Declaration requires its signatories to deny the evidence by any and all means, perhaps that’d impress you, whom.

          • WmBlake

            That’d be its.

          • Voodude


          • Voodude

            The hockyshtick blog often cites, and reproduces, legitimate scientific papers, peer-reviewed, and published in reputable journals. Admittedly, he doesn’t cite the other side very often… but who would? I go to his site every day.

          • Bart_R

            So.. let me get this straight.. You’re accusing Hitler of the Global Warming Conspiracy?

          • odin2

            Just pointing out that Arrhenius was wrong on more than just his theory of the greenhouse effect.

          • Bart_R

            Ah, but so irrelevant. Arrhenius is held up not for being right about everything (he certainly wasn’t), or even being exactly right about everything climate; Arrhenius is held up to show that the information we have, the observations and inferences, supporting the AGW case predate any plausible conspiracy of scientists.

            Tail wagging the dog to say, “Aha! Arrhenius made a mistake that we know about, therefore we can dismiss everything we’ve learned since.”

          • odin2

            He got it wrong on the greenhouse effect as I indicated in my prior post. And I have not claimed any conspiracy. CAGW is much like a religion. Most of the conspiracy theorists are people who argue that every skeptic is employed by EXXon or people like this:


          • Bart_R

            Uh huh.

            Interesting how propaganda is like a reflex for you.

            I wonder if it has to do with upbringing, or education, or is simply idiomatic?

            Do others in your cohort from school speak in propaganda, too?

          • Bart_R

            Propaganda has recognizable, documented techniques. They can be shown to be present or absent in writing, and to be the main reason for the writing or incidental to it.

            Your writing? Maps to propaganda handbooks practically letter for letter.

            The writing you accuse of being propaganda?

            Not so much.

            Mostly, you just seem to name call anything that proves you wrong when you have no other pat soundbite to cut and paste.

          • Voodude


          • Bart_R

            Ironically, Hansen Scenario B (1988) is bang on for 2014 according to MLOST (Berkely or NOAA, or Cowtan & Way), when volcano and trade winds are taken into account.

            So after a quarter century, Hansen proves correct, while Josh’s propaganda?

            Already wrong in less than a fifth the time.

          • John Samuel

            Or read the hundreds of papers that disagree with Idso.

          • Voodude

            “… cassava will respond with increased biomass accumulation in response to raising atmospheric CO2 levels …”

            Cruz, Jailson L., et al. “Effect of elevated CO2 concentration and nitrate: ammonium ratios on gas exchange and growth of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz).” Plant and Soil 374.1-2 (2014): 33-43.


          • John Samuel

            Less arable land due to sea level rise.

            More leaves, less nutritious.

          • Voodude

            Consider the arable land in Canada, that presently can only grow hay or Canola…

          • ssum

            but “the toxic effects of NH4 + severely reduced total dry mass for these plants measured at the end of the experiment.” This experiment measured biomass with fertilization with NH4+ and NO3- but did not end up so well. The abstract discusses “biomass” but is not clear what parts of the plant are being measured. Perhaps you bought the whole article for $40? It also does not discuss nutritional value which are discussed in my reference and that of John Samuel, below (Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition).

          • Voodude

            “the toxic effects of NH4+”

            Further experiments with nitrogen fertilizer showed the toxic effects of the form of nitrogen, but that doesn’t change the conclusions of enhanced growth from CO2.

            ”The challenge is to determine how to manage NH4 + fertilization so that the photosynthetic benefit observed in the initial phase may persist throughout the crop cycle.”

      • RecklessProcess

        Nonsense, 50 million years ago we had 5000ppm of CO2 and there were giant plants and giant critters to use the abundance of oxygen. after a million years like that we went into an ice age with CO2 levels still at 5000 ppm

        • Bart_R

          The key word in your comment is million.

          And how easily you slip a few million wrong.

          The last time CO2 levels were 5,000 ppm was 450 million years ago, nine times as long ago as you claim.

          The Sun has warmed some 30% in the lifetime of the planet, some ten times as long ago as that 5,000 ppm period.

          Four hundred fifty million years ago, the Sun was some 3% cooler than it is now.

          In the lifetime of humanity, of primates, of mammals, the Sun has varied less then one tenth of that 3% warming.

          Of course Earth could go into an ice age when the Sun was 3% cooler at 5,000 ppm. The energy balance equations show that clearly.

          The same equations also show that we can’t get back into the next Milankovitch glacial phase because of the excess CO2 we’ve added by dumping fossil wastes into the air.

          Now, it may be ‘good’ to avoid a glacial phase, but since that phase wasn’t expected for another 50,000 years, we have jumped the gun on CO2 excess. And since all it takes to avoid a glacial phase at the present temperature of the Sun, +/- 0.2%, is 330 ppm CO2, we seem to have overshot the mark.

          By how much?

          Last time we had similar conditions of Sun and CO2 level, the sea level was 25m higher and camels and alligators roamed the Arctic. The photosynthesis pathway for metabolizing CO2 used by crops that provide 70% of human nutrition did not even exist yet, and it depends on lower CO2 levels or is outcompeted by weeds.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Positively brilliant Bart. If you are not already, you should be a science writer.

        • StrawCat

          The CO2 content of the atmosphere was once around 4500 ppm, yes, although not 50 million years ago, but 450 to 550 million years ago. Before the evolution of plant life which has the capability of using photosynthesis to use CO2 and release oxygen.
          The rise of oxygen in the atmosphere helped bring about the massive Cambrian and Ordovician extinctions.

          At some point along the way, the free iron in the earths crust, etc, had finally absorbed as much oxygen as it could, and there followed a rapid spike in the O2 content of the atmosphere.

          In the Silurian period, circa 445 million years ago and after, “Life also began to appear on land in the form of small, moss-like, vascular plants which grew beside lakes, streams, and coastlines…”

          The giant plants and giant critters didn’t happen until the Carboniferous era, which began about 348 mya.

          Also, there has been more than one series of ice ages. Things do warm up and cool down… but they do it over thousands and millions of years, and now we’re seeing this happen in decades and centuries.

        • Paul Shipley

          I think we should all wait and to find out what happens.
          Either nothing will happen as you say or the Earth will become a virtual desert incapable of supporting 7 billion people.
          Sounds like a great idea to me.

      • Voodude

        Who’s speculating? Here are researchers who are experimenting

        ”Rising atmospheric [CO2] from anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions fertilizes plants (Liebig, 1843; Arrhenius, 1896; Ainsworth & Long, 2005).”

        Zaehle, Sönke, et al. “Evaluation of 11 terrestrial carbon–nitrogen cycle models against observations from two temperate Free‐Air CO2 Enrichment studies.” New Phytologist 202.3 (2014): 803-822.

        2012: Plants grown under controlled conditions of 700 ppmv CO2 “increased both root length (35.6%) and root dry weight (39.1%) densities.”

        “Fine root length density in the top two depths increased by 64.5 and 57.2%.”

        “Fine root dry weight density in the top two depths increased by 80.3 and 82.8%.”

        Prior, S. A., et al. “Sour orange fine root distribution after seventeen years of atmospheric CO2 enrichment.” Agricultural and forest meteorology 162 (2012): 85-90.

        “…CO2-enriched trees to have consistently sequestered approximately 2.8 times more carbon than the control trees over a period of three full years.”

        Idso, Sherwood B., and Bruce A. Kimball. “Downward regulation of photosynthesis and growth at high CO2 levels No evidence for either phenomenon in three-year study of sour orange trees.” Plant Physiology 96.3 (1991): 990-992.

        2009: ”…the evidence indicates that both gross and net primary productivity has likely increased over recent decades, as have tree growth, recruitment, and mortality rates, and forest biomass. … potentially from rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, is the most likely cause.”

        Lewis, Simon L., et al. “Changing ecology of tropical forests: evidence and drivers.” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 40 (2009): 529-549.

        • Voodude

          “… plant growth and yield have typically increased more than 30% with a doubling of CO2 concentration …may decrease evapotranspiration… if the climate warms, the average growth response to doubled CO2 could be consistently higher than the 30% mentioned above … in nutrient-poor soil, the growth response to elevated CO2 has been large … under water-stress, the CO2 growth stimulation is as large or large than under well-watered conditions … plant growth and crop yields will probably be significantly higher in the future high-CO2 world.”

          Kimball, B. A., et al. “Effects of increasing atmospheric CO2 on vegetation.” Vegetation 104.1 (1993): 65-75.

          Carrot and Radish plant productivity “significantly increased by a 300 ppm increase in the CO2 content of the air at all temperatures encountered, but with progressively greater effects being registered at higher and higher temperatures. At 25°C, the productivity enhancement factor for radish was about 1.5, while for carrot it was approximately 2.0.” Plants were grown in a 700 ppmv CO2 environment.

          Idso, S. B., and B. A. Kimball. “Growth response of carrot and radish to atmospheric CO2 enrichment.” Environmental and Experimental Botany 29.2 (1989): 135-139.

          Doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration “increased agricultural weight yields by [33% – 36%. Doubling of CO2 likely will]reduce transpiration by 34% … water-use efficiency may double.”

          Greater CO2 concentrations will probably boost agricultural production with less water consumption, which will be a boon to Earth’s ever-expanding population.”

          “… the most comprehensive review of CO2 effects on ultimate harvestable yield has been presented by Kimball (1982) who examined more than 70 reports about effects of CO2 enrichment on the economic yields and growth of 24 crops and 14 other species, and extracted more than 430 observations.”
          Elevated CO2 concentrations have had an overwhelmingly positive effect on yield (Kimball, 1982). Of 437 separate enriched samples, only 39 yielded less than their respective controls. Of this group, 20 were flower crops, whose yields were measured by number of flowers rather than by weight.”

          Kimball, B. A., and S. B. Idso. “Increasing atmospheric CO2: effects on crop yield, water use and climate.” Agricultural Water Management 7.1 (1983): 55-72.


          Trees grown in 700 ppmv CO2 concentrations had grown 2.8 times larger than the ambient-treated trees; and they have maintained that productivity differential…”

          • Bart_R

            Repetitive, and betrays no real understanding of the underlying mechanisms of plant hormones.

          • Voodude

            It really is repetitive. I find it repeated throughout the scientific literature… ”Rising atmospheric [CO2] from anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions fertilizes plants (Liebig, 1843; Arrhenius, 1896; Ainsworth & Long, 2005).”

          • Bart_R

            Citing Liebig on the role of CO2 is like citing Plato on atomic fusion.

            Liebig’s a redoubtable source, ahead of his time. But his time was the mid-1800’s.

            We now understand the difference between food and steroid.

            You don’t have Liebig’s excuse for pushing steroids.

            What does it tell us about someone who volunteers to push steroids?

          • Voodude

            More ad homs! That’ll impress folks.

          • Bart_R

            Plato has big shoulders. I imagine he cant take the hit to his credibility.

        • Voodude

          Idso, Sherwood B., and Bruce A. Kimball. “Tree growth in carbon dioxide enriched air and its implications for global carbon cycling and maximum levels of atmospheric CO22.” Global Biogeochemical Cycles 7.3 (1993): 537-555.

          “… cassava will respond with increased biomass accumulation in response to raising atmospheric CO2 levels …”

          Cruz, Jailson L., et al. “Effect of elevated CO2 concentration and nitrate: ammonium ratios on gas exchange and growth of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz).” Plant and Soil 374.1-2 (2014): 33-43.

          Elevated CO2 stimulated plant growth by 10.8% [to as much as] 41.7% for a C3 leguminous shrub, Caragana microphylla, and by 33.2% [to as much as]52.3% for a C3 grass, Stipa grandis, across all temperature and watering treatments … C4 grass, Cleistogenes squarrosa, 20.0% [to as much as]69.7% stimulation of growth occurred with elevated CO2 under drought conditions.”

          Xu, Zhenzhu, et al. “Effects of elevated CO2, warming and precipitation change on plant growth, photosynthesis and peroxidation in dominant species from North China grassland.” Planta 239.2 (2014): 421-435.

          Enhanced growth of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under 550 ppmv CO2 were found to be “cultivar dependent” with an increase in productivity of 42% [to as much as] 53% for the cultivar called Yitpi, but less for the H45 variety.

          Thilakarathne, Chamindathee, et al. “Intraspecific variation in leaf growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum L) under Australian Grain Free Air CO2 Enrichment (AGFACE): Is it regulated through carbon and/or nitrogen supply?” Functional Plant Biology (2014).


          “…current carbon-cycle models underestimate the long-term responsiveness of global terrestrial productivity to CO2 fertilization. This underestimation of CO2 fertilization is caused by an inherent model structural deficiency…”

          “Global carbon cycle models have not explicitly represented this … and underestimate photosynthetic responsiveness to atmospheric CO2.”

          “This increase represents a 16% correction, which is large enough to explain the persistent overestimation of growth rates of historical atmospheric CO2 by Earth system models. Without this correction, the CFE for global GPP is underestimated by 0.05 PgC/y/ppm. This finding implies that the contemporary terrestrial biosphere is more CO2 limited that previously thought”


          Ying Sun et al 2014

          “Impact of mesophyll diffusion on estimated global land CO2 fertilization”

          Ying Sun, Lianhong Gu, Robert E. Dickinson, Richard J Norby, Stephen G Pallardy, Forrest M Hoffman

          doi: 10.1073/pnas.1418075111

          A special note, the authors comment about model deficiencies: “In C3 plants, CO2 concentrations drop considerably along mesophyll diffusion pathways from substomatal cavities to chloroplasts where CO2 assimilation occurs. Global carbon cycle models have not explicitly represented this internal drawdown and therefore overestimate CO2 available for carboxylation and underestimate photosynthetic responsiveness to atmospheric CO2.”


          Jun 2013: “Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades. The role in this greening of the “CO2 fertilization” effect—the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels—is yet to be established. The direct CO2 effect on vegetation should be most clearly expressed in warm, arid environments where water is the dominant limit to vegetation growth. Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analyzed to remove the effect of variations in precipitation, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%. Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilization effect is now a significant land surface process.”

          [Note, others have published results in humid areas, like the Amazon rain forest.] “Satellite observations, analyzed to remove the effect of variations in precipitation, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%. Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle, and that the fertilization effect is now a significant land surface process.” “…it has proven difficult to isolate the direct biochemical role of [increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations] in these trends, from variations in other key resources (such as light, water, nutrients [Field et al., 1992]) and from socioeconomic factors, such as land use change [Houghton, 2003].”

          Donohue, Randall J., et al. “Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments.” Geophysical Research Letters 40.12 (2013): 3031-3035.

          PDF link in article:

          …So, while global temperatures have not risen since the turn of the millennium, noticeable changes in vegetation are evident. As stated, the results were not limited to Australia, the researchers found that arid areas all over the globe were reaping the carbon dioxide bounty, as shown in the map below.

          “On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example,” Dr Donohue said.
          This research does not mean that all the world’s deserts are suddenly springing into bloom, but in the affected areas an 11% increase in plant cover was found…”

          “we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analyzed to remove the effect of variations in precipitation, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%.”

          Donohue, Randall J., et al. “Impact of CO2 fertilization on maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments.” Geophysical Research Letters 40.12 (2013): 3031-3035.

          [PDF] from

          Rather than attribute the greening observation to CO2-influenced fertilization of plant growth, Ranga attributes the greening to “… warmer temperatures [that] have promoted increases in plant growth during summer” “…the global carbon cycle has responded to interannual fluctuations in surface air temperature…” Oh wait, is he saying that the warmer temperature produced more CO2? Like from ocean outgassing? Anyway, he presents the point that accelerated plant growth has sequestered carbon from the atmosphere: “plant growth … net primary production increased 6% (3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years)” “Amazon rain forests accounted for 42% of the global increase in net primary production, owing mainly to decreased cloud cover and the resulting increase in solar radiation.” Note, Ranga is taking about increases in plant productivity in the Amazon rain forest, while others have emphasized plant growth in arid areas.

          Myneni, Ranga B., et al. “Increased plant growth in the northern high latitudes from 1981 to 1991.” Nature 386.6626 (1997): 698-702.

          These scientists study “…a hyper-arid land- locked region in northwest China” and observe that the

          “…mean growing season vegetation cover has increased from 3.4% in 2000 to 4.5% in 2012.” They think the increased plant productivity is “…associated with increases in regional precipitation.” “We found that the regional fractional vegetation cover fV in the downstream parts of the greater Heihe River basin increased by 25% from 2000 to 2012.”

          So much for dry regions getting drier, a mantra of the “Global Warming” crowd.

          Wang, Y., et al. “Attribution of satellite-observed vegetation trends in a hyper-arid region of the Heihe River basin, Western China.” Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 18.9 (2014): 3499-3509.

          “Norway spruce and European beech exhibit significantly faster tree growth (+32 to 77%), stand volume growth (+10 to 30%) and standing stock accumulation (+6 to 7%) than in 1960. … mainly the rise in temperature and extended growing seasons contribute to increased growth acceleration …” The 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) world-wide was not a controlled variable in this study, and its effect was ignored. This study attributes all of the increased productivity to the rise in temperature, and the resultant increase in the growing season.

          Pretzsch, Hans, et al. “Forest stand growth dynamics in Central Europe have accelerated since 1870.” Nature communications 5 (2014).

          “… stimulatory effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment is strongly temperature dependent. … for a 3°C increase in mean surface air temperature … the growth enhancement factor … rises from 1.30 to 1.56.”

          Idso, S. B., et al. “Effects of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on plant growth: the interactive role of air temperature.” Agriculture, ecosystems & environment 20.1 (1987): 1-10.


          • Bart_R

            Give it up. The Idsos have had dozens of websites for a decade, you’ll never pour all their deceptions into a blog commentary, no matter how hard you try.

            Better, just link to one of the Idsos sites, and tag it, “Look, I’ve fallen hook-line-and-sinker for this stuff.”

          • Voodude

            Lots more authors than just Idso et al. Repeating the theme, ”Rising atmospheric [CO2] from anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions fertilizes plants (Liebig, 1843; Arrhenius, 1896; Ainsworth & Long, 2005).”

          • Bart_R

            Repetition is a technique of propaganda.

            What does it tell us about someone’s mind that they volunteer to propagandize for fossil waste dumping?

          • Voodude

            Oh, resorting to ad homs, already?

          • Bart_R

            I keep getting asked for empirical evidence. When I point to patent empirical evidence of a disturbed mind and ask others to form hypotheses by inference, I find myself attacked ad hominem by the very people demanding empirical evidence.

            Surely there is irony there.

        • Bart_R

          Dude, pull the other one.

          You’ve been sold a load of illusion and misdirection at the Idsos’ CO2-worshiping websites.

          Liebig’s Law of the Minimum points out that only the least plentiful plant nutrient can act as a fertilizer. This is almost always nitrate, though sometimes can be phosphate. Water, where there’s a drought, is obviously extremely limiting. Zaehle et al simply have their facts wrong at the outset, which is not a great start for a computer simulation model project.

          Adding a nutrient in excess when it is not the least available does not make it fertilize the plant, but it may have other impacts.

          CO2, for example, is an ethylene and gibberrellin plant hormone antagonist. It’s like giving artificial steroids to your plants. This accounts for all the effects Zaehle et al wrongly ascribe to fertilization, and for the discrepancies between their computer simulation models and real observations.

          You get much more mass, but you get lower nutritional quality, and in the long term availability of nitrates leads to diminished returns. This varies by species and plant type: more primitive plants are less affected due to more primitive metabolic pathways. Thus the evergreen plant mass gain is higher than the less primitive deciduous woodland effect. The fly in that ointment is that drought and pests prey on evergreens increasingly with global warming, leading to wildfires and net biomass loss, as measured in the forests of Canada over the past three decades.

          There are no end of Pollyanna studies boasting of FACE results in positive, glowing terms. And they inevitably turn out to be simply bad botany.

          • Voodude

            adding carbon to plants seems like a really good idea. Especially in the format that the plant has always been hoping for… CO2.

            Nitrate, Phosphate, yeah, there are traces of that in the plant… but what’s the bulk, besides water? Carbon. It is causing C4 plants to shut their stomata, improving yields in marginal water situations making stuff better for drought.

          • Bart_R

            Adding steroids to babies seems like a really good idea. Especially in the format that the baby has always been hoping for… mother’s milk.

            Bones, muscles and organs, yeah, there are traces of that in the baby, but what’s the bulk, besides those? Steroids. They cause the males to shrink their external genitalia, improving yields in underwear space, making stuff better for tight pants.

          • Voodude

            ” drought and pests prey … increasingly with global warming,”
            What warming???

          • Voodude

            You said it, “…for the discrepancies between their computer simulation models and real observations” There is a big mismatch between CAGW models and real observations…

          • Bart_R

            Amazing to see such irrational love of little proven toy models by people who don’t grasp the better demonstrated real ones.

            You promote Zaehle et al without seeming to appreciate that it’s mostly Zaehle’s speculations about how great their model could be one day, if only the evidence weren’t diverging because of uncertainties in soil, and water.. and pests.. and temperature.. and rainfall.. yet you harbour nothing but bile for a single page drawn without context from an IPCC report.

            You remind me of Bjorn Lomborg’s comrades (you do understand, he’s a professor of Collectivist Polsterism, right?) who extol Tol’s use of DICE, when Nordhaus — the author of DICE — has explicitly and publicly reviled Tol’s ineptitude for misapplying how the model works to draw impossible conclusions.

            Incidentally, Hansen 1988 Scenario B? Directly scored a perfect match for 2014’s temperature on MLOST (NOAA & BEST) when volcano and tradewinds adjustments are included.

            To make Zaehle et al work? You’d have to tear out the heart of the model and replace it with a deeper understanding of plant hormones, soil microbes, and the patterns of infestation, drought and flood, true imponderables on the scale of Zaehle’s thought.

          • Voodude

            Dr. George Edward Pelham Box: “essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful

            Box, George E. P.; Norman R. Draper (1987). Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces, p. 424, Wiley. ISBN 0-471-81033-9.

          • Bart_R

            She had a pretty gift for quotation, which is a serviceable substitute for wit.

            ― W. Somerset Maugham

          • Voodude

            Of all the blunderbusses (of models) fired, one scores a direct hit… and you celebrate?

          • Bart_R

            The odds against randomly getting a direct hit on twenty five years of temperature globally would be what, again?

          • John Samuel
          • Bart_R
          • Voodude
          • Bart_R

            Hunting and pecking until you find contrary results by picking exactly the start conditions on exactly the sub-trends at exactly the filter length you need to get that foregone conclusion and no other?

            And you don’t expect derision and mockery for such contemptible tactics?

            You openly bait ad hominem by provoking with such intellectually insulting stratagems, and force us to ask out loud, what does it tell us about the sort of mind that volunteers to go out in public and be so transparently a propagandist for pollution?

          • Voodude

            ” leading to wildfires and net biomass loss, as measured in the forests of Canada over the past three decades.” (guffaw) Canada has been burning less in recent years… your example turns out to be your downfall!!

            “Wagner [1988] described burned area in Canada as a downward trend from the 1940s to the 1960s … Krezek-Hanes et al. [2011] reported Canada burned area increased from the 1960s to the 1990s and then decreased in the 2000s.”


            “Reporting Agencies:” Scroll to the bottom, select only, “Canada

            “Ownership:” select “All Ownership

            Categories: Select “Forest Fires

            Reporting Period:

            Start Year: 1970

            End Year: select the most recent year available

            Report Type: select HTML

            Report Format:

            Click to select, “One reporting agency per table

            Click to select “Graph

            Click the bar, ‘Generate report

            On the subsequent page, click “graph

          • Bart_R

            Area is a very different measure than mass.

            And pest?

            Where in your graph is pine beetle loss?

          • Voodude

            I don’t do the graphs. I cite them, mostly from published papers, in peer-reviewed journals. Ask them.

          • Bart_R

            Anyone can take things out of context and play up the parts they want to make a case, stringing together enough pieces to frame any lie they want to tell.

            A wise reader reads the book of genius not with his heart, not so much with his brain, but with his spine. It is there that occurs the telltale tingle…

            ― Vladimir Nabokov

            Your method appears to be to mine for soundbites. I have a suspicion of what part of the body Nabokov would associate with such tricks.

          • Voodude

            The cure for pine beetles is to thin the forest (harvest the wood), and burn the forest (controlled burns).

            “Pine beetles have killed millions of trees in Canada and in the United States. Foresters and entomologists know that pine beetle outbreaks are cyclical in nature. When pine trees are under stress, they attract pine beetles. Trees undergo stress when they are too close together (i.e. too dense) and things get worse when there is a drought. Once conditions are right, the beetles thrive in stressed trees and the progeny attack more trees and the domino effect begins. Foresters and ecologists know that pine beetle cycles have occurred naturally over thousands of years.”

            “One factor that increases the risk of a beetle outbreak are policies that do not permit the thinning of trees. State and national forestry organizations know the risk of a beetle outbreak is higher in counties occupied by National Forests. For example, in Texas, the US Forest Service says that, “Very little suppression took place during the last outbreak. A majority of those treatments were designed to protect RCW habitat as mandated by the Endangered Species act. SPB were left alone in most of the wilderness and killed large acreages.” In contrast, some “environmental” groups object to beetle suppression methods that involve cutting trees in wilderness areas. As a result, thinning operations are delayed, beetle attack stressed trees, and then large populations of beetles spread to adjacent privately-owned forests. After the trees die, the risk of wildfire increases. Wildfires start (due to carelessness or accidents or arson) and large expenditures are made to put the fire out. Journalists then report that carbon dioxide [‘Global Warming’] caused the inferno.”
            David B. South, Retired Emeritus Professor, Auburn University


          • Bart_R

            Congratulations. You’ve got the cure for pine beetles, which would save the timber industry many tens of millions of dollars.

            You must be very rich.

          • Voodude

            David B. South, Retired Emeritus Professor, Auburn University

          • Bart_R

            Yeah.. that he’s not rich either tells us all we need know of just how valuable what he was peddling to Congress really is.

          • Voodude

            Aw, who cares that gibberrellin sees CO2 as a plant hormone antagonist. … effects Zaehle et al wrongly ascribe to CO2 fertilization… still happen!

          • Bart_R

            Still happen.. in his models.. which diverge from real observation.

          • Voodude

            Well, I do hate models.
            Mathematical masturbation.

          • Bart_R

            My guess would be it’s the mathematical part you’re inexperienced with; I recommend Khan Academy.

      • WmBlake

        “And there’s the past 18 years, the most rapidly warming period in the past 56 million years.” Really? 😉

    • Jim Nelson

      Empirical evidence? In a word VENUS. The planet is twice the distance to the sun than Mercury thereby receiving 1/4 as much energy from it yet it’s surface is even hotter than Mercury’s sunlit side. Let’s forget about the 6.5 billion metric tons of co2 swept under the carpet into the atmosphere by just the US annually that the planet can’t process fast enough.

      Try this:
      On the next sunny summer day when this difference is the most obvious, remove your shoes and socks and walk through the grass. Then in your bare feet take a stroll through any sunlit parking lot of your choice. Then, look around you.
      Have a nice day.

      • odin2

        LOL That is empirical evidence ?????? Provide empirical evidence that CO2 emissions have been a significant cause of global warming at any time.

        • ziff
          • Tom Yulsman

            Ziff: You beat me to the punch! I was about to provide the very same link! Well done.

          • odin2

            Models are not empirical evidence. This study is based on modeling:

            “The radiative forcing at the tropopause is
            then used as an input to drive climate models
            for the purpose of evaluating the global
            warming for various gases. Model
            calculations of this radiative forcing have
            been conducted by several authors (e.g.,
            Dickinson and Cicerone, 1986; Hauglustaine
            et al., 1994). “

          • ziff

            You’re welcome. This paper is about making direct measurements, and then comparing those direct measurements to values that have been used in models. But this paper itself is not a model- it’s direct measurements.

          • Tom Yulsman

            Odin2: I’m glad to hear that you will look at the information Ziff provided. If we’re going to wrap our heads around an issue so big and complex, and figure out how to respond, we need to stay open minded. All of us. Myself included.

          • odin2

            It will take some study by me. Ziff’s post is the first post that cites a study that uses empirical/observed evidence (together with modeled informtion) that I have seen. The study (2006) seems to assume causation and I wonder about the studies that show CO2 changes lag temperature changes and the recent studies showing much lower climate sensitivity to CO2 (doubling) and emissivity numbers not predicted by the AGW climate models. We shall see. But I appreciate a straight response from Ziff w/o sarcasm, insults, or propaganda. As you probably know, there are a lot of conflicting studies/papers out there on the enhanced greenhouse effect or lack thereof. I look forward to the challenge.

          • Bart_R

            The issue is not so big nor complex nor wicked a Gordian Knot as cannot be addressed by a single solution.

            Fossil waste dumping — one problem from fossil fuels and the raw materials of ‘Ordinary Portland Cement’ — accounts entirely for the increase on carbon in the carbon cycle. We can move carbon around in the cycle to seek to minimize the harms, but only by holding back the external forcing of this new carbon from underground can we solve the many-headed problem.

            Plants can absorb CO2 at only so fast a rate, and will sequester only a certain fraction as buried or pyrolysed product. As CO2 antagonises ethylene and gibberrellin plant hormones diverting plant vigor from nutrient storage toward woody mass during photosynthesis and locks plant metabolism causing toxic shock and necrosis during respiration, this is not at all a mechanism we can rely on. Oh, and our food supply is at risk too.

            Water can absorb CO2 in the form of carbonic acid only at so high a level, the carbonic acid breaking down to other chemicals in aquatic bioms, disrupting calcium uptake and breaking the food chain.

            Soil can absorb CO2 only a little before microbes respond by emitting higher levels of NOx, robbing roots of nitrogen needed to grow.

            And yes, the Green House Effect runs increasingly hot, spiraling up with positive feedbacks as water vapour in air increases and albedo shrinks worldwide. The jet stream structure of the globe weakens and becomes more erratic near the poles, resulting in polar vortices traveling randomly to points in what once we called the Temperate Zone with increasing frequency, and durable ridges blocking flows that once kept storm fronts moving and dissipating, so instead storms last much longer in some places, and their precipitation is denied in others. Floods and droughts, and other severe weather, is thus enhanced or intensified where it forms, and forms more often.

            Fossil waste dumping is the issue. It is the only issue.

            Plastics, paints, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, metallurgy feedstocks, binders, lubricants, industrial chemicals, construction materials — the uses of organic fossils are varied and many are almost indefinitely recyclable, so long as we do not burn them. Coal can be sequestered in steel and carbon from fertilized plants in soil amendments without emissions. Cement can be made from iron, magnesium and aluminum silicates instead of calcium carbonates; it will be stronger, lighter, more durable, and rather than wasting under the acid rains of a high CO2-atmosphere only get stronger with weathering as it absorbs carbon from the air. No one is going broke, no economy is being shattered, by diverting from carbon emission to carbon preservation.

            Geothermal baseload electricity recovering drill holes from old oil wells and reusing drilling equipment and skills in a new way, mixed hydro baseload and pumped storage integrated with improved flood control and water management, both are far cheaper in the long run than fossil electricity, both use far less cement than megaprojects, both avoid pipelines and like peak wind and solar under the effects of Swanson’s Law of economies of scale in energy produce three lasting high quality jobs per dollar invested for every one temporary job in fossil. No one is going broke, no economy is being shattered, by diverting from carbon energy to smart grids.

            Synthetic fuel from biomass, made using new enzyme processes and clean pyrolysis, can more than supply any fleet of aircraft and vessels, and those machines that need mobile and dense energy. Carbamide from converting natural gas to fertilizer are also fuel that stores solid and safely, without need for pressurization or refrigeration, sequestering carbon when used in fuel cells and managing nitrates by capturing the wastes of other industrial processes. No one needs to give up flight or muscle cars or navies.

            Fossil waste dumping is the issue. It hurts the economy. It is an obstacle to innovation and economic growth. The false premise that ‘cheap energy’ equates with cheap fossil fuel and its subsidy — over $2 trillion a year worldwide, one quarter of that in the USA alone — by government benefits nations is doing far more harm than good.

            Cut away the subsidy. Price fossil waste dumping by the Law of Supply and Demand — let carbon fees float until the next penny of rise reduces the total revenues — and pay out to the manifest owners of air, every person with lungs, one hundred percent of that revenue. Require professions to regard fossil waste dumping with the same censure as any other unsafe product or practice, and academia too to accredit only programs that enforce such censure in teaching engineers and lawmakers and business people their professional standards. Encourage the remedies that will heal the economies of the world.

            Fossil waste dumping leads to far more complex problems than can be grasped. But it is one issue, and one issue only. And it can be addressed that way.

          • odin2

            I have read the paper and thought about it. Thank you for providing it. It does compare observed data and computer data. If the study is correct and can be verified, it does show correlation but assumes causation. As you know, studies show that CO2 changes lag temperature changes by as much as a 1,000 years and the effect cannot precede the cause.

            Co2 lags temperature changes:




            I will keep studying the theory of the enhanced greenhouse effect. This study was in 2006.

          • Bart_R

            CO2 lags _part_ of temperature changes. That’s how a positive feedback cycle works.

            One component or the other changes due an external forcing. The next component responds in the same direction. The first component responds in the same direction again. They spiral repeats until the dynamic equilibrium that was disturbed by the external forcing is reached.

            All of your empirical evidence that CO2 lags temperature rises is as good as evidence that CO2 leads temperature rises. That’s how a positive feedback works.

            By the way, recent high precision measures show the feedback loop is much tighter than the 800-year +/-1000-year lag originally believed from ice cores. The reanalysis with more accurate instruments has reduced it to about one tenth of that, 72 +/-102 years.

          • odin2
          • John Samuel

            And it’s wrong too. Too funny.

          • odin2


          • ziff

            You’re welcome. Glad you had a look.

            Note with regards to the CO2 lagging- that is true. CO2 is not the trigger, but it is an amplifier. CO2 doesn’t do the warming itself, but rather increases the heat retention of the atmosphere.

            Also, have you considered running the experiment yourself? You can do a small-scale version of it at home.

            In other words, if you don’t trust the sources we’ve provided- try it yourself!
            If you don’t care for that one, there’s plenty of other variations you can find online.

          • odin2


        • Tom Yulsman

          Odin2: You are simply incorrect. Countless studies have provided empirical evidence of a connection between CO2 and the radiative imbalance that is causing what’s known as ‘global warming.’ We can start back in 1859 with John Tyndall, whose laboratory experiments showed that both water vapor and carbon dioxide were quite effective in trapping infrared radiation. In the 1940s, more precise laboratory experiments showed the same thing. For more information about this, please see the carbon dioxide section of Spencer Weart’s excellent book “The Discovery of Global Warming”:

          That book can provide you with a terrific summary of the history of research on this topic, along with references to more scientific papers than you could ever read.

          Moving beyond laboratory experiments, a huge amount of empirical evidence has accumulated supporting Svante Arrhenius’s original greenhouse gas theory: that by ‘evaporating coal mines into the air’ humans would raise the overall surface temperature of the planet. In fact, just yesterday, the journal Nature published a new piece of evidence, which examined the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum event 55.5 million years ago. At this time, the Earth’s climate abruptly warmed by 5–8 °C. The warming was associated with a huge spike of carbon to the ocean–atmosphere system. The researchers concluded that the likely cause of the warming episode — one of the most dramatic in the geologic record — was methane, a potent greenhouse gas, release from marine deposits. You can find the paper here (unfortunately a subscription is required):

          In a press release, lead researcher Gabe Bowen, a University of Utah geochemist, had this to say about the study’s significance: “This new study tightens the link. Carbon release back then looked a lot like human fossil-fuel emissions today, so we might learn a lot about the future from changes in climate, plants, and animal communities 55.5 million years ago.” You can find the press release here:

          This is not even remotely close to being the first paleoclimate study to empirically establish a link between CO2 and warming. My own colleague James White, director of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research here at the University of Colorado, has been a key player in this research. He is not trying to perpetrate a hoax, and he is at the top of his field in science. So I am inclined to trust the results of studies like the ones he has done over politically motivated blogs like Wattsupwiththat, which apparently is where you choose to get your information. (Perhaps because it confirms your own biases.)

          In any case, thank you for commenting. I hope you will take some time to explore the empirical evidence I’ve provided with an open mind.

      • odin2

        The 850 degree temperature is not due to the green house effect of CO2. While Venus’ atmosphere is over 95% CO2, that fact accounts for no more than a few tens of degrees. The bulk of the heat on Venus comes from the enormous pressure of the atmosphere, being almost 100 times that of the Earth. Google adiabatic lapse rate.

        • Bart_R

          A few tens of degrees?

          Considering the warming due the GHE is logarithmic, and Venus is puny so receives so much less light than Earth, and its albedo reflects so much more than Earth.. how ‘few’ tens of degrees, and how does that translate to a doubling of temperature on Earth?

          95% is less than eight doublings of what we have now. A few tens divided by eight is a few 1.25’s. At two 1.25’s of degrees, we’re in a climate we haven’t seen in millions of years. How many more than two doe your ‘few’ mean?

          • odin2

            Bart. Go play somewhere else. The temperature on Venus is largely due to the adiabatic lapse rate.

          • John Samuel

            Venus’ warmth being due to CO2 is high school physics.

          • odin2

            “Transposition of the comments on the atmosphere of Venus that led to the formulation of the theory of the greenhouse effect is wrong, for several reasons.
            Venus is closer to the Sun and thus receives more radiant energy from the star, however its albedo (in a word can reflect solar radiation) is much higher than that of the Earth. The density of the atmosphere of Venus consists mainly of carbon dioxide (CO2) is about 92 times higher than that of the Earth with a ground pressure of 920 tonnes per m2 (basically as if we was at 1,000 meters under water on Earth) but the laws describing the lapse rate of the atmosphere are the same as those described for the Earth’s atmosphere is a cooling of about 9 degrees per kilometer.
            However, the density of the atmosphere of Venus (95 kg / m3 at the Venus ground) is such that the duct surface temperature according to the same laws of adiabatic compression to a temperature of 465 degrees. To find values ​​similar to those of the Earth sea level atmospheric pressure must be at an altitude of 50 kilometers in the dense Venusian atmosphere where the temperature is so close to 0 degrees. We must not forget that the last day Venusian is 243 Earth days but trade between the bright side and the dark side of this planet are very active convection and if the illuminated face is “overheated” This explains why the face dark of the planet does not cool significantly because of strong winds continuously distributed heat around the planet.
            For all these reasons, it can not be a greenhouse effect on Venus. The planet is indeed in radiative equilibrium with space but the parameters of this equilibrium are different from those existing for the Earth because of strong adiabatic lapse rate and due to the high density of its atmosphere. If there was a “greenhouse effect” on Venus because of its rich atmospheric CO2, there is a long time since the surface of this planet is molten gold that is not the case! There are indeed mountains and plains on this planet perfectly recognized by radar imagery and even volcanoes and perhaps the “sea” of liquid carbon dioxide supercritical …
            Confusion and transposition to Earth observations of Venus from the fact that the atmosphere of this planet is made ​​up of more than 95% carbon dioxide, nitrogen for the rest and traces of sulfur oxides. He needed no more for the NASA engineers, including James Hansen, a former specialist in the atmosphere of Venus, incorrectly state that CO2 is a greenhouse because the surface of Venus is heated by this effect greenhouse at a temperature of 465 degrees: “There has to see what is happening on Venus! ” , they said. But it is totally wrong and contrary to the laws describing the state of the gas! The theory of the greenhouse effect is therefore in violation of the fundamental laws of thermodynamics and also in violation of the laws describing the state of which are also associated gas, it’s still much, much too much for n ‘any critical thinking …”

          • John Samuel

            That’s an amazingly long and wrong attempt to disprove high school physics.

            NASA is right. You are wrong.

            The hockeystshtick? I thought only crankpots read that. Oh, I see.

          • Bart_R

            Really, you’ve read it, or at least glanced at it when you cut and paste it. You must realize what a great crock it is.

            I’m very curious. As a self-aware being, how would you diagnose what is wrong with your mind that you persist in such deceptive and patently wrong practices?

          • odin2

            LOL Goodbye.

          • BruceMichaelGrant

            Venus has a very large concentration of sulfur dioxide which the Earth does NOT have. This makes any comparison between Earth and Venus totally irrelevant. Why are you AGW types so desperate you have to go to Venus? What man-made activities contribute to the climate on Venus?
            AGW fanatics are really, really reaching here. Desperation on display.

          • John Samuel

            CO2 causing warming is a fact.

            Deniers are desperate to disprove two century old physics.

          • BruceMichaelGrant

            Why has there BEEN no warming in thirty-six years? Sorry. Wrong.

          • John Samuel

            No warming? Really?

            The surface warms.

            The oceans warm, rise and acidify.

            The globe is losing a trillion tonnes of ice per year.

            You need a new meme.

          • BruceMichaelGrant

            You need a new talking point dispenser. The one you’re using is out of order.

          • John Samuel

            Which other sciences can’t you cope with?

          • Bart_R

            You’re changing your story when caught.

            Venusian adiabat notwithstanding, you acknowledged that the GHE of Venus accounts for TENS OF DEGREES of warming.

            How many TENS OF DEGREES does CO2 warm Venus by?

            Is it the difference between, say 660 and 850 degrees, overcoming the far larger hurdle of more than double the baseline temperature (as it’s harder to warm what’s already far more warm, on the order of K^4th power), overcoming the huge albedo caused by sulfated clouds, so reflective one can see Venus in full daylight from Earth if one knows where to look?

            You know AGW to be true. You know the facts to be other than you repeat over and over again. You know there’s no way you can undo the harm you do, yet you persist.

            Seriously, what makes someone so wrong?

          • odin2

            Keep on spinning. Goodbye.

      • Voodude


        • Bart_R

          When you decided to campaign tirelessly to promote fossil waste dumping, do you remember the details of that moment?

          What thought processes went on?

          I think it would tell us a lot about human malfunction, to better understand what it tells us about a person who volunteers to propagandize in favour of pollution.

          • Voodude

            Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. Oxides of sulphur are.

          • Bart_R

            Your qualifications to decide what a word means, and what it doesn’t?

            Are you the credentialed King of Language?

            The Lord High Tongue?

            The Academie Francais of English?

            Anything fulfilling the role of polluting is a pollutant.

            You can pollute your body with pure water, if you drink enough of it.

    • Paul Shipley

      I think we should all wait and to find out what happens. Either nothing will happen or the Earth will become a virtual desert. Sounds like a great idea to me. Then there will be no argument on whether the scientists were right or not.

  • Wolves Fan.

    The air is thick with the sound of chickens coming home to roost. Future generations will detest this generation as the first one that knew for sure what we were doing, but for our own selfish reasons did nothing to stop it. It is they, not us, who will suffer for the indifference of our leaders as they scrabble around trying to eke out an existence in an ever more inhospitable world.

    • Владимир Помаков

      Do not blame humanity, please! These are cosmic processes that cause the changes in climate= We, humans are a negligible factor in all this…

      • Wolves Fan.

        Like I said,’for our own selfish reasons’. Look very carefully at your reasons for making your comment, my friend.

        • Sarah Levin

          look to your own reasons for not understanding rapidity of technology advance and doubting that we will be able to reverse this in mid future, when in fact there are a couple of scores of methods that likely will be practical

          • Wolves Fan.

            Yes, of course. Silly me. Something will come up. I’ll tell my grandchildren, they’ll be so relieved.

          • Patti Morey


        • Lionel Mandrake

          Explain to me the several ice ages we’ve had then, even before humans climbed down from the trees.

          • Wolves Fan.

            As they say, if I have to explain, you wouldn’t understand.

      • Sarah Levin

        Exactly. Humans are contributing to change, but change is the norm

      • Voodude


      • Patti Morey


        • Patti Morey


    • Notwar

      I’m sure those inconsiderate cavemen driving their carbon belching SUV’s were responsible for the melting of the North American Ice Sheet 10,000 years ago. The real tragedy is that they freed Chicago from a 1 mile thick covering of ice and snow.

      • Voodude

        it has been warmer through the holocene. Like Notwar said, indirectly, SUVs (greenhouse gases) had nothing to to with it.

        • Bart_R

          Marcot et al suggest it has not been warmer in the Holocene, which is really beside the point. The Holocene has lasted eleven millennia of the 100,000 year Milankovitch Cycle. It ought have been at its warmest during the Holocene Optimum and then cooled by about a degree over the next 30,000 years. Instead, we’re warming again against all cosmic influences.

          • Voodude

            Just returning to “normal” for the holocene, after the little ice age

          • Bart_R

            Normal, huh?

            Who determined what normal should be?

            Is it the normal of some all-knowing Being?

            Because the Milankovich Cycle tells us it is abnormal for global temperature to shoot up absent a Green House forcing.

          • Nigel Turner

            Mother nature that is who defines what normal is at any given time. What she does is not up to us, Records and data show how turbulent earths history has been and will be. The earth changes that is life, What can we do, well not a lot just take a look at all ancient city’s that are now 20 to 80 feet underwater, climate change right there with no industry. So Plant a tree to help make O2

          • Bart_R

            Matthew 4:7. Do not tempt Nature, she’s a real Mother.

            Records and data show Earth’s history has never changed as fast as we are now changing it, by two orders of magnitude. We are changing the Earth, that is the consequence of our fossil waste dumping.

            Cities 20-80′ underwater?

            The average depth of the ten best known submerged cities (mainly in lakes, due hydrology changes) is under 16′, though some pieces of ruins have been recorded deeper due landslide or wash-out. You have no sense of the proportions of the Earth. How will you buy your Mother slippers if you don’t know the size of her feet?

            Fossil waste dumping is the issue; it is the only issue. Planting trees will move CO2 up and down the carbon cycle; it will do nothing to address the issue.

    • Voodude

      ‘…in a more inhospitable world.” Why? Because of theIncrease in hurricanes? Nope. Hurricanes getting worse? Nope. Increase in tornadoes? Nope. Tornadoes getting more powerful? Nope. Increase in Cyclones? Nope. Cyclones more powerful? Nope. Taxes going up? Yep. Coral atolls being flooded? Nope. Climate refugees? Nope. Illegal aliens? Yup. More frequent wildfires? Nope. More land-area being burned by wildfires? Nope. Increase in surface temperatures? Nope. Increase in lower troposphere temperature? Nope. Accelerating sea-level rise? Nope. Increases in floods? Nope. Increases in droughts? Nope. Acid seawater? Nope. Ph is alkaline.

      • Wolves Fan.

        Mmm. Is that an agenda I see rearing it’s ugly head. One that’s nothing to do with science and everything to do with far right politics. Guns don’t shoot people, nuke the commies,etc. I see where you’re coming from.

    • Voodude


  • Buddy199

    Great visuals.

    • Tom Yulsman

      Thank you Buddy! I try…

  • jimbow

    could some of the changes be due to Greenland is going though a rise in volcano activity? was that taken in to account too

    • John Samuel

      No. And yes.

      No, there is no rise in volcanic activity. Yes, it was taken into account.

      If you have evidence otherwise feel free to produce it. :-)

      • jimbow
        • John Samuel

          No science? Oh dear. I should have made it clear I was looking for reputable evidence.

          There is no rise in volcanic activity. Try again.

          • jimbow

            i see no reputable evidence that there was any testing that mama is not effecting this seen from under the surface, were is the testing data on that. It’s easy to say see this, see that (as this rag) did this proves global warming is happening. were is the reserch on that show me it

          • John Samuel

            Ah, the true denier speaks.

            11,000 papers a year and 99.98% agree global warming is happening. The surface warms. The oceans warm, rise and acidify. And a trillion tonnes of ice per year are lost.

            The volcanos have not recently sprung up. They do not explain the recent melting.

            Do you find two things happening at the same time confusing in other areas of your life?

          • jimbow

            so no proof on what i asked? FYI the only reason your don’t see allot of papers on the other side is peer review system, and every time some one comes out with the other side research they are shuns in science and loose their grates to do researcher on it forcing them to go to the oil companies to get funding, then the global warming people say they work for the oil companies. Call this thing Govt over
            lording. It is a false science when one side is treated that way, and it has been going on long enough to give your so called 99.98% so it is and false in nature my friend.
            on the mama it could explain it, mama moves around under ground, ask
            people doing science in Yellowstone about that and from what I understand the ice in Greenland melted from the bottom first being as ice is a fair temperature insulator why was it that it melted from the bottom and not the top (think about it). About it all happening at the same time that could be proof that it is not man caused, but a natural cycle. I was an early Global warming person,
            but just before they came out with the so called proof I was just starting to question it, when they destroyed the data, (on something this big they should of known they would still need it) I think there must have been something they didn’t what others to know about,
            and the stolen e-mails was the smoking gun as one would say, at that point for the most part I changed my mind on it

          • John Samuel

            * other conspiracy theories are available.

          • jimbow

            why this govt lie will do

          • jimbow

            do you still believe the US Gov’t is not spying on you too. THAT WAS ONCE A CONSPIRACY THEORY TOO, a few years back people that believed it were called nuts, who turn up correct? Thank for the postings they helped pass my time while i was on vacation. have a nice day sheeple

      • jimbow

        try this webstie my friend

        the real reason for the global warming lies try this website to bring a 1 world goverment.

        more proof of the lies on GW

        that is what caused that ship that got stuck
        if it happened before like below then even this can’t be blamed on human caused GW

        on damage to the seas see below

        just tossed in for the fun of it

        you wanted science here it was. sorry about being late on info i was away from my computer for a while as i said i was on vacation

        • John Samuel

          Once you reach puberty you’ll realise your conspiracy theories are childish.

          The scientists aren’t lying. You are.

          • jimbow

            childish by saying a 59 year old man has not reached puberty, i gave
            you want you asked for now you are having a little hissy
            fit because you can’t dispute them. I am not being childish but
            it seem you are. PS the US Govt spying on its own people
            started out as a conspiracy theory too, do you still think they are
            not spying now on you now? sheeple like you make good fall

          • John Samuel

            You’re almost as old as me. How did you reach that age believing fairy tales and conspiracy theories?

            There are certainly conspiracies. But you have no evidence. I do. It’s deniers.

            Sheeple? Seriously?

          • jimbow

            i would ask you the same question about fairy tales.

          • John Samuel

            You could. I don’t believe in them. But I do read them to my grandchildren.

            CO2 absorbs IR. Fact.

          • jimbow

            So what are you going to tell your grandchildren when we are in an ice age opps we were wrong?. PS It is my understanding according to GW science it reflects it, not absorbs it the ground and sea absorbs it

          • John Samuel

            There is no ice age coming. You have to be fact free loon to believe that. 2014 is the warmest year.

            The visible spectrum of the sun’s light passes through the atmosphere, hits the surface, and radiates back as IR. CO2 absorbs IR. This is John Tyndall’s work form 1859.

          • jimbow

            will see

          • John Samuel

            Have seen. And are seeing. And will see more.


          • jimbow

            are you a GW supporter that does not know the difference between weather and climate? PS where were you lat winter in CA or FL?

          • John Samuel

            The scientists aren’t lying. You are.

            You do know 2014 will be the warmest year. And last decade the warmest decade.

            And the oceans continue to warm.
            And the ice continues to melt.

  • RecklessProcess

    This is not man caused. There is no proof it is. The planet has been cooling for 20 years and the glaciers are all coming back.

    • John Samuel

      Really? That’s odd. NOAA tells us we just had the warmest 12 months. And the globe is losing a trillion tonnes of ice per year.

      Have you any evidence?

    • Bart_R

      Made the mistake of looking at your Disqus history.

      Now I feel dirty, like I have troll-slime all over my eyes.

  • Andygsept

    Unfortunately it’s often the case that those screaming the loudest about CO2 emissions are also the very ones decrying the ONLY energy source that could realistically displace the majority of fossil fuels,.. i.e. NUCLEAR.
    Passive safe, low pressure, super efficient reactor designs such as the Integral Fast Reactor and Molten Salt Reactor have already been tested successfully and could easily be commercialized in a decade or two.

  • OWilson

    Pretty pictures can be misleading.

    The years NASA arbitrarily chose to “analyze” (aka cherry pick) for it’s animation were 2004 to 2012, the very 8 years that had the greatest Arctic sea ice loss. (NSIDC)

    Now, I don’t want to quibble, but it would be instructive to add 2013 and 2014 to the animation, because in those two years sea ice recovered to it’s 2004 level. (NSIDC)

    But we won’t hold our breath for that :)

    But we are on to their game.

    • John Samuel

      We are onto your conspiracy theory.

      You lost. Science wins.

      • OWilson

        Without skeptics there is no science.

        Only dogma.

        (See Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and Darwin)

        • John Samuel

          Scientists are skeptics.

          Deniers are not. They only have dogma.

        • odin2

          And a hypothesis that cannot be verified by empirical evidence is not science.

  • M DeVille

    John Casey is a former White House space program advisor, consultant to
    NASA Headquarters, and space shuttle engineer. He is now one of America’s most
    successful climate change researchers and climate prediction experts.

    found evidence — buried right in the government’s own environmental studies —
    that destroys their argument for “global warming.”

    Using their own
    data, John has proven, once and for all, “global warming” is a sham. And
    perhaps the most expensive — and lethal — sham in American history.

    A sham
    that our government spends $22 billion a year financing. Think
    about that: our government spends $22 billion a year financing “global warming”

    that’s almost double what the government spends on securing our

  • Carolyn-Las Vegas

    Doesn’t anyone who reads this magazine know the debate is over? Let’s get on with it – stop wasting energy on debating the proven science and instead debate solutions.

  • lazlow

    In what way the ice melt during ice age?

  • kritu

    I feel that Earth knows how to balance its ecosystem. Even if we humans ever “deliberately” try to affect it, Earth would recover and balance the everything. Earth has been through worse conditions and yet has managed to support life on it-the most complex ones. Even if there’s a disastrous change in near future, it may result in further evolution and might make Earth’s atmosphere even more stronger. But as long as manual destruction of the planet is concerned, we humans can never affect it. We are not strong enough or significant to be able to do so. To Earth, we are just like any other life forms it supports.

  • Voodude

    The earth is in an “interglacial” period. That means, glaciers melt. The alarmists refer to the recent past as “pre-industrial” but that belies its other name, The Little Ice Age. Throughout the Holocene (the last 10,000 years), The Little Ice Age was the period of the most, and the strongest, glacial advance. So, it would seem, looking back across the last 10,000 years, the earth is returning to it’s average temperature, having been depressed by The Little Ice Age. Would you rather be living in The Little Ice Age? I think not.

    “The Little Ice Age is a period between about 1300 and 1870…”

    Environmental History Resources

  • Voodude

    “the sheet shed ice at a rate of about 243 billion tons a year between 2003 and 2009.”

    If Greenland was melting at 253.3 Gt/year, it would take 10,000 years to melt it all. According to the research of Gregory et al 2004, if the Greenland Ice Sheet melted away completely, sea level would rise roughly 7 meters. (Gregory, J.M., P. Huybrechts, and S.C.B. Raper. 2004. Climatology: Threatened loss of the Greenland ice-sheet. Nature 428: 616.) “This could raise the global average sea-level by 7 metres over a period of 1,000 years or more.” To use this data, we need the mass of the Greenland ice sheet, in Gt. A one-mm increase in sea-level requires about 3.618 × 10^14 kg = 361.8 Gt of meltwater. (from 7M is 7000mm, so 7000 x 361.8=2.533 million Gt, or 2.533 MGt. If Greenland was melting at 253.3 Gt/year (a value chosen so that this arithmetic would be easy), the total mass of Greenland, 2.533 million Gt, divided by the chosen melt rate, 253.3 Gt/year, conveniently equals 10,000 years. It isn’t likely to progress that far.

    Anders Carlson:”…ice sheet loss likely went beyond the southern edges of Greenland, though not all the way to the center, which has not been ice-free for at least one million years.”

    According to Khan, it is melting at about 1/10 the rate you quote…

    ”… Greenland ice stream, … is now undergoing sustained dynamic thinning … after more than a quarter of a century of stability. ”So, just 25 years ago, it was “unstable”?

    Khan, Shfaqat A., et al. “Sustained mass loss of the northeast Greenland ice sheet triggered by regional warming.” Nature Climate Change (2014).

  • Voodude

    “Since 1880, the world’s oceans have come up by about 8 inches— one of the clearest impacts of global warming.”
    … it is an interglacial period. You prefer The Little Ice Age? “Global Warming” requires an acceleration of sea level rise, not a steady rise. The sea is sloshing around a lot, so if you look for an arithmetic “acceleration” you can find in in some data, like Church and White did, once, but… when looked at, globally, you just clocked a slosh up. It doesn’t hold water (pun intended).

  • Voodude

    “as well as a warming and therefore expanding ocean.” You can find data that says the ocean is warming. Did you know, you can find data – legitimate data – that says it is cooling? URLs provided so you can click and see for yourself

    Timescale: Annual; Start Year: 2004; End Year: 2013; Latitude band: Global;

    Surface: LAND AND OCEAN

    Options: (check) Display Trend [click] per decade Start: 2005 End: 2013

    {2014 data isn’t available yet, selecting 2014 doesn’t change chart}

    HADSST2 Southern Hemisphere sea surface temperature anomaly shows COOLING from 1996.5

    HADSST3 Southern Hemisphere sea surface temperature anomaly shows COOLING from spring of 1997

    HADSST2 global sea surface temperature anomaly shows COOLING since mid-2000

    HADSST2 Northern Hemisphere sea surface temperature anomaly shows COOLING since early 2001

  • Voodude

    Lots of data to post that shows COOLING

  • Lionel Mandrake

    I have the answer! I’ll tell you in 10,000 years!



ImaGeo is a visual blog focusing on the intersection of imagery, imagination and Earth. It focuses on spectacular visuals related to the science of our planet, with an emphasis (although not an exclusive one) on the unfolding Anthropocene Epoch.

About Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman is Director of the Center for Environmental Journalism and a Professor of Journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He also continues to work as a science and environmental journalist with more than 30 years of experience producing content for major publications. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Audubon, Climate Central, Columbia Journalism Review, Discover, Nieman Reports, and many other publications. He has held a variety of editorial positions over the years, including a stint as editor-in-chief of Earth magazine. Yulsman has written one book: Origins: the Quest for Our Cosmic Roots, published by the Institute of Physics in 2003.


See More


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar