[dissident]

The increase in precipitation in various semi-arid and arid zones is not the new normal. It is a transient on the way to the new normal.

Clearly this greening angle has become the new denier meme. All the thermal energy is going into vegetation cover. LOL. Plants never knew they were so efficient at converting IR radiation to mass. They should have dropped photosynthesis eons ago.

[Ibon]

I watched the global greening video while working on our hydro system. The dude talks about the bias in the science and then presents some data to discount it. So far so good.

He then draws conclusions from the data that Co2 and fossil fuel use is actually good for the environment. That is when he plunged into the very bias he was claiming the other side was guilty of. He should have just stuck with the data without drawing these conclusions which of course he did to counter the doom positions of climate change advocates.

We seem to have a real binary world of choices today, on every topic, the elections etc., it either or. black or white.

How I miss the world I used to know full of nuances!

[careinke]

Interesting video, I think I need to think on it.

From my own perspective, our gardens on the Puget Sound are doing great. Things came into bloom about a month early and still no sign of frost.

Our wheat land in Oregon have been producing great, primarily due to extra moisture (it is dryland farming). Last crop came in at a record per acre of over 100 bushels/acre, and we have records back over 100 years. This coming crop is looking great. Unfortunately, the price is low due to a lower overseas demand (all our wheat goes overseas). Our cousin sharecropper (with a PhD in ag economics) believes the lack of demand is low oil prices in the opec countries do not leave them with the money to buy the food.

[dohboi]

pst wrote: " why not summarize"

wow...if you can't even make it through a relatively short and to the point post, your attention span must be even shorter than Trump's!

You have over and over and over shown us here that you are completely willing to throw all science out the window--whether it came to climate science in general, or the very well established science of subsistence under drought conditions, or the fact that most of your state of California is in a beyond-1000-year drought--so on has to wonder why you think anyone should now take anything at all you say the least bit seriously.

Help us answer that question, would you?

[Cid_Yama]

You are seeing a transient phenomena as a result of global warming shifting the rain tracks towards the poles.

Soon they will move further north, never to return, leaving you in desert.

Also greening means nothing. There will be lots of green around the poles long after temperatures exceed the physiological tolerance of warm blooded creatures. Life will continue on the planet. Tardigrades and thermal vent creatures will love it. there are other things that will be capable of tolerating the new conditions, but warm blooded creatures (such as ourselves) will not be among them.

So what does greening in areas that didn't use to get rain mean to you exactly. It is temporary, as rain tracks continue their trek northwards.

We already know what the planet will look like afterwards. The planet will be mostly desert, especially where we now grow most of our food. Nothing positive about that.

Are you really that pea-brained or are you getting some kind of perverse pleasure from disrupting otherwise serious discussions?

[Cid_Yama]

I have sat on the sideline on this GCC debate for 10 years here at po.com. Mostly ignoring the details while being scared and despondent at the GCC impending crisis.

So you are scared and worried. There is plenty of reason to be.

Now the Fanboy/girls are always here, always spouting off, scaring people

So your response is to call people discussing climate change names and attacking them because what they are saying is scaring you.

I get it. Do you? Being in denial and pretending it doesn't exist is a common defense mechanism, but it doesn't change anything except in your own head.

So now you continue "mostly ignoring the details", and grasping at anything anyone says that's more to your liking.

[kiwichick]

some people seem to be forgetting that we have only seen just over 1 degree C average increase in global temperature so far......but the worst case estimates are suggesting up to 7 degrees C average global increase within 100 years and even the conservative estimates are 2 degrees per doubling of co2 levels.............but those conservative estimates are only for the immediate effects , not the long term result

many agricultural areas will not be able to adapt to continual rising temperatures; the wheat belt in south east and south west Australia for example already struggle in hot , dry years and average rainfall has already declined in both areas

the future is not looking good if we continue to add GHG's to the system

[ralfy]

The world <> laboratory

[Tanada]

Kiwi you have to remember that 7C is an average adding the very large swing at the 80 north line with the much smaller change at the equator and dividing by 2. Well really its a change for every degree latitude added and divided but you get what I am saying. Going from -40 C in winter at the shore of the Arctic Ocean to +5 C at the shore in winter is a huge swing for the north pole, but the swing the further you go towards the equator is less and less.

[dohboi]

There will also be big differences, at least for a while, depending on whether you are in the middle of an ocean (much less increase as it takes so long to heat up all that water) or on a continent (mostly much higher increases than the global averages). And of course there are all sorts of micro-climate effects in specific localities that can be quite hard to predict or model.

[penury]

The "Positive Side to Global Warming" will be that the number of "homo sapiens" will decrease to possible zero. In a few thousand years the earth wll change but no one will miss dear old man.

[dohboi]

Wow, pst. Did you read my and T's posts as uber-pessimistic?

We were just stating the fact that GW will not proceed at the same rate in every place.

What both T and I were saying is that this means that some places will not warm as fast as the average global rate of warming (though of course by definition some places then will warm faster).

Do you find something in that to be over-the-top pessimistic?

Or do mean that this thread is intended to be entirely fact free, a place where you can revel in your lala land of total climate ignorance??

(I do, though, hear that 'Redwood Curtains can burn pretty furiously when they dry up! )

[dohboi]

So you really DO intend for this thread to be fact free then?

Good to know.

Others may rain on that lala parade, though.

Mostly, we don't contemn you, pst. Mostly we pity you (except for the times when we envy you sitting in your redwood hot tub with a margarita in one hand and a lot of scantily clad, hot California babes bubbling in the froth around you! ).

[jedrider]

It's nice weather where I am in SF California. Too nice. This is NOT good.

We have a relative visiting from Northern Europe to get away from their EARLY cold spell. Not good.

It's called climate disruption. There can be NO POSITIVE SIDE to this. However, it is a nice day