If you're talking climate change/ global warming shouldn't you be talking global temperatures?

As to why it happened https://www.climatescience.org.au/content/868-warm-oceans-caused-hottest-dust-bowl-years

This ONE guy didn't give the best example of proof of global warming, so ALL GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE MUST BE FAKE!

mmmk.. cool.

Glaciers that end in seas calve regardless of the effects of global warming. That is just what happens when they meet sea water.

The entertainment is mostly the result of the boats not being at a particularly safe distance. People enjoy doing something stupid and surviving.

Also big moving things awe us. I would definitely be entertained seeing this from up close. Could not help myself.

My take from this is that "holy shit" is slightly more entertainment than "oh my god". Amused to death.

Finger banging Joe 2020


Well this will sink his 2020 chances.
Hillary at the dugout warming up.

Trump talked about grabbing by the P.

Joe actually did.

I like to warm my hands in a muff.

I have traveled to Cuba over a dozen times. The people are warm and welcoming, the food is good and the sites are amazing. It seems these guy chose to produce something that fit their personal agenda instead of creating something that reflects the true nature of Cuba.

So how do we use it to combat global warming?

A good, even *quality idea....for 40+ years ago.

It took 100+ years to mortally wound the ocean by 1000 cuts. A bandaid on one wound is not going to turn it around, and we almost certainly aren't going to do it anyway. Countries that don't buy into the plan will simply harvest most of the fish left by those who do. This only works in small scale preserves that are guarded against poaching, often by a military.

Fish stocks are disappearing at an alarming rate, many going extinct. For those species, it's too late, and they are numerous, and they are largely the fish humans prefer. Many others are in such decline fishing for them is already off limits or severely curtailed, like commercial salmon, abalone, and crab fishing in California. Even those actions have failed to revive their populations year after year.

Diatoms, phytoplankton, and other similar biotas are at the limit of acidity and temperature they can tolerate, and they are the base of the ocean food web, feeding most fish when they are fry or larvae. The gasses in the atmosphere today will push diatoms over that precipice with a massive ocean extinction following soon afterwards, and we continue to add more greenhouse gases than we added yesterday every day.

Then there's habitat loss, coral reefs and kelp forests are both being decimated by temperature rise and acidification. Together they are food and habitat for 25%-50% of all ocean fish and shellfish.

Less over harvesting of the ocean is a good idea, but pretending it alone can save the oceans is pure fantasy. The ocean has absorbed as much as 90+% of the excess heat from global warming, causing oceanic heat waves that destroy habitats both directly and indirectly. There is NO plan that solves that problem, it's well beyond our capabilities under the best conditions with worldwide maximum efforts.

Just sayin'.

--Hot summer with global warming (no moisture in anything)
--Drought for years in California (tinder)
--House in the urban/brush/wild zone probably because--it's pretty and they want seclusion--but---lots of fuel nearby that's dry and uncut.
--Building site at the top of a ridge (for the views--but flames propagate up hills)
--That house isn't going to last out the full duration of its mortgage, most likely

@newtboy,

"bankrupting the global economy isn't the only way to plan for asteroids, now is it? What we have done is put some money towards developing solutions that could be implemented in time, with minor exceptions for super fast unknown asteroids we likely couldn't do much about if we did have a planetary defense system."

That's precisely my point though, bankrupting the global economy to reach negative net emissions tomorrow isn't the only way to plan for climate change either.

"the probability of disastrous climate change is near 100% if you take historic human behavior into account. For many it's already hit. It's only the severity and speed that are in question, and those estimates rise alarmingly with every bit of data we use to replace guesses in the equations.

And the odds of a catastrophic asteroid hit sometime in the future is near 100% too, it's just a question of how many millions of years Earth's luck holds out. Nor has every prediction or projection underestimated future warming so far, your flat wrong on that.

More to the point, the timing and severity of the changes we face is ABSOLUTELY relevant to the actions we need to take. Similarly, knowing the benefit of reducing our emissions by X% by a particular date is also extremely relevant to the actions we need to take. Unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that we have a lot of gaps and uncertainty in our knowledge on those points.

At minimum base level, we know changing global temperature on the whole will impact us negatively, that our CO2 emissions will make things warmer than they otherwise would be, and thus can easily conclude with certainty that the science dictates policies to reduce emissions are a good idea.

Now, you seem to be hell bent on demanding those policies take the shape of staring down the face of disaster 2-3 times worse than the IPCC AR5 reports absolute worst case scenario. I've got to tell you, that the uncertainties involved with that kind of prediction are too great to warrant an honest dictate that the facts support a need for economically devastating action being taken today. It's just not the case.

Even if green tech never takes over, if the next century sees us final solve fusion power and adoption of electric cars, we already get our emission outputs off the worst track scenario the IPCC projected in AR5. I honestly do believe that we will see non-fossil fuel electricity generation and electric cars as the norm in my lifetime, so I'm hopeful for a future that tracks better than the IPCC worst case. That doesn't mean we should do nothing, but it's more like we should take a similarly rational/practical approach to it like you see us doing with asteroids.

Why is that?

Global warming or something local happened to the geography or something?

The warm water "blob" that started this collapse in 2014 is back this year, bigger and warmer than 2014-15. Don't expect any improvement.
I hope you like soylent green, soylent blue is being discontinued.

A well rehearsed climb I assure you. A properly positioned camera to give the perception of great height. Most likely just a warm-up routine with no supportive gear. This is only about 100 ft from base and a pro-climber would not be exhausted by this. Classic view whoring. The overhang was route was specifically chosen so he could have something hang-off of. Another example of a low-achiever recklessly putting themselves in harms way so they can talk about adventure and achievement. Emergency workers are sickened by this. You are not suddenly "cool", "interesting", or respected by this.

Your video, The Last Time The Globe Warmed, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Awww. Heart-warming.

Brought tears to my eyes.

Quality parenting. *doublepromote