oh dear Tim, a cut and paste post form some right wing think tanks really?

Sorry Tim your approach is completely wrong. There's huge economic upsides to opting for change and the right choices. None of which can include coal. Albeit we will still need some for some industrial applications. People focus on enrgy far too much as a premier investment vehicle, when what we need to refocus on is the products of energy and how cheaply we can supply it. We have large scale solar thermal, which given the application of the most recent technology competes favorably with coal in both rollout costs or peak power, minus the billion dollar fuel bill.

Then there is cheaper than coal thorium and the half price energy that would completely turn around some of our fortunes, but particularly in metals smelting!

The only thing that prevents us converting our domestic power to localized biogas production and individual fuel cells; is government intransigence and current vested interest?

The by products of this power source would underpin a truly massive algae production paradigm. Algae absorb 2.5 times their bodyweight in Co2, with some types being up to 60% recoverable oil, which is child's play to extract.

Moreover under optimised conditions, algae will double their bodyweight, adsorption capacity and recoverable oil content every 24 hours.

Some types naturally produce ready to use as is biodiesel or jet fuel. The by product or ex crush waste from this industry, eminently suitable for a food and arable land free ethanol industry.

The only ecocide in play is in our complete reliance on coal and indeed, when the other nations stop buying it from us!

WE can't afford to change!?

We could if we weren't shelling out some 26 billions plus per for fully imported oil! And that my friends is how you do ecocide!
Rhrosty.

"There are so many environmental impacts that are unrelated to CO2. "

Indeed there are, and yet I have yet to see any of the people railing against the 'demonisation of CO2' actually argue positively for an environmental cause that has any sort of large-scale or global relevance.

In fact, they almost all argue against nearly every environmental cause that the 'those bloody greenies' talk about.

Just to name a few I have seen being argued against by 'skeptics', that they think is no problem:
-Impacts on the Great Barrier Reef
-Agrichemical runoff
-The impacts of DDT
-The ozone layer

Many climate change 'skeptics' think that none of these things are actually important and that the greenies are beating them up as well.

If you are serious about concern for environmental impacts that you believe is being ignored in favour of 'climate change', then clean up your act and actually argue for positive support for action on at least one. Or even name one that you think should take precedence. Otherwise you are just a pretender.

Thank god there are an increasing number of scientists prepared to come out of the closet, & tell the truth about the CO2 scam.

Cobber is obviously a gravy train rider, with nothing useful to say, or he would have said it.

Bugsy, come on mate. The Great Barrier Reef is in better shape now, than it was in the 70s & 80s when I was out on it almost daily with tourists, [compared to a month or so a year from those AIMS people], & getting better. It will always be almost dead according to researchers wanting grants.

Agricultural chemicals are not much of a problem today. Yes they were when the stuff was very cheap. I was a rabid complainer in the 60, when it was a major problem, but today farmers have to limit their usage on cost grounds if nothing else.

Bringing up the tired old DDT scare, discredited 30 years ago, & the Ozone layer, totally disproved 10 years ago is really clutching at straws.

OK then Hasbeen,

Name YOUR top 5 environmental concerns that should have more money thrown at them.

Meanwhile this reference describes the situation that we are in, and what, if anything we can collectively do about it.

http://www.a-institute.org

The bottom line is climate change is happening; whether man created or otherwise. What are those who deny man created climate change going to do? keep slowing down any necessary changes to infrastructure such as developed low lying areas that have highways, roads or streets; with homes or businesses.
There are 14 Mayors in Florida who wish to show a couple of Republican candidates for Presidency areas already being impacted by king tides even when there are no storm surges.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/26/3742935/rubio-bush-florida-mayors-letter/

Tim, makes many statements that keep being presented by deniers. It is no surprise that the Monthly did not publish his article as it has all been said before and debunked.
The Japanese Meteorological Agency have indicated that 2014 displayed a record temperature.
Berkeley Laboratories questioned whether 2014 had the highest temperature but leaves it somewhat open ended. Berkeley Laboratories state it is a toss up between a couple of years pst 1998. CSIRO, Berkeley Laboratories and other Agencies all display very similar graphs in relation to temperature trend.

https://vimeo.com/128141163

Tim is wrong about CO2 not reacting with infrared radiated long waves, an eleven year study did research at two locations in the natural environment. The study showed exactly what scientists had been saying. Previously many experiments from simple to quite complex had shown the the reaction.

While the figures might seem small when multiplied by however many billion square meters there are show quite a jump over equilibrium.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

The other factor is that Oceans are warming. A recent study compared data from the 1870s compiled on the British research Challenger with contemporary data.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/18/world-oceans-warming-faster-rate-new-study-fossil-fuels?CMP=soc_567

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-01/uob-cco012516.php
It was very noticeable that no citations were provided to back what Tim was writing.

Neverwas I didn't bother to say anything because we have been over this ground many times.

Let's listen to the experts, I have little knowledge of climate science my training is in Physics and Computer science. I therefore have not got the enough knowledge to do anything other then take the consensus view of climate scientist.

I wouldn't ask a climate scientist about my gastro, and I wouldn't ask Tim about climate science.

Indeed I would seriously question what the motivation of someone who is talking well outside their area of expertise.

Whatever the merits of the good professor's position on climate change, it is clear that this rant is not publishable in any journal of quality. Surely the professor realises that publication requires good argument, clear writing and a respect for and reference to evidence. One hopes that his medical publications are better than this rambling piece.

But why should The Monthly Magazine even be obliged to print/publish Tim's rebuttal of Robert Manne's essay?

Do the publishers of the IPA Review, Quadrant Magazine or Policy Magazine ever allow or feature essays which challenge the "orthodox" corporate and/or libertarian, and old-time Christian religiosity, group-think that they collectively promote?

Quadrant online almost specializes in featuring essays which pretend to debunk the "warmist religion".

Powell, a different person to the one mentioned in the referred article, stated that between 2013 and 2014 there were 24,000 peer reviewed papers published in journals. He stated only a handful were written by skeptical scientists. The 24,000 is interesting when compared to; quote:
"... climate change–related writing from conservative think tanks, they found 16,028 reports, interviews, op-eds, press releases, and scientific reviews from between 1998 and 2013 — nearly 40 times the number (224) that McCright and Dunlap found 16 years earlier (and that’s once you factor in that the earlier study covered just 7 years, and not 15)."

From:

http://grist.org/politics/the-right-wing-climate-denial-machine-is-churning-faster-than-ever/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_campaign=weekly-static

Climate scientists have been writing about glaciers regressing causing major problems for people who rely on them for water and income.
Lake Poopo, in Bolivia has just dried, it was around 1,100 square kilometres in size and provided income for fishermen. Lake Titicaca is also regressing as are most glaciers around the planet.

Yeah, I'm not surprised they didn't publish it either either Daffy. They would probably have had heaps of submissions from every 'sceptic' and their dog trying to 'rebut' whatever Manne wrote. I know Don Aitken has wanted to have a crack in the past, unsuccessful of course.

Anyways, I wish the author would have had more exposition on this 'ecocide' business he mentions in the title of this well-worn piece.

It really irritates me when authors use these words in the titles of their articles and do not at all mention them or address them in their texts.

'The construct of man-made global warming has become a quasi-religious belief for many people'

author summing it up in one. Science left the arguement a long time ago. The numerous dud predictions by the alarmist (often getting short on funds) has woken the general public to the deceitful, unscientific nature of the warmist. Has Tim and Gore finally gone into hiding? No shame!

ant wrote:
"Tim is wrong about CO2 not reacting with infrared radiated long waves"

Tim, my dear boy, never mentioned "infrared radiated long waves" so I wonder how you know what his views on it are. Actually we all know. You just assume that all people you call deniers (what do they deny?) think that "infrared radiated long waves" don't react with CO2. But that's utterly wrong. Very few so-called deniers quibble on this point. But you wouldn't know that because you refuse to read anything that might shake your religious convictions (eg the Exxon memos) and therefore you have no idea what so-called deniers think.

Rhrosty wrote"
"Then there is cheaper than coal thorium"

Every time AGW gets raised Rhrosty regurgitates his thorium trope. I haven't bothered before but just for laughs let's just point out that there is NO working commercial thorium reactor, and there won't be for a very long time. The Chinese have thrown mega-bucks at it, but alas, no luck yet. At this stage the only way one will come online, even assuming the myriad logistic problems are resolved, will be with massive government subsidies that'll make the money wasted on bird extinction devices (aka wind turbines) look like petty cash.

Unfortunately for Rhrosty, even though he's utterly wrong on this one, it was the most accurate part of his post. Oh dear.

Bugsy wrote:
"The impacts of DDT"

I'm amazed there are still folk who see DDT as anything other than a nett good for mankind

I liked the article, it makes the correct point that there are many other environmental issues that more important and easier to deal with than the highly dubious C02 issue. The one that really worries me is that GM foods may well result in greatly reduced fertility in future generations. Reports that I've had suggest that within 2 or 3 generations mice cannot get babies. Currently falling fertility levels suggest something is going on.

Pollution clearly is a huge issue - in water, air and foods. All issues that can be addressed effectively, bit by bit ... but alas not profitably :(

As to climate change, frankly the biggest issue is a likely volcanic outpouring that will make for 'nuclear winter' on a grand scale. The last biggie was in the date we ascribe as AD534. I wrote an article about this it was in New Dawn magazine. Such events are not uncommon, it is not about 'if' but when.

Tim wrote:

"CO2 is increasing and human activity is contributing to this, but there is genuine scientific debate about how much this affects temperature."

mhaze wrote:

"Tim, my dear boy, never mentioned "infrared radiated long waves""

Discussing infrared radiated long waves relates directly to Tim's statement. A clear case of obfuscation as the evidence does not suit particular views. Its a bit like suggesting 1 . 1=2, without showing a plus sign. CO2 + infrared radiated long waves creates warmth.
The ARM study shows what's happening in the open environment in relation to radiated infrared long waves and CO2. There is no debate about this study.
It displays the denier problem, very few peer reviewed papers are published by skeptical scientist; yet, numerous papers are continually published about climate change overall.

What about Bolivia's Lake Poopo; mhaze, any explanation for the lake drying?

What about Tasmania, Evacuation Centres had to be set up for two major unprecedented occurrences; bushfires and flooding? Some areas that have been hit by fire have not been touched by fires for thousands of years. An amazing number of fires are burning.
Air quality around the State has been an issue for almost a fortnight due to smoke, pretty well unprecedented. With regard to rainfall, record falls have been recorded at Launceston the highest recorded for January since recording began. Twice the monthly average Januaury rainfall having fallen in one day (Weatherzone). Australian examples of what has been happening in the Northern Hemisphere.

It gets back to the question, regardless of what is causing climate change; what strategic planning needs to happen to be ready for bushfires, drought and sea level rise.

The chinese are throwing mega bucks at thorium by building a reactor a week a week. And given the discovery of thorium isotope 303, they no longer need to be kick started with enriched uranium or uranium oxides. Yes they are too small, [with the maximum reported generation being just 40 MW,] for use in a national grid!

But just what the doctor ordered for many localized power delivery systems. Particularly when paralleling can up the available megawatts almost indefinitely?

And given very local application, eliminate the transmission line losses(averaging 11%) and the distribution losses, (averaging 64%) which between them, more than double the current customer cost, and Co2 emissions.

Thorium reactors are 50's technology abandoned during the early stages of the cold war because there were no weapons spin offs.

And I will keep repeating this message until it sinks in! Even where it starts to annoy the tripe out of self serving moribund coal devotees, advocates and shareholders?

The simple truth that these folk just ignore is that some of our industries may still survive or even do well with energy costs more than halved!

As would be the case for very localized thorium in a not for profit public supply paradigm.

Suddenly energy dependant manufacture becomes both profitable and a vastly reduced source of carbon emission.

And could include a completely resuscitated car building industry, ship and sub manufacture, and not just for our domestic market, but the world's?

Moreover, metals smelting in modern day electric arc furnaces, which has to include, Australian invented single step steel smelting. Which as anybody with half a brain knows is the steel industry with the lowest carbon emission and given thorim even lower again!

And given a not for profit public supply paradigm, also the world's lowest costing steel industry! Particularly when you factor in years of around 30% chinese wages inflation?

Little wonder those with the most to lose, endlessly bag both thorim and a return to public ownership of cash cow essential service?
Rhrosty.

Read everything I written above and then given a still functioning cerebral cortex, understand, it is our economy stupid!
Rhrosty.

Cobber says, "Neverwas I didn't bother to say anything because we have been over this ground many times.

Let's listen to the experts, I have little knowledge of climate science my training is in Physics and Computer science. I therefore have not got the enough knowledge to do anything other then take the consensus view of climate scientist.

I wouldn't ask a climate scientist about my gastro, and I wouldn't ask Tim about climate science.

Indeed I would seriously question what the motivation of someone who is talking well outside their area of expertise".

In that case Cobber, you should have the same math I have.

Try applying that math, rather than emotional clap trap, & you will then know that dangerous/run away AGW can not be caused by CO2 no matter how much of it there is.

Theses a dare fore you, Are you up for it?

Rhrosty wrote:

"The chinese are throwing mega bucks at thorium by building a reactor a week"

Well I've gotta call BS on that one. Maybe I'm badly informed so I asked Mr Google and he also doesn't know anything of any working thorium reactors in China. But there is plenty of information about China hoping to have one by 2025 if they can overcome the many problems they have with it.

So Rhrosty I've got to do something many on this site hate...I'm asking you for evidence to support your claims. Show us information that confirms that China has thorium reactors currently working. I wait with bated breathe.

Rhrosty 'thinks' that anyone who doesn't go along with his fantasies are "self serving moribund coal devotees, advocates and shareholders". On the other hand, maybe they just have an attachment to reality.


ant,

You're rather amusing. Here you are having been found out just making stuff up about what the author said and instead of owning up you just carry on as though such fabrication is both normal and acceptable. We live in very different ethical worlds.

There is of course a direct connection between Robert Manne, the Monthly Magazine and Quadrant Magazine too.
Robert was of course a long-time contributor to Quadrant, and on that basis he became Quadrant's editor. Some time afterwards he was sacked because he attempted to steer Quadrant into a more left/liberal/progressive direction.
The last edition that he edited contained a superb essay by Hugh Stretton which connected the dots between the English Enclosure laws, and the at the time growing trend promoted by the neo-"conservatives" to privatize everything.
It also featured another superb essay by Ronald Conway which questioned all of the usual Christian presumptions about the nature of Reality, and of its fabricated origins too. Ronald Conway was the author of The Great Australia Stupor and The Rage For Utopia.
It is interesting to compare Ronald Conway's analysis of Australian "culture" to that of the facile nonsense promoted by Nick Cater.

This essay from The Monthly Magazine puts Robert Manne's sacking into perspective. It is written by the son of the man who founded Quadrant.
Martin was also on the management board of Quadrant at the time. He was also a good friend of Robert Manne. He resigned from Quadrant because of his sympathy for Robert.

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2006/december/1165812126/martin-krygier/usual-suspects

Quadrant has of course become much worse in its promotion of right wing group-think worse since then

mhaze
You don't have answers do you, so make an ad homemen attack.

Showing how Tim was wrong about his comment about CO2 using reference to an 11 year research program was not meant to happen.

Quote from ARM research project showing how CO2 reacts with radiated infrared long waves:

"The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today's climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2."
The project collected data from two locations in the natural environment.

Tim makes statements without addressing recent science.

The Oceans are warming which has an impact on climate, previously comment was made about historic data and contemporary data being compared.

The other reference previously provided, used satellites to ascertain temperature in Oceans.

Quote:

"To date, research on the effects of climate change has underestimated the contribution of seawater expansion to sea level rise due to warming of the oceans. A team of researchers at the University of Bonn has now investigated, using satellite data, that this effect was almost twice as large over the past twelve years than previously assumed."

The two studies conform to the view of a greenhouse effect.

No comment about Lake Poopo; mhaze, you might be able to come up with a better answer than glaciers regressing. The question, then becomes if you are not able to give an alternative answer, where is the warmth coming from causing such regression? The sun is in a dimming stage at present.

The Tasmanian situation:

Unprecedented fires

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/opinion/all-at-risk-of-being-lost-forever/news-story/4e52c12a3b950e820140dca25895f7b3

Then flooding

http://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasmania/rain-causes-flood-havoc/news-story/8d1923a1520ac04b363d230bb8643bfc

Which gets back to the question, what strategies need to be in place to protect ourselves from climate change whether man made or otherwise?

mhaze, Yes and sorry, It was years ago when I read a scholarly and credible article, written by an American professor, whose expertise seemed to be physics.

Since then I have read, a believable claim that the chinese were building one a week.

The original and thought provoking article was headed, Thorium, cheaper than coal.

It seems my chinese friends may have misinformed me and are along with the Indians heavily investing in thorium research?

And if reports of progress are to be believed, the Indians will have a working 300MW generator in service by 2016. That's this year folks!

While we here in Oz will be scratching our heads and wondering how the "developing world" stole a march on an "advanced us"?

Arguably because of ponderously obtuse activists that just didn't want to see, Australian coal replaced by something vastly cleaner and cheaper; and or, the Indians are better than us at everything?

Or maybe keeping open enquiring minds as opposed to just bagging everything and everyone or new ideas or original thinking?

Townsville nickel e.f. might be yet salvaged by vastly cheaper energy, and obtain some sort of premium due to a carbon reduction in the processing phase?

And it would seem we have enough of the stuff to power the world for 700 years; or ourselves for considerably longer, if we use the brains we were born with; and just keep it here for our own industrial needs?

It seems some of the research is directed at miniaturization and a $1,000.00 unit that will power a ten house street for a lifetime. THat's what? a $100.00 a house?

Plus the ongoing cost of triannual expert inspections?

As I understand it these thorium units will need very little maintenance with a proposed triennial inspection thought to be sufficient?

My most sincere and humble apologies if I have entirely unintentionally mislead anyone!

A 300MW working example probably worth it?
Rhrosty.

Bravo Rhrosty. Its so unusual in this group to see someone own up to an error. They either try to brazen it out like ant (see above) and Mr O, or they simply disappear for a week or so.

We all make errors and get misled occasionally. The thing is to see it and learn from it. Why even I have been known to be wrong, hard as it is to believe. The last time was in 2008 and was probably the cause for the economic collapse in that year - although I could be wrong about that. :)

So kudos.

I suspect your error on the one a week thing was about coal. It is claimed in some circles that China is building 1 new coal station per week.

I also think you need to look more closely at the Indian claims. They seem to have been promising a prototype thorium reactor next year for the last decade. The last I saw was that in reality they are hoping, and its no more than hope, to be able to get one by 2024 which is roughly when China is aiming. But it seems that many technical issues remain unresolved and there remains a more than negligible chance that thorium may never be commercialised. I have seen quotes from Chinese scientists expressing their dismay that the official timeframe for this was moved from 2040 to 2024 because they have so many issues not yet worked out that they doubt they can meet that target. We'll see. But its never good to suffer from premature elation.

One of the reasons I'm blase about AGW is that I have confidence that technology will kick in in the next decade or two that will replace fossil fuels in both price and efficacy. Maybe it'll be thorium or fission. Maybe they'll get battery storage for solar/wind/tide worked out. Or maybe there's some geek working in his garage right now who will make a break-through no one else has considered. But thorium looks like a reasonable candidate.

mhaze

Tim sought to undermine climate scientists in his article.
You suggest that I'm trying to brazen it out.

Yet, you are not able to answer the questions I have put to you.
You have not given a response to what has caused Lake Poopo in Bolivia to dry, it was the second largest lake in Bolivia. Lake Titicaca, the largest lake is not in good shape.

Tim mentioned Antarctica in his article, the sea ice extent is right down at present, deniers have pushed hard the view of expanding sea ice in the past. But, the important factor though is not the sea ice extent; it is somewhat a red herring. The grounding points of the ice sheets are the important factors. How stable are they?

Yes, and thanks for that mhaze. I hope that the indians aren't simply gilding the lily here and produce a working model, if only to bolster interest.

Incidently, while I was reading up on indian progress, I stumbled across an article, which claimed some boffins had managed to combine hydrogen and Co2, to produce power kero, or jet fuel, utilising solar technology.

There was a nice photo of a machine, the alleged technology.

Now if correct, that's what I call renewable.

You might take a moment or two to read up on an australian invented two tank digestor, which apparently turns organic or biological waste into enough methane to completely power the average home 24/7 from the waste it produces?

Include scrubbing and the methane will it seems, power Australian invented ceramic fuel cells, with spare capacity to burn, maybe enough to keep a tesla recharged and ready for the daily commute? Or a produce a salable surplus of around 50%?

Incidently did you see the recent doco on the guy that manufactures the telsa. We were taken for a ride and witnessed second hand the amazing acceleration of his drive with a range which is near enough to 500 klicks?

I have heard some advocates claim that once you have driven one of these high performance electric vehicles, you'll want no other.

Incidently, you might read me on other threads, where I've advocated mining the reef, a clue which should rule me out as a rabid obsessed greenie! And I echo your sentiments on technology.
Cheers, Rhrosty.

"CO2 is increasing and human activity is contributing to this, but there is genuine scientific debate about how much this affects temperature. More than three-quarters of all anthropogenic CO2 release has occurred since 1945, but there is a pattern of overall warming since 1850, and there have been shorter periods of overall cooling (e.g. 1940-1975). Thus, the pattern is not well explained by man-made CO2."

The above is why they didn't publish the article, it's a whole
heap of rubbish, intertwined with a few snippets of fact.

A good article, rather gently outlining the dishonesty of the supporters of the “human caused” global warming assertion. Thanks, Tim.
Bugsy, we all remember that you are a lefty greeny, and an arrant supporter of nonsense, you do not have to post more nonsense to remind us. Other than the disingenuous UN and a few failed academics, who believes the nonsense about the Barrier Reef?
A Royal Commission into climate fraud should be the top priority. Billions have been wasted in failed attempts to show a measurable human effect on climate.Money would be better spent exposing the climate fraud supporters.
When global warming stopped almost 19 years ago, it demonstrated what nonsense of the CO2 hypothesis. The human effect, as we all know, but the fraud supporters will not admit, is trivial, and not measurable.
The flea, being the dishonest climate fraud supporter he has proved himself to be, uses the baseless and scurrilous term “denier”, although as a fraud supporter he has no science to deny. Refer us to science which shows a measurable effect on climate which is human caused, flea, or apologise to the realists you have called “deniers”.

ant,

Come on! You said that "Tim is wrong about CO2 not reacting with infrared radiated long waves".

but he never opined one way or the other on such a reaction. If you're right about his assertions, show us where he said anything about "infrared radiated long waves" or else GYB and own up to an error or misreading or reading between the lines or whatever helps you to salvage some pride. But don't pretend that you accurately reflected what he said.

As to Lake Poopo, I haven't bothered to respond because raising it as an example of AGW is too silly for words. This is a lake that is incredibly shallow (average 3 meters deep) and feed from just one source which is now being partially diverted for other uses. It has run dry up to 7 times in the last century the most recent being 1994. But each time it has refilled. IF it running dry is proof of AGW then is its refilling proof of the opposite? As I said, too silly for words. But a drowning man will clutch at any straw, I guess.

Valley Guy, you might consider the science, before you post baseless rubbish here.
Robert Carter, an honest and competent climate scientist, summed up the position
“Although at least -$50 billion has been spent on climate research, the science arguments for a dangerous human influence on global warming have, if anything, become weaker since the establishment of the IPCC in 1988.
our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547979/A-dangerous-climate

mhaze

A quote from Japanese Times in relation to Lake Poopo:

"However, recovery may no longer be possible, scientists say.

“This is a picture of the future of climate change,” says Dirk Hoffman, a German glaciologist who studies how rising temperatures from the burning of fossil fuels has accelerated glacial melting in Bolivia.

As Andean glaciers disappear so do the sources of Poopo’s water. But other factors are in play in the demise of Bolivia’s second-largest body of water behind Lake Titicaca.

Drought caused by the recurrent El Nino meteorological phenomenon is considered the main driver. Authorities say another factor is the diversion of water from Poopo’s tributaries, mostly for mining but also for agriculture."

Further into the article a mining executive blames climate change for the drying of Lake Poopo.
The article identifies mining, agriculture, climate change and El Nino as being reasons for Lake Poopo to dry; basically human activity being the reason. There are issues generally in the Andes and elsewhere of glaciers regressing. Listed below is not the original source I found information about Lake Poopo from, but it mentioned climate change, agriculture, and mining as being the cause of the Lakes demise. Did Lake Poopo evaporate to almost nothing in 1997/98?

"http://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2016/01/30/environment/bolivias-second-largest-lake-lost-warming/#.Vq5XbceO5sN

The current El Nino appears as though it is cranking up; since the early 1980s the biggest three El Ninos have been recorded using reliable evidence since recording began. The year after an El Nino has begun is generally warmer than the year of inception. Already 2015 has been recorded with higher temperatures than 1998; should the trend continue 2016 will be the warmest year globally since pre industrial times. All very interesting when we have the sun in a dimming phase, Antarctica's sea ice extent is down currently, and Oceans are warming.

When Tim downplays the reaction of CO2 in relation to climate change he is ignoring what the science is saying. Tim offers many opinions without any proof.

No comments about Florida; mhaze, where 14 Mayors are petitioning Republican candidates in relation to sea level rise.

Leo
Your reference doesn't work.

In my last post El Nino was mentioned, having sent off the post, this came to my attention. Written by a scientist:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/record-hot-2015-glimpse-future-global-warming.html

A very interesting graph is provided in relation to El Nino, La Nina, and Neutral years.
Also, comments are made about satellite accuracy in relation to measuring temperature.
Deniers like to have it both ways; they suggest that the actual recording of temperature from 1880 doesn't provide a long enough record; yet, use 1998 as the start point for any graphs they might provide. Also, the temperature measured at weather stations is ignored, the data goes back more than 100 years. Paleoclimatologists are able to infer temperature from a number of sources going back into different epochs.
Satellites infer temperature from layers of atmosphere, a bit like trying to measure an inch when the measure you are using only measures feet without any finer gradations, I suppose. The temperature derived from satellites does not measure the surface where we reside.

ok ant, let's drop it. You read an article you didn't like, fabricated claims about what the author said so that you could refute the article, got caught and now refuse to admit it. So be it...we now know how you operate.

"No comments about Florida; mhaze,"

ant, if you think I'm going to respond every time you stumble across some AlGore wannabe telling us we're all gunna die 40 years from next Tuesday week, then I'm gunna disappoint you.

Is Florida going to flood? Maybe.

Is that proof of AGW? Nup.

The end.

mhaze

You ask " Is Florida going to flood? Maybe."

Your problem is that flooding is happening in Florida, it was taken up by the series Years of Living Dangerously, Union of Concerned Scientists, and 14 Mayers petitioning Republican Presidential candidates, along with other references as well.

Already in 2010 sea level rise in Florida was being investigated, quite an old reference:

http://seagrant.noaa.gov/Portals/0/Documents/what_we_do/climate/Florida%20Report%20on%20Climate%20Change%20and%20SLR.pdf

Film clip discussing sea level rise during clear weather:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-fZnlR_IJ0

A Washington Post article that provides a summary of the characteristics which lead to flooding during king tides. Commonsense suggests that infrastructure would not have been built in areas where flooding now occurs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/10/20/during-autumn-king-tides-nuisance-flooding-becomes-chronic-flooding-in-miami-area/

You suggest that fabrication of what Tim stated has occurred, Tim makes comments that cut across underpinnings of climate science; you are not able to debunk it so term it "fabrication".

The earth is flat; mhaze, we have been told by a rapper B.o.B, to debunk that is fabrication; there lies the logic of your comments.

The flea says:” Leo
Your reference doesn't work”
It is English, but there is no way to ascertain what it means..
I have already supplied the science which supports Tim’s assertions.I will copy it again:

"an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547979/A-dangerous-climate

What does Dirk Hoffman, say about Lake Mungo, which supported thousands of aborigines before it dried up, before we invented cars or burnt fossil fuels?
A fraud like him would still connect it to climate change.
You are still asking stupid questions, flea, to dishonestly imply the non-existent link between global warming and extreme weather.

Leo

A day or so ago Antarctica sea ice was about 200,000 kilometres below the average extent for the time of year. It sea ice constantly varies but the increase deniers have crowed about has melted away. Sea ice in the Arctic is also in a parlous state.

Satellite technology is mooted as providing a more accurate measure of temperature by deniers; except the Australian measures are not complying with the denier arguments. The satelitte measures are displaying higher temperatures than those recorded at weather stations.

https://theconversation.com/the-weather-bureau-might-be-underestimating-australian-warming-heres-why-53982

Three separate studies have shown how Oceans have been warming.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/phytoplankton-rapidly-disappearing-indian-ocean

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/18/world-oceans-warming-faster-rate-new-study-fossil-fuels?CMP=soc_567

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/phytoplankton-rapidly-disappearing-indian-ocean

So we have a study comparing historic data from a research ship which collected temperature data of Oceans in the 1870s with contemporary data, satellite data, and the demise of phytoplankton in the Indian Ocean.