Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 12:22pm:

No.

Warmer climate so more water content in the atmosphere so bigger rainfall and more and bigger floods. Just like your example.

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 1:11pm:



'Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than
over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). Depending on the observational
data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3,
Table 2.7; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04oC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11oC per
decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in Northern Hemisphere winter (Section 2.4.3; Cohen
et al., 2012). Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST
(Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.19). Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related
questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it.'

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

Seems the IPCC disagree.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 2:54pm:

Only an extremely foolish person of substandard intellect would say that the trillions of tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere have no effect. The core is not getting hotter nor is the sun.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 1:13pm:





Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

Well it is going to take like a thousand years after emissions are brought under control before the climate settles down so don’t worry. I think it is not just “lefties” want the climate issue brought under control. Govts too, apart from the shambles in power here, want to get emissions under control. I think the Chinese have seen the Himalayan glaciers  retreat and realised they had better do something about GHG emissions.

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:12pm:

The extra moisture would help with that.

The “plant food” argument deniers run doesn’t have much validity tho. As it keeps warming plants first reduce their nitrogen intake and less nitrogen = less protein. As night time temperatures rise plants start absorbing less CO2.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:






The clowns at Unskepticalscience.com have taught you well brother, if I was running a climate change scare campaign though I would have included a few beneficial positive effects just to entice the less gullible instead of the current campaign that decrees 100% of all climate change is bad, this just invites even more skeptism as the logical thinkers amongst us realise that climate change can not possibly be all bad, there has to be some winners.