Thanks for sharing this thought-provoking info.
My main concern is that virtually all computer models have failed to predict the rate of current sea level rise and Arctic melt by decades. They have not factored in the role of albedo, methane release and deforestation.
I will read your short version.

"According to the pattern of last three million years (shown on that previous blog post) we would have started the long cooling phase towards the next ice age. Instead, we are warming."

Fascinating read!
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on something Wallace Broecker, James Lovelock and William Ruddiman touch upon in their writings: that the Industrial Revolution prevented the recent 'little ice age' from becoming a full-blown glaciation due to greenhouse gasses.

Back when London was burning all that coal earlier in the industrial age, the Thames rose and a huge iceberg floated in near the coast. Hence the big river gate thingy, they've a little previous flooding experience. You can still see the big black stain coal smog left across the old buildings from the air when you look down upon the city. Plenty of crap still left in the atmosphere from then, only this time the whole worlds spewing it into the atmosphere and the ocean has pretty much run out of room to absorb it.

A solution would be to not spew crap into the air. But then of course Mr Corporatemoneybags would only get a $1 million bonus instead of $6 million and would have to drive a Michelago instead of a Michelago VR.

No, that's not quite correct. You see, Evolution states we will evolve gills in the face of mortal extinction. WE GONNA HAVE ONE WHALE OF A TIME BEING AQUAMAN.

All anyone has ta do is step inside my used Fly box Jeff Goldblum used. Piece a cake man. Here. YOU be our first Fly oops Customer. Each box only costs $3,000,000 and that way I can escape the Food Stamp line at Kroger. TANKS PAL.

Microwaves from GPS, satellite transmissions and cell phones are grossly under-researched and there are therefore no peer reviewed studies linking EMF microwaves to global warming. Same with H.A.A.R.P. We are flying blind with these massive EMF experiments.
There are over 3 billion cellphone users in the world today. And almost as many GPS users. These devices generate large amounts of microwaves. Why aren't scientists studying this seriously?
I am convinced that greenhouse gasses are the primary cause of global warming. But climate change is happening a lot faster than climatologists predicted. I've long wondered if satellite microwaves could be a secondary factor not being considered.

You are a fountain of information. Thank you for explaining this to us. It is something I had never even thought about when thinking about global climate change. But it makes sense. It's just another thing mankind has created that could have a major impact on our environment.

Great question. I'm so glad that coolplanet could explain this to us.

Thanks back my northern pal!
I just need to reiterate that my suspicions have not been adequately studied by science. But it sure make some sense.
I don't see it as yet another conspiracy 'theory' - just an overlooked possibility.
Can you imagine the mayhem if we had to give up both fossil fuels AND cellphones???

No I don't think it's another conspiracy theory. I think it's just another dot to connect. It seems that everything is starting to come together to show global climate change is real. But, I agree the younger generation, especially, could not live without their cellphones.

Hope you don't think I was accusing you of believing in my conspiracy theory. ;)
I'm just being very careful not to fuel the existing conspiracy theories that CO2 is not the main source of climate change.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Nope, I never thought that at all. I've actually never heard that it was a conspiracy. I was just agreeing with you that this could be another possibility.

I've only recently learned that millions of people blame global warming on HAARP 'weather modification' using microwaves to manipulate climate. INFOWARS talks about this a lot.
I just want to be clear that this is not what I'm referring to.
Peace :)

I would consider it more to be a cascade effect. Small increases in average temperature lead to changes in many systems.

More methane is released from melting permafrosts. Forests under stress from logging and the loss of canopy become less efficient at absorbing carbon and the under-story, now exposed to more sunlight, begins to release more CO2 and methane. The oceans now saturated with carbon, especially the cooler southern ocean, can no longer continue to absorb around 55% of the previous anthropogenic CO2 emissions, effectively doubling the amount of CO2 reaching the atmosphere. Increased loss of ice cover reduces the amount of sun light reflected back into space and leads to increased surface temperature radiating more heat into the surrounding environment. Warmer conditions increase the risk of large forest fires, releasing more carbon and removing trees from the cycle that would be normally absorbing carbon. Many other systems I've missed or we yet don't understand.

Warmer ocean temperatures make oceans less effective at absorbing carbon and radiates more heat. (Yet oceans are pretty much chockers full of carbon already)

Studies of plankton under electron microscopes show they are producing more porous and fragile shells due to the increased acidity that the saturation of carbon has produced in oceans. The effects of these weakened plankton shells are yet to be discovered.

Basically it's too much acid, like bad heartburn.

Let us pray for a super volcano to cool us down for a few decades.
But not an asteroid! ;)

This should give us all more incentive to take action ASAP.

Yep. 7,000,000,000 people can't live together in peace now. Try cramming them onto a small remaining island and it won't be Gilligan's Island.

If people on one side of the new island launched a missile strike against the people on the other side that would be the end of Gilligan & wife. Or McMillan and wife. The End

I've followed your many posts for a long time now and one thing is very clear EXACTLY WHY YOUR STATEMENT IS RIGHT (it's all over). Because even if this man was 90% wrong it still makes for a 7 foot rise.

And another thing. If all the people were to move around to the high ground they would still be producing THE SAME AMOUNT OF POLLUTION. Okay, so that means the oceans would remain polluted by darker stuff and keep RIGHT ON ABSORBING MORE SUNLIGHT.

So yes, I view your admission as 100% correct to the nth degree. However, it might be over more for people in Florida than people in upper Idaho where I understand some famous movie stars like Demi Moore, Brad Pitt and Ben Stein have already moved to.

However, since I'm not versed in these matters nearly as much as you are, it seems like to me when the ocean levels rise there should be a corresponding rise in the Great Lakes which would put Michigan & Wisconsin in a pickle, plus perhaps more water down the Mississippi? So there goes a lot of Topsoil and cows.

I concur with your assessment. And even if idaho was in a great spot to SURVIVE I think we all prefer to DO MORE THAN SURVIVE. Surviving while so many other areas get flushed means whatever products we all have grown to love would be flushed with them.

Simple "survival" could be a hell we can't imagine living in. It might be like a technological holocaust. With California flushed would we be decades for another movie? What about wine once most of Italy is under water? What would be left of France?

On the bright side we could develop a taste for shark meat and they're good for preventing arthritis because their gills filter out lots of Gold from ocean water. So we could eat shark steaks and no movies?

I find that unacceptable.

I was being facetious. I know that well enough as you well know.

I know. I was being a little facetious myself. ;)

The conservatives in Australia have coughed up and admitted that climate change is indeed happening, though their plan is to scrap any carbon tax or emissions trading. Instead the Australian conservatives say they plan to plant more trees. If these trees are to be timber plantation trees and just where and how they plan on planting the many billions of trees needed without a reduction in emissions, they have not yet revealed. They have also not revealed who is going to propagate these trees, who is going to plant them, how long it will take, or how much it will cost.

Everybody already propagating trees are pretty darn busy for the foreseeable future, so I imagine there will be quite some passing of time before it even becomes possible. Unless of course they can offer us around $100 a tree, then we can make serious tree propagation happen on a grand scale. Though the conservatives will have to abandon their plans to close the borders to refugees, as we are going to need a huge number of tree planters.

So about AU$100,000,000,000 in trees, plus grants to purchase more land, equipment and water for propagation, plus more grants to purchase land to plant the trees. Dude I think there went the entire national budget! Though the new workers would put a some money back into the economy with their tree planting wages.

Perhaps just planting trees is a pretty stupid bloody idea. Another problem is it's already quite hard to find workers as tree propagation and planting is very hard work. If the conservatives answer is unemployment recipients, are they planning on driving them hundreds of miles each day to work, because there is not enough housing anywhere out here in the country? Is it just me, or are they perhaps talking bullshit?

If the CONservatives enact legislation to only allow planting of native trees and plants for real ecological purpose and not just allow logging companies to replace forests with pulp trees, we'll voluntarily propagate as many native trees as we can, even plant them for them if they promise not to cut them down this time.