Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Hiya]

Sure is Hiya! Eventually the oceans 'catch up' with themselves but anomalous heights run all over our oceans. if you think about tidal bulges dragged by the moon or low versus high pressure over areas of the ocean you'll get what I mean? Certain regions are seeing highr rates of sea level rise than others but , obviously, as sea levels rise all the ocean levels rise!

On a purely experimental scientific basis, which I am suitably qualified to comment on...I am highly sceptical that such measurements are accurate in extreme localities. You would need to measure for a very long time. It strikes me that there are so many errors introduced into the measurement it would be very hard to verify. You could just as easily be measuring the sea bed rising due to plate shift for example, or increased run off from the land. I also think the "catch up" probably doesn't take very long, days at the longest.Probably if there is a paper attached to this it is worded in such a cautious way and this is likely yet another example of tentitive scientific result reported as hard fact by the media.

[knocker]

A letter to Minister Oliver from climate scientist and energy experts

http://markjaccard.blogspot.ca/2013/05/a-letter-to-minister-oliver-from.html

[Jax]

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/documents/WMO_1108_EN_web.pdf

 

A snapshot of our cooling planet......

Page 8 "Key findings" is interesting as it seems to indicate the NH is warming overall far more than the SH.  Wonder if this is due to landmass vs seamass? or is it a corelation(sp?) to global tilt against solar intervention?  as I expect the man made "toxins" that are made  plaudid as a warming "cause" would still get plenty of circulation in their respective hemispheres.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Page 8 "Key findings" is interesting as it seems to indicate the NH is warming overall far more than the SH.  Wonder if this is due to landmass vs seamass? or is it a corelation(sp?) to global tilt against solar intervention?  as I expect the man made "toxins" that are made  plaudid as a warming "cause" would still get plenty of circulation in their respective hemispheres.

 Might be related to the loss of Arctic sea ice and summer snow cover causing a drop in albedo and extra surface warming. The extra land would contribute too, as we know, it takes longer for the oceans to warm than the land masses. Edited May 22, 2013 by pottyprof

[Jax]

Might be related to the loss of Arctic sea ice and summer snow cover causing a drop in albedo and extra surface warming. The extra land would contribute too, as we know, it takes longer for the oceans to warm than the land masses.

that is a good call IMHO, the heat reflection change due to the snow/ice melt would be a factor yes.

[BornFromTheVoid]

On a purely experimental scientific basis, which I am suitably qualified to comment on...

I am highly sceptical that such measurements are accurate in extreme localities. You would need to measure for a very long time. It strikes me that there are so many errors introduced into the measurement it would be very hard to verify. You could just as easily be measuring the sea bed rising due to plate shift for example, or increased run off from the land. I also think the "catch up" probably doesn't take very long, days at the longest.

Probably if there is a paper attached to this it is worded in such a cautious way and this is likely yet another example of tentitive scientific result reported as hard fact by the media.

 

Hello Hiya,

Many satellite sensors make very accurate gravitational measurements which would be able to track changes in mass, such as isostatic uplift, and the effects they will have on ocean mass. Slight variations in gravity across the planet, as well as ocean currents, prevailing winds, river discharges, glacial melt and many other effects will cause geographic variations in sea level rise.

 

This paper may provide some useful info for you

A scaling approach to regional sea level projections

[knocker]

Sad. Our path to 400ppm & industry lobbying.

 

 

 

[Methuselah]

What a fine example of mankind's aptitude for fast action and decisiveness.

[Gray-Wolf]

It certainly shows that, no matter what science shows them, 'mankind' will continue on B.A.U. until forced to change.

 

We see the same on here with a number of posters who still 'need to see more evidence'.......

 

How long will we wait? Will nature be cruel and save the 'disaster that forces change' until mankind has pushed levels beyond 5 or 6 hundred ppm?

[Methuselah]

And, as is usual when the future is at stake, the only thing that matters, is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy04c-6DEgE

[Gray-Wolf]

Until we reach the point where you think money won't help you anymore?

 

Did anybody read about King Midas....or was it the 'Skittles' man......???

[Methuselah]

They energy conglomerates need to stall for as much time as possible; it'll allow them to rip off their customers, whilst blaming the price hikes on government; put in place the necessary 'alternative' infrastructure (with the help of enormous wads of public money),  all whilst ensuring that their cartel will be in prime position to hold the world to ransom for ever and a day...

 

Just follow the money!

[Gray-Wolf]

Probably the saddest part of this is how future generations will treat us?

 

Only the victims of current change will be viewed with sympathy as they will know full well that we had plenty of information of what we should expect from our 'forcing' to have been able to save much more of our planet than we eventually chose to?

 

How do you look at the generation that knew what they risked the future of the world yet still chose to follow their own needs instead of those of the future of the planet?

[BornFromTheVoid]

If conservative Christian support of climate change denial begins to crack in the US, I'm sure it wouldn't be long before it goes here too.

 

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/the-coming-gop-civil-war-over-climate-change-20130509

 

Nothing is ever that straight forward though.

Edited May 11, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[Richie V]

Me for one thaught we would never see this milestone, I only caught a bit of this story. Thaught it might make a rather heated ( pardon the pun) topic of discussion. Mind you, as a grower of trees it is no secret that the optimum growth for trees is just over 1000 ppm.... Should we all be worried?

[Polar Maritime]

Here's the link http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-22486153

 

And this is where we are..

 

[Richie V]

Thanks PM, I could'nt find the link.

[Gray-Wolf]

I do not think that we should be surprised that this has occurred? Was there any 'stopping' of it? 350.org does not appear to have been around long but that was the recognition that 350ppm , or below, was the only safe option for the planet? How long before we see 450ppm? With enough heat now 'in the pipeline' to breach the 2c limit we look destined for much higher levels of GHG's?

With 2c breached we are guaranteed the full melt out of the northern permafrost and that is nearly 3 times the amount of GHG's to introduce into the atmosphere than is currently in the atmosphere today? 

 

450ppm was the level that saw Antarctica start to accrue ice....so above 450ppm All of Antarctica should be ice free......how many meters of sea level rise is all of Antarctica?

Edited May 23, 2013 by pottyprof

[Gray-Wolf]

I wonder whether this is another 'scale' problem? The last time CO2 was introduced, in large amounts, into the atmosphere was back at the start of the PETM. The process took thousands of years to introduce the kind of CO2 increases we have seen in just 100yrs?

 

The other thing is the planet itself. Plate Tectonics has had rift valley's and subduction zones ongoing for billions of years so where is the evidence that small sections can lead to significant warming? 

 

EDIT: Some answers?

 

http://www.alternet.org/environment/99-one-liners-rebut-climate-change-denier-talking-points?

Edited May 11, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

The Wall Street Journal is at it again.

 

Tired, disproven argument on “benefits†of CO2 resurfaces in Wall Street Journal

 

Carbon dioxide concentrations are approaching 400 parts per million, higher than any found in at least 800,000 years. To commemorate the occasion, a Wall Street Journal op-ed has revived an old, repeatedly debunked argument about the benefits of CO₂. Authors Harrison Schmitt and William Happer take the fact that plants need CO₂ to grow and argue that more is better, ignoring both common sense and overwhelming scientific evidence.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/05/09/tired-disproven-argument-on-co2-benefits-in-wsj/ Edited May 22, 2013 by pottyprof

[knocker]

“It feels like the inevitable march toward disaster,†said Maureen E. Raymo, a scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a unit of Columbia University.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

[knocker]

Another Piece of the Global Warming Puzzle - More Efficient Ocean Heat Uptake

Although it is still within the range of model simulations, the rate of global surface air warming over the past decade has slowed.  Climate scientists, being scientists, would like to explain exactly why that has happened. 

 

There are several possible explanations.  Perhaps it's due to the natural internal variability (short-term noise) in the climate system, with more heat being shifted to the deeper oceans as a result of more recent La Niña events.  Perhaps it's due to a smaller global energy imbalance due to more aerosol cooling and lower solar activity offsetting more of the greenhouse gas-caused warming.  Perhaps it's a combination of several factors, but which is the main cause of the slowed surface warming over the past decade?

 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2011&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Edited May 13, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Living on the edge. A reality check.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/interactive/2013/may/13/newtok-alaska-climate-change-refugees?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-2%20Special%20trail:Network%20front%20-%20special%20trail:Position1

Edited May 13, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Leaving fossil fuel reserves in the ground and not burning them is one way to avert the worst climate change scenarios — and there’s a growing movement trying to ensure that major energy companies do just that. Doing so has major implications for every business invested in, or reliant on, the continuing growth of fossil fuel use.

 

 

http://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/a-view-from-the-peak-balancing-our-carbon-budget/

[knocker]

The last time carbon dioxide concentrations were around 400ppm: a snapshot from Arctic Siberia

Synopsis

During the late Pliocene and early Pleistocene Series of the Cenozoic Era, 3.6 to 2.2 Ma (million years ago), the Arctic was much warmer than it is at the present day (with summer temperatures from 3.6-3.4 Ma some 8^oC warmer than today). That is a key finding of research into a lake-sediment core obtained in Eastern Siberia, which is of exceptional importance because it has provided the longest continuous late Cenozoic land-based sedimentary record thus far. The sedimentary sequence dates from recent times back to 3.6 Ma when the lake was formed by a large extraterrestrial impact. During the warm period, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were close to those of today, at around 400 parts per million, indicative of a strong climate sensitivity signal in the Arctic, which has again warmed very rapidly in recent decades. The lake sediment record has thus provided us with a snapshot of how the Arctic may look in the near future.

 

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=2016&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Edited May 14, 2013 by knocker