Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by blue

Originally Posted by S Landreth

Once emitted, a single molecule of carbon dioxide can remain aloft for hundreds of years, which means that the effects of today's industrial activities will be felt for the next several centuri

It was not felt today in Britain and in the early evening I still had to zip up my big coat I've been wearing since October.
Can we please try 500 parts per million ?
please .

So stop planting trees. You know how much they love CO2.

Ne'er cast a clout 'till May is out, blue.

Another climate/energy warning issued by the UN this week



UN: 'Massive shift' needed on energy





Falling costs led to a rise in renewables' share of global generation capacity, even though investment fell


Related Stories

• IPCC accused of 'marginalising' poor
• Q&A: Climate change
• Hunger games with climate change

A UN report on climate change is expected to call for a trebling of the planet's use of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power.

The report is also expected to argue that the trend of increased carbon emissions can only be reversed if a "massive shift" in energy use is made.

Scientists will also cautiously endorse a shift to natural gas an alternative to carbon intensive sources.

The report will be released on Sunday at a press conference in Berlin.

It will argue that if significant action isn't taken by 2030, global temperatures could rise by more than 2 degrees C.

Such a rise in temperature would be highly dangerous, the report will argue.

What is the IPCC?

In its own words, the IPCC is there "to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts".

The offspring of two UN bodies, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, it has issued four heavyweight assessment reports to date on the state of the climate.

These are commissioned by the governments of 195 countries, essentially the entire world. These reports are critical in informing the climate policies adopted by these governments.

The IPCC itself is a small organisation, run from Geneva with a full time staff of 12. All the scientists who are involved with it do so on a voluntary basis.

Sunday's report will focus on instructing governments and organisations on how to take action to avoid dangerous climatic change.

However, some developing countries have argued that the costs associated with switching energy sources should be borne proportionately by all.

The report will criticise the rising use of coal and other fossil fuels among developing countries.

It will also argue that the technology already exists for more cleaner, more efficient energy sources.


'Severe and irreversible'

This is the third in a series of highly-anticipated reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The first report argued that human action was the primary cause of global warming.

The second, released in March, outlined the effects of climate change on individuals and societies.

It argued that the impacts of global warming are likely to be "severe, pervasive and irreversible".

The three reports are part of the Fifth Assessment Report, a major study of the effects and causes of climate change


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27007486

Interesting programme here from Nova the American science documentary television series produced by WGBH Boston for PBS.

It is long, but worth watching:



One fact that sticks in my mind, not the stuff about climate change, but that almost all the oxygen produced by the Amazon rain forest during the day gets re-absorbed at night. It is effectively a closed system. Weird. (at about 1:19:00)

Yes dear that's fascinating with the Amazon rain forest oxygen, but the point of this thread is that the CO2 we're producing is not reabsorbed at night. Hence the global warming.

We need more nuclear energy, hopefully fusion in future. Provides energy we need. Worst case with that is local, while global warming will kill us all. Reducing energy use is not an option.

^ Worst case nuclear disaster is "local"???!? Ever heard of Chernobyl? Fuckushima?


You know what you call a solar disaster? A sunny day

Originally Posted by Exit Strategy

Reducing energy use is not an option.

On the contrary, it is one of the most important, both for domestic and commercial users.

BBC News - Households cut energy use by a quarter

Efficiency measures pay off as UK energy use falls

Antarctic melt could raise sea levels 3m
Last updated 14:01 05/05/2014

Part of East Antarctica is more vulnerable than expected to a thaw that could trigger an unstoppable slide of ice into the ocean and raise world sea levels for thousands of years, a new study shows.

The Wilkes Basin in East Antarctica, stretching more than 1,000 km inland, has enough ice to raise sea levels by 3 to 4 metres if it were to melt as an effect of global warming, the report said.

The Wilkes is vulnerable because it is held in place by a small rim of ice, resting on bedrock below sea level by the coast of the frozen continent. That "ice plug" might melt away in coming centuries if ocean waters warm up.

"East Antarctica's Wilkes Basin is like a bottle on a slant. Once uncorked, it empties out," Matthias Mengel of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, lead author of the study in the journal Nature Climate Change, said in a statement.

Co-author Anders Levermann, also at Potsdam in Germany, told Reuters the main finding was that the ice flow would be irreversible, if set in motion. He said there was still time to limit warming to levels to keep the ice plug in place.

Almost 200 governments have promised to work out a UN deal by the end of 2015 to curb increasing emissions of man-made greenhouse gases that a UN panel says will cause more droughts, heatwaves, downpours and rising sea levels.

Worries about rising seas that could swamp low-lying areas from Shanghai to Florida focus most on ice in Greenland and West Antarctica, as well as far smaller amounts of ice in mountain ranges from the Himalayas to the Andes.

Sunday's study is among the first to gauge risks in East Antarctica, the biggest wedge of the continent and usually considered stable. "I would not be surprised if this (basin) is more vulnerable than West Antarctica," Levermann said.

Antarctica, the size of the United States and Mexico combined, holds enough ice to raise sea levels by some 57 metres if it ever all melted.

The study indicated that it could take 200 years or more to melt the ice plug if ocean temperatures rise. Once removed, it could take between 5,000 and 10,000 years for ice in the Wilkes Basin to empty as gravity pulled the ice seawards.

"It sounds plausible," Tony Payne, a professor of glaciology at Bristol University who was not involved in the study, said of the findings. The region is not an immediate threat, he said, but "could contribute metres to sea level rise over thousands of years".

The United Nations panel on climate change says it is at least 95 per cent probable that human activities such as burning fossil fuels, rather than natural swings in the climate, are the dominant cause of warming since the 1950s.

Sea levels are likely to rise by between 26 and 82 centimetres by the late 21st century, after a rise of 19 cm since 1900, it says. Antarctica is the biggest uncertainty.
Antarctic melt could raise sea levels 3m | Stuff.co.nz

Councillors debate sea level rise
Last updated 05:00 07/05/2014

A one metre rise in sea level could be factored into Christchurch's planning rules despite warnings it could spell the end of some coastal housing enclaves.

As part of its review of the District Plan, the Christchurch City Council has been tossing up whether it should factor in a half-metre or one metre rise in sea levels in planning rules.

Councillors at a workshop yesterday gave a clear indication they wanted to err on the side of caution and assume a one metre rise, which would mean large tracts of land along the city's coastline could soon be classed as flood management areas.

That has angered Burwood-Pegasus councillor David East, who says it is an extreme position and sends a bad message to residents on the eastern side of the city.

"We are sending a message to coastal residents that the council wants to back out of that side of town," East warned. "It's crazy."

"If we are planning for a one metre rise, we won't be on the east side of this city at all," he said.

City planning unit manager Brigitte de Ronde denied that was the case, saying initially it would only mean new homes in those areas would have to be built with higher floor levels.

"There is no suggestion of retreat in this District Plan but you are right, it does give a message about what could happen in the future," she said.

The council still needs to formally vote on whether to adopt a one metre or half-metre sea level rise but nine of the 11 councillors present yesterday registered their support for the one metre option through an informal show of hands.

No timeframe has been given yet for the formal notification of the first tranche of chapters in the new District Plan. It is expected an Order of Council will be used to fast-track the process.
Councillors debate sea level rise - environment | Stuff.co.nz


Some of what's yet to come.

The cricket pitch (a paddock above the high water mark where we used to play on 20 years or so ago at the beach at Kaiteriteri, Nelson NZ is now completely under water at high tide.

Lotsa flash homes on the waterfront in NZ, some rich owners of whom have been demanding riparian rights to.

Maoris have been trying to lay exclusive claim to the foreshore, also, but that trip ain't gonna pan out for them either as rising sea levels will push the foreshore further inland, and that's already occupied.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Well cry me a river....

^ You have a problem with solar ENT???

No. Do you?

You appear to (as do many Americans),... as you seem to regard the technology as a political football.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

^ Worst case nuclear disaster is "local"???!? Ever heard of Chernobyl? Fuckushima?


You know what you call a solar disaster? A sunny day

Have you personally felt the affects of either of these. Thought not, I have seen no reports of ant effects outside the areas. To many wanna be Noble award winners out there spreading facts as they would like to see them.

Originally Posted by ENT

Antarctic melt could raise sea levels 3m
Last updated 14:01 05/05/2014

Part of East Antarctica is more vulnerable than expected to a thaw that could trigger an unstoppable slide of ice into the ocean and raise world sea levels for thousands of years, a new study shows.

The Wilkes Basin in East Antarctica, stretching more than 1,000 km inland, has enough ice to raise sea levels by 3 to 4 metres if it were to melt as an effect of global warming, the report said.

The Wilkes is vulnerable because it is held in place by a small rim of ice, resting on bedrock below sea level by the coast of the frozen continent. That "ice plug" might melt away in coming centuries if ocean waters warm up.

"East Antarctica's Wilkes Basin is like a bottle on a slant. Once uncorked, it empties out," Matthias Mengel of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, lead author of the study in the journal Nature Climate Change, said in a statement.

Co-author Anders Levermann, also at Potsdam in Germany, told Reuters the main finding was that the ice flow would be irreversible, if set in motion. He said there was still time to limit warming to levels to keep the ice plug in place.

Almost 200 governments have promised to work out a UN deal by the end of 2015 to curb increasing emissions of man-made greenhouse gases that a UN panel says will cause more droughts, heatwaves, downpours and rising sea levels.

Worries about rising seas that could swamp low-lying areas from Shanghai to Florida focus most on ice in Greenland and West Antarctica, as well as far smaller amounts of ice in mountain ranges from the Himalayas to the Andes.

Sunday's study is among the first to gauge risks in East Antarctica, the biggest wedge of the continent and usually considered stable. "I would not be surprised if this (basin) is more vulnerable than West Antarctica," Levermann said.

Antarctica, the size of the United States and Mexico combined, holds enough ice to raise sea levels by some 57 metres if it ever all melted.

The study indicated that it could take 200 years or more to melt the ice plug if ocean temperatures rise. Once removed, it could take between 5,000 and 10,000 years for ice in the Wilkes Basin to empty as gravity pulled the ice seawards.

"It sounds plausible," Tony Payne, a professor of glaciology at Bristol University who was not involved in the study, said of the findings. The region is not an immediate threat, he said, but "could contribute metres to sea level rise over thousands of years".

The United Nations panel on climate change says it is at least 95 per cent probable that human activities such as burning fossil fuels, rather than natural swings in the climate, are the dominant cause of warming since the 1950s.

Sea levels are likely to rise by between 26 and 82 centimetres by the late 21st century, after a rise of 19 cm since 1900, it says. Antarctica is the biggest uncertainty.
Antarctic melt could raise sea levels 3m | Stuff.co.nz

Are these reports coming from the same group who promised the polar ice would begone by now?

Originally Posted by RPETER65

polar ice would begone by now

It has gone.

Originally Posted by ENT

the Christchurch City Council has been tossing up whether it should factor in a half-metre or one metre rise in sea levels in planning rules.

the sheep shaggers of Christchurch have 'been tossing up'.
Nothing new there.
These intellectual giants cannot make up their minds if the sea will rise half a meter or one meter.
Tough decision that.
Lets help them TD.
Lets take a vote.
Christchurch City Councilers, I think it will be 1m.
I hope that helps you .

To whom it may concern.

When this was being discussed in the '80's I could understand many being sceptical. Same for the '90's. And the turn of the century.

But in 2014? With literally mountains of data? Basically all leading scientists on board, worldwide. Nations scrambling for the new-found oil being exposed in the arctic to greedy dumbfucks for exploitation because of the very warming they deny?


Exactly at what point did it become fashionable to think of yourself as cool and smart by being an absolute moron? Is the possibility of you finding a useful role for your brain so farfetched to you that you've given up on the idea and simply surrendered to being a total idiot and trying to cover it with loud brainfarts?

Fukkit. Respect yourself a bit ffs.

Originally Posted by FlyFree

When this was being discussed in the '80's I could understand many being sceptical.

bullshit- in the 80's we were just glad the mostly freezing 70's had ended
no one was talking about global warming.

Originally Posted by FlyFree

But in 2014? With literally mountains of data?

Data on both sides

Originally Posted by FlyFree

Basically all leading scientists on board, worldwide.

bullshit

Originally Posted by FlyFree

Exactly at what point did it become fashionable to think of yourself as cool and smart by being an absolute moron?

Originally Posted by FlyFree

total idiot and trying to cover it with loud brainfarts?

Originally Posted by FlyFree

Fukkit. Respect yourself a bit ffs

A better question : at what point did the gentle mild mannered Man made Global Warming crowd feel the need to start getting so angry and abusive ?
Maybe at the same time they half noticed the Emperor had no clothes , but were not quiet ready to admit it ...

NCA: Spencer Initial Comments

May 7th, 2014 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

There will be many comments from others, I’m sure, but these are my initial thoughts on the 12 major findings from the latest National Climate Assessment, which proports to tell us how the global climate change anticipated by the IPCC on a global basis will impact us here at home.

The NCA report findings are in bold and italics.

My comments follow each finding.

1. Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels. Many independent lines of evidence confirm that human activities are affecting climate in unprecedented ways. U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3F to 1.9F since record keeping began in 1895; most of this increase has occurred since about 1970. The most recent decade was the warmest on record. Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a naturally varying climate, rising temperatures are not evenly distributed across the country or over time.

Yes, it has likely warmed, but by an amount which is unknown due to increasing warm biases in thermometer siting, which cannot be removed through “homogenization” adjustments. But there is no way to know whether “The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities...”, because there is no fingerprint of human-caused versus naturally-caused climate change. To claim the changes are ‘unprecedented’ cannot be demonstrated with reliable data, and are contradicted by some published paleoclimate data which suggests most centuries experience substantial warming or cooling.

2. Some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades, and new and stronger evidence confirms that some of these increases are related to human activities. Changes in extreme weather events are the primary way that most people experience climate change. Human-induced climate change has already increased the number and strength of some of these extreme events. Over the last 50 years, much of the United States has seen an increase in prolonged periods of excessively high temperatures, more heavy downpours, and in some regions, more severe droughts.

There is little or no evidence of increases in severe weather events, except possibly in heavy rainfall events, which would be consistent with modest warming. The statement panders to the publics’ focus on the latest severe weather, and limited memory of even worse events of the past.

3. Human-induced climate change is projected to continue, and it will accelerate significantly if global emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to increase. Heat-trapping gases already in the atmosphere have committed us to a hotter future with more climate-related impacts over the next few decades. The magnitude of climate change beyond the next few decades depends primarily on the amount of heat-trapping gases that human activities emit globally, now and in the future.

This is a predictive statement based upon climate models which have not even been able to hindcast past global temperatures, let alone forecast changes with any level of accuracy.

4. Impacts related to climate change are already evident in many sectors and are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond. Climate change is already affecting societies and the natural world. Climate change interacts with other environmental and societal factors in ways that can either moderate or intensify these impacts. The types and magnitudes of impacts vary across the nation and through time. Children, the elderly, the sick, and the poor are especially vulnerable. There is mounting evidence that harm to the nation will increase substantially in the future unless global emissions of heat-trapping gases are greatly reduced.

To the extent climate has changed regionally, there is no way to know how much has been due to human activities. In fact, it might well be human-induced changes have reduced the negative impact of natural changes - there is simply no way to know. You see, those scientists who study the natural world cannot bring themselves to consider the possibility than some human impacts are actually positive. Even if the human-caused impacts are a net negative, they are far outweighed by the benefits to society (especially the poor) of access to abundant, affordable energy. Besides, for the next few decades, there is nothing substantial we can do about the problem, unless killing off a large portion of humanity, and making the rest miserable, is on the table.

5. Climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways, including through more extreme weather events and wildfire, decreased air quality, and diseases transmitted by insects, food, and water. Climate change is increasing the risks of heat stress, respiratory stress from poor air quality, and the spread of waterborne diseases. Extreme weather events often lead to fatalities and a variety of health impacts on vulnerable populations, including impacts on mental health, such as anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. Large-scale changes in the environment due to climate change and extreme weather events are increasing the risk of the emergence or reemergence of health threats that are currently uncommon in the United States, such as dengue fever.

Most of this is just simply made up, and ignores the positive benefits of access to affordable energy which far outweigh the negatives. If there has been an increase in anxiety and PTSD, it isn’t from severe weather events...it’s from the relentless fear mongering by politicians and the news media.

6. Infrastructure is being damaged by sea level rise, heavy downpours, and extreme heat; damages are projected to increase with continued climate change. Sea level rise, storm surge, and heavy downpours, in combination with the pattern of continued development in coastal areas, are increasing damage to U.S. infrastructure including roads, buildings, and industrial facilities, and are also increasing risks to ports and coastal military installations. Flooding along rivers, lakes, and in cities following heavy downpours, prolonged rains, and rapid melting of snowpack is exceeding the limits of flood protection infrastructure designed for historical conditions. Extreme heat is damaging transportation infrastructure such as roads, rail lines, and airport runways.

Sea level rise (which was occurring before we started emitting carbon dioxide in substantial amounts) is a very slow process, which would have to be accommodated for anyway. And the weaker global warming turns out to be, the slower sea level rise will be. Infrastructure damage occurs anyway, and is often due to weather events which exceed the design limits. You don’t engineer roads and buildings and seawalls and levees to handle any possible scenario...it would be too expensive. A large part of our flooding problems are due to the replacement of natural ground with paved surfaces, which enhances runoff into rivers. This has nothing to do with climate change.

7. Water quality and water supply reliability are jeopardized by climate change in a variety of ways that affect ecosystems and livelihoods. Surface and groundwater supplies in some regions are already stressed by increasing demand for water as well as declining runoff and groundwater recharge. In some regions, particularly the southern part of the country and the Caribbean and Pacific Islands, climate change is increasing the likelihood of water shortages and competition for water among its many uses. Water quality is diminishing in many areas, particularly due to increasing sediment and contaminant concentrations after heavy downpours.

This is largely a non sequitur. The problems described exist even without human-caused climate change...to the extent that substantial human influences exist.

8. Climate disruptions to agriculture have been increasing and are projected to become more severe over this century. Some areas are already experiencing climate-related disruptions, particularly due to extreme weather events. While some U.S. regions and some types of agricultural production will be relatively resilient to climate change over the next 25 years or so, others will increasingly suffer from stresses due to extreme heat, drought, disease, and heavy downpours. From mid-century on, climate change is projected to have more negative impacts on crops and livestock across the country, a trend that could diminish the security of our food supply.

I work with the people involved in tracking and long-term prediction of agricultural yields, both domestically and internationally. They see no sign of climate change impacts on agricultural yields. There are always natural fluctuations, but if there is any negative human-induced impact, it is swamped by the increasing yields due to improved agricultural practices, seed varieties, and very likely CO2 fertilization.

9. Climate change poses particular threats to Indigenous Peoples’ health, well-being, and ways of life. Chronic stresses such as extreme poverty are being exacerbated by climate change impacts such as reduced access to traditional foods, decreased water quality, and increasing exposure to health and safety hazards. In parts of Alaska, Louisiana, the Pacific Islands, and other coastal locations, climate change impacts (through erosion and inundation) are so severe that some communities are already relocating from historical homelands to which their traditions and cultural identities are tied. Particularly in Alaska, the rapid pace of temperature rise, ice and snow melt, and permafrost thaw are significantly affecting critical infrastructure and traditional livelihoods.

O..M..G. So lets help poor people by increasing the cost of everything by making the energy on which everything depends even more expensive? The people who write this drivel are so clueless they should not be allowed to influence the decision making process.

10. Ecosystems and the benefits they provide to society are being affected by climate change. The capacity of ecosystems to buffer the impacts of extreme events like fires, floods, and severe storms is being overwhelmed. Climate change impacts on biodiversity are already being observed in alteration of the timing of critical biological events such as spring bud burst and substantial range shifts of many species. In the longer term, there is an increased risk of species extinction. These changes have social, cultural, and economic effects. Events such as droughts, floods, wildfires, and pest outbreaks associated with climate change (for example, bark beetles in the West) are already disrupting ecosystems. These changes limit the capacity of ecosystems, such as forests, barrier beaches, and wetlands, to continue to play important roles in reducing the impacts of these extreme events on infrastructure, human communities, and other valued resources.

Modest warming and more CO2 available to the biosphere is already having positive impacts, such as the recent greening of the planet. Trying to turn the most obvious positive outcomes into negatives leads to logical contortions which would be funny if they weren’t so serious. Nature changes anyway, folks, as evidenced by glaciers in Europe and North America receding and uncovering ancient tree stumps. Ecosystems are being “overwhelmed”? I don’t think so. Ecosystems are not static.

11. Ocean waters are becoming warmer and more acidic, broadly affecting ocean circulation, chemistry, ecosystems, and marine life. More acidic waters inhibit the formation of shells, skeletons, and coral reefs. Warmer waters harm coral reefs and alter the distribution, abundance, and productivity of many marine species. The rising temperature and changing chemistry of ocean water combine with other stresses, such as overfishing and coastal and marine pollution, to alter marine-based food production and harm fishing communities.

There is increasing evidence that ocean acidification has been greatly overblown. I’m not an expert, but from what I’ve read lately, more realistic lab experiments with adding CO2 to sea water shows that the natural buffering capacity of sea water limits pH changes, and the increasing CO2 is actually good for life in the ocean...just as it is on land (because CO2 is also necessary for the start of the food chain in the ocean). I think the jury is still out on this issue...but, of course, we can’t expect government reports, which are written to facilitate desired policy changes, to provide balance on such things.

12. Planning for adaptation (to address and prepare for impacts) and mitigation (to reduce future climate change, for example by cutting emissions) is becoming more widespread, but current implementation efforts are insufficient to avoid increasingly negative social, environmental, and economic consequences. Actions to reduce emissions, increase carbon uptake, adapt to a changing climate, and increase resilience to impacts that are unavoidable can improve public health, economic development, ecosystem protection, and quality of life.

Translation: We need more government regulation and taxation.

THE BOTTOM LINE:

Follow the money, folks. This glitzy, 840-page report took a lot of your tax dollars to generate, and involved only those “experts” who are willing to play the game. It is difficult to answer in its entirety because government has billions of dollars to invest in this, while most of us who try to bring some sanity to the issue must do it in our spare time, because we aren’t paid to do it. It is nowhere near balanced regarding science, costs-versus-benefits, or implied policy outcomes. Like the previous two National Assessment reports, it takes global climate models which cannot even hindcast what has happened before, which over-forecast global average warming, which are known to have essentially zero skill for regional (e.g. U.S.) predictions, and uses them anyway to instill fear into the masses, so that we might be led to safety by politicians.

Caveat emptor.

(Oh, and if you are tempted to say, “What about all the Big Oil money involved in our need for energy?” Well, that money was willingly given to Big Oil by all of us for a useful product that makes our lives better. Government money is taken from you (I’m not anti-taxation, just pointing out a distinction) that they then use to perpetuate the perceived need for more government control. If “Big Oil” could make a profit by becoming
“Big Solar”, or “Big Wind”, they would.)

ICECAP

^ Amazing that there are still some head-in-the-sand denialists who fall for the Koch brothers propaganda...

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by RPETER65

polar ice would begone by now

It has gone.

So you are saying there is no polar ice?

^

^
err wasn't 1979 the year the alarmists were telling us we were heading for a mini ice age ?
ie must have been a cold year ...

Anyway good riddance to the ice , lets find a way to melt the lot !
all that melting pure water can give the oceans a much needed wash .