+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 52
Latest: Carnesia
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 16222
Total Topics: 264
Most Online Today: 4
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 2
Total: 2

Author Topic: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️  (Read 75337 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #915 on: June 20, 2017, 07:15:49 pm »
Globe has third warmest May on record


Agelbert NOTE: The above graphic is self explanatory, but be sure and read the full article that accompanied the graphic.

Author: NCEI staff

June 20, 2017

SNIPPET 1:

Below the map is a time series of temperatures each May from 1880-2017 compared to the twentieth-century average (1901-2000). The solid gray line shows the long-term trend, which is 0.13°F (0.07°C) per decade.


SNIPPET 2:

The May globally averaged sea surface temperature was 1.28°F above the 20th century monthly average of 61.3°Fthe third highest global ocean temperature for May in the record, behind 2016 and 2015.

The map above comes from Climate.gov Data Snapshots map collection. It is based on the official NOAA global temperature product, but uses a little more interpolation to estimate temperatures in areas with missing data. The data for the graph came from NCEI's Climate at a Glance web analysis tool.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/featured-images/globe-has-third-warmest-may-record
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #916 on: June 22, 2017, 02:37:11 pm »


Louisiana’s coastline is sinking much faster than anyone thought, new study finds

LAST UPDATED ON JUNE 19TH, 2017 AT 6:44 PM BY MIHAI ANDREI

SNIPPET:

Quote
“Coastal Louisiana has experienced catastrophic rates of wetland loss over the past century, equivalent in area to the state of Delaware” — that’s not something you want to see, but that’s the intro of a new study published by the Geological Society of America."

http://www.zmescience.com/science/geology/louisiana-sinking-coastline-climate-16062017/

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #917 on: June 23, 2017, 07:33:58 pm »
 


Study documents accelerated climate change in Spanish mountains

LAST UPDATED ON JUNE 22ND, 2017 AT 5:12 PM BY ALEXANDRA GEREA

SNIPPET:

If you want to see climate change in action in a civilized place (as opposed to the Arctic wilderness), Spain is the place to go. Spain has been hot since the end of the ice age, but in recent decades, it’s getting hotter and hotter. In the past three decades alone, temperatures have risen by 2.5 °C in Spain, surpassing the European average of 0.95°C. However, warming doesn’t happen in a uniform fashion, and researchers wanted to see how the country’s northern mountains are affected.

http://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/pyrenees-climate-change-22062017/
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #918 on: June 25, 2017, 09:43:13 pm »
When Do You Call It A Climate Emergency?

Posted on June 15, 2017, by Radio Ecoshock
 
Incredible heat records, Biblical downpours not reported. Canadian climate scientist Paul Beckwith & Alex get it on the record. Plus some new science from Norway. Bright young mind Pavel Serov on Arctic sea-bed methane risks & rewards. When the glaciers melted before, methane blew up from the sea floor, leaving craters we see today. Could it happen again? Why are China and Japan trying to tap those reserves anyway? Radio Ecoshock

Paul Beckwith is from the University of Ottawa. He’s a regular contributor to Radio Ecoshock – and each time it’s very popular!

Pavel Serov is with CAGE, the Centre for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Environment and Climate at the University of Tromso in Norway. He’s just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) “Postglacial response of Arctic Ocean gas hydrates to climatic amelioration.”  Their are a lot of warnings about frozen methane (“clathrates”) holding more greenhouse gases than may exist in the atmosphere already. As the climate shift warms the seas, will they be liberated, and how fast?

Download or listen to this Radio Ecoshock program in CD Quality (57 MB) or Lo-Fi (14 MB)

http://www.ecoshock.org/2017/06/when-do-you-call-it-an-emergency.html
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #919 on: June 26, 2017, 04:42:06 pm »


June 26, 2017

Estimates of Sea Level Rise by 2100 Have Tripled in the Past Few Years


Environmental activist Peter Sinclair examines the growing threat of sea level rise

SNIPPET from the video interview:

The IPCC estimate relied on the notion that expanding ocean waters and the melting of relatively small glaciers would fuel the majority of sea level rise, rather than the massive ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. It turns out, however, that scientists were underestimating the rate at which the giant ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland were melting. About one month ago, scientists increased their estimates of sea level rise even further. New research, including from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, increased the plausible sea level rise maximum to as much as 2.7 meters. Thus, in the space of a mere five years, the scientific community nearly tripled its estimate of maximum sea level rise under a business-as-usual scenario.

These three estimates in maximum plausible sea level rise received extensive media coverage, but the far more alarming scientific estimate has received little, if any, attention as far as we can tell at The Real News.

Earlier this year, NASA scientist Eric Rignot: gave a presentation in which he predicted that if we experience global warming in the range of 1.5 degrees Celsius to two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels, we are committing the planet to sea level rise of six to nine meters. Moreover, according to Dr. Rignot, sea level rise of that magnitude may occur within the next 100 to 200 years. Let's listen to some of what Dr. Rignot had to say
.
Eric Rignot: By 2100, more than one meter, very likely. This is not a futuristic situation. It's on pace now. The irony of this is when we started talking about this 10 years ago, everybody was raising eyebrows, one meter sea level rise. You're crazy, right? Now it's common knowledge. I watch these interviews. Everybody says, "Yeah, one meter sea level rise per century." Sometimes I even want to say, "Which publication are you referring to?" Twitter. Twitter. Sea level rise commitments, to me that was probably one of the biggest news in the last decade. We see a lot of happening in the ice sheets, but the [inaudible 00:03:00] coming very strong and clearly and saying, "If you warm the climate this much, it's six to nine meters."


Read full transcript at the link below:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=19241



Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #920 on: June 26, 2017, 05:49:26 pm »
 

June 20, 2017

Coastal Cities Unprepared for Major Floods As Sea Levels Rise

The Trump Administration is making it even harder for coastal cities to defend themselves against increased flooding brought about by climate change, says Michael Oppenheimer, professor of Geosciences and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #921 on: June 26, 2017, 09:13:16 pm »
AGELBERT NOTE: This is reposted from the Doomstead Diner Forum today:  ;D
 


June 26, 2017

Estimates of Sea Level Rise by 2100 Have Tripled in the Past Few Years


Environmental activist Peter Sinclair examines the growing threat of sea level rise

SNIPPET from the video interview:

The IPCC estimate relied on the notion that expanding ocean waters and the melting of relatively small glaciers would fuel the majority of sea level rise, rather than the massive ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica. It turns out, however, that scientists were underestimating the rate at which the giant ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland were melting. About one month ago, scientists increased their estimates of sea level rise even further. New research, including from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, increased the plausible sea level rise maximum to as much as 2.7 meters. Thus, in the space of a mere five years, the scientific community nearly tripled its estimate of maximum sea level rise under a business-as-usual scenario.

These three estimates in maximum plausible sea level rise received extensive media coverage, but the far more alarming scientific estimate has received little, if any, attention as far as we can tell at The Real News.

Earlier this year, NASA scientist Eric Rignot: gave a presentation in which he predicted that if we experience global warming in the range of 1.5 degrees Celsius to two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels, we are committing the planet to sea level rise of six to nine meters. Moreover, according to Dr. Rignot, sea level rise of that magnitude may occur within the next 100 to 200 years. Let's listen to some of what Dr. Rignot had to say
.
Eric Rignot: By 2100, more than one meter, very likely. This is not a futuristic situation. It's on pace now. The irony of this is when we started talking about this 10 years ago, everybody was raising eyebrows, one meter sea level rise. You're crazy, right? Now it's common knowledge. I watch these interviews. Everybody says, "Yeah, one meter sea level rise per century." Sometimes I even want to say, "Which publication are you referring to?" Twitter. Twitter. Sea level rise commitments, to me that was probably one of the biggest news in the last decade. We see a lot of happening in the ice sheets, but the [inaudible 00:03:00] coming very strong and clearly and saying, "If you warm the climate this much, it's six to nine meters."


Read full transcript at the link below:

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=19241

Agelbert NOTE: Recently I updated and republished parts one and two of a three part article I wrote that includes the fact that 6 meters of sea level rise is our trajectory, unlike the low balled IPCC estimates had claimed of about 1 meter by 2100. I received a much better reaction at the Daily Kos, where I published them, than here, where good old Palloy went out of his way to claim, with a smiley, that my article was trash and worthy of being ripped up and discarded. Palloy was wrong, about a year and a half ago when I first published the article series here, and I have been proven accurate about our trajectory, as the scientific community is now admitting. No, I don't expect Pally to apologize. People like him are not fond of admitting error. Too bad for him.

Here are some of the comments from Part One recently published at Daily Kos. Yes, there were a couple of naysayers, but the positive comments were welcome encouragement for all the research I performed to provide the public with this urgent and valuable information.


ian douglas rushlau Jun 18 · 09:36:06 AM
Agelbert,

This is fantastic!

Comprehensive, and clearly presented so those of us who aren’t atmospheric scientists can grasp the significance of the various strands of data. Love the graphics!

This is an example of an effect of AGW that, as you highlight, the insurance companies are all aware of, but most folks wouldn’t consider (the insurers are pretty up on AGW generally, though they seem reluctant to say so publicly):

Most of those affordable products in our homes are a direct result of a the uninterrupted global lifeblood of efficient blue ocean shipping.
Will enough people connect the dots when the cost of living outstrips any reasonable prospect of income for many people? Will enough people who have ever identified with the GOP connect the dots?

It’s hard to fix the world when 30% of the population keeps right on trying to break it, and steals our tools in the process.

 Reply Recommended 3 times

Agelbert  ian douglas rushlau Jun 18 · 03:53:48 PM
Thank you! I authorize you and all readers here to post any part or the whole of this article anywhere with, or without, attribution.

People need to know what we are up against.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

Stormynurse Jun 18 · 10:12:10 AM
Wow! What an intensive, comprehensive diary. Will take me awhile to read it all, which I definitely intend to do. Written down so I can keep getting back. Thank you for your incredible effort.

 Reply Recommended 1 time

Agelbert  Stormynurse Jun 18 · 04:11:04 PM
You are very welcome. The comment by you and others here today have given me added encouragement to post the the other two parts as soon as possible.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

jjohnjj Jun 18 · 11:07:55 AM
Thank you for this work. A good Climate Diary leaves me thinking, “Christ, I knew it was bad… but not that bad!”

I agree that it’s important to shift the political debate to near-term economic effects. Visions of Florida disappearing, Atlantis-like, under the waves are simply too easy for ordinary people to dismiss with a nervous giggle. Talking about crop failures and ruined seaports has a better chance of holding their attention until the next election.

I am reminded of a Sci-Fi novel, “The Kraken Wakes”, written by John Wyndham (author of “Day of the Triffids”). The story is a wet version of “War of the Worlds”. One protagonist is a reporter for the BBC, the other is an outspoken professor, whose warnings (of course) go unheeded.

Mysterious fireballs plunge into the oceans. Unseen aliens are believed to be colonizing the deep ocean trenches. Attempts to the communicate fail, a submersible is destroyed along with its crew, and humans nuke the visitors.

The aliens retaliate by releasing betentacled sea monsters that attack surface ships… and the world economy goes straight to hell, triggering social and political collapse. Before the conflict ends, the aliens have started melting the polar ice cap; London and the Netherlands are flooded.

…Pretty good for a book published in 1953.

 Reply Recommended 4 times

Agelbert  jjohnjj Jun 18 · 03:59:43 PM
You are very welcome. Naomi Oreskes has a good sci-fi book out called “View From the Future: The Collapse of Western Civilization”, a scenario where the world reels from dealing with Catastrophic climate Change.  She is an authority on what the fossil fuel industry has been up to for the last several decades, and why that is so dangerous for us.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

subtropolis Jun 18 · 02:41:58 PM
I’ve never believed the forecasts for how quickly the ice caps could disappear. I acknowledge that the scientists must be conservative, of course, but i’ve always felt that they were being far too conservative. Feedback is a ****.

I posted this comment a few days ago but it seems relevant here:

Opening up their sack, the children chorus, "Oh Snowman, what have we found?" They lift out the objects, hold them up as if offering them for sale: a hubcap, a piano key, a chunk of pale-green pop bottle smoothed by the ocean. A plastic BlyssPluss container, empty; a ChickieNobs Bucket O'Nubbins, ditto. A computer mouse, or the busted remains of one, with a long wiry tail.

Snowman feels like weeping. What can he tell them? There's no way of explaining to them what these curious items are, or were. But surely they've guessed what he'll say, because it's always the same.

"These are things from before." He keeps his voice kindly but remote. A cross between pedagogue, soothsayer, and benevolent uncle - that should be his tone.

"Will they hurt us?" Sometimes they find tins of motor oil, caustic solvents, plastic bottles of bleach. Booby traps from the past. He's considered to be an expert on potential accidents: scalding liquids, sickening fumes, poison dust. Pain of odd kinds.

—Margaret Atwood, Oryx & Crake
When the seas around the world are battering our infrastructure to bits there won’t be any jokes about suddenly getting to enjoy seaside property.

 Reply Recommended 1 time

Agelbert  subtropolis Jun 18 · 04:08:40 PM
Well said. There is a predicted sequence to these events. I hope to educate readers on what they will be. For example, the acidification of the oceans is already affecting fishing deleteriously. The next big hit has begun with salt intrusion along the coasts, threatening a huge amount of near sea level land that is used for crop growing. This is happening now, well before port facilities and homes are affected, though the papers aren’t talking about it.

Most people are not aware of how much farm land is near sea level along the coasts of the continents. It is a significant amount.

But when the turbulent oceans make shipping nearly impossible, that will get plenty of attention.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

jjohnjj Jun 18 · 05:49:23 PM
The Oxnard Plain, just north of Los Angeles, is prime coastal farmland with 18 feet of topsoil. But but there is little rain in SoCal and this region does not get state water via canal. As more acres were planted with strawberries and tract homes, once-generous quantities of groundwater have been overdrafted with ever-deeper wells.

It’s not widely known that saltwater aquifers extend inland from the sea below coastal land. When freshwater is taken out, saltwater moves in, contaminating wells nearest to the coast. In Oxnard they actually treat wastewater and pump it into the ground to recharge the the most vulnerable aquifers.

Saltwater_Intrusion_Oxnard.jpg
Sea level rise is going to exacerbate this problem before obvious issues like beach erosion become visible.

 Reply Recommended 1 time
[new] 
graceadams830  jjohnjj Jun 20 · 04:23:02 PM
On top of fact that all of California is susceptible to drought.

 Reply Recommended 0 times


Pescadero Bill  greenandblue Jun 19 · 11:34:08 AM
Therefore, humanity should surely act upon a worse case scenario given the uncertainty presented by the level at which CO2 is rapidly and catastrophically increasing.

2 degrees warmer climate in late Pliocene meant 12-32 meters higher sea levels
Sea level has some catching up to do. How quickly that happens is the question. In any case, sea level rise is locked into our future. Infrastructure meant to last into next century has to take the potential for at least 6 meters of sea level rise into consideration.

 Reply Recommended 1 time

Pescadero Bill  Pescadero Bill Jun 19 · 11:48:34 AM
More on that — e360.yale.edu/…

“That was a natural warming period in Earth’s history,” Scambos says. “We’re putting our pedal to the metal today; we’re driving the system very hard.”

 Reply Recommended 1 time

greenandblue  Pescadero Bill Jun 19 · 12:39:27 PM
Yes, our emissions have been terrible. It looks like we may have started changing.

Global CO2 emissions since 1980 (solid black) and country pledges under the Paris Agreement (dashed) compared to a high emissions scenario (orange) and a scenario compatible with limiting warming to 2C above pre-industrial levels (blue).
This does not include methane release from permafrost or clathrates. Even so, there is hope that we can control the temperature increase.

New analysis from Climate Dynamics this week finds that to keep warming well below 2C and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C in the most cost-effective way, rich countries must phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030, China by 2040 and the rest of the world by mid-century.
China is now leading in switching to renewables. The US is lagging and dragging its feet. We have to change, but there is next to zero probability that there will be a 6 m rise in seal level in the coming 1-3 decades.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

Agelbert  greenandblue Jun 19 · 06:04:22 PM
Zero probability? What science paper are you getting that thoroughly unscientific bit of hyperbole from, the latest Koch Brothers New Ice Age predictions paper?

Shame on you.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

greenandblue  Agelbert Jun 19 · 06:42:14 PM
The 2016 Nature paper that I cited lists means and standard deviations. It’s 1.05   or - 0.30 m for 2100 in their worst case model. However, I made a mistake. That paper only accounts for Antarctica. This 2017 Science article predicts the following.

eight ice sheet models predicted anywhere between 0 and 27 cm of sea level rise in 2100 from Greenland melt.
Add them together, and it is still less than the 2 m I mentioned.

I am not ashamed for citing and trusting experts in their Science and Nature publications from 2016 and 2017. I could be wrong, so I sincerely ask for references predicting a 6 m rise in seal level by 2050.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

Agelbert  greenandblue Jun 19 · 07:18:05 PM
Well, you should be. It is disingenuous to fixate on the most conservative scenarios when you yourself admitted that the common wisdom assumes Catastrophic climate change, as in RCP  8.5 or GREATER.  Also, all the sea level rise scenarios in the peer reviewed papers have variations based on the rate of achieving equilibrium. What was assumed to take centuries (the  scientific rationale behind SLOW sea level rise), now is occurring much, much faster than predicted.

If you want to hair split with me until the cows come home on this issue, go for it, but “erring on the side of caution” is NOT about what the Precautionary Principle of Science is all about.

And that appears to be what you are using to defend the most conservative scenarios.

Are you aware of the fact that ALL the RCP scenarios, including the “Business as Usual” clusterfork, are based on mathematical modeling that EXCLUDES the increasing arctic positive feedback (“positive” is the term for things getting a lot worse than expected) that accelerated the melt rate in Greenland? That means the paper you referenced is low balling the sea level rise.

Yes, I can provide quotes from IPCC officials, just like the methane discussion in the video in Part 1, calmly explaining, that, no, we haven’t incorporated added positive feedback activity in any of the models.

That’s why I wrote the article. If you are waiting for an Affidavit from the IPCC that we are going to climate hell in a hand basket for you to agree that the drastic recommendations posted in the article are sine qua non for our survival, then you  will be very disappointed.

 There is also a 40 year baked in factor that the papers do not want to deal with, except as statistical bell curve “outlier” predictions.

But that 40 year baked in CO2 pollution (some say it only 30 years while others say up to 50)  means that if we stop ALL burning of fossil fuels today, the warming and sea level rise will continue for another forty years before we can begin to return to a less destructive climate.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

greenandblue  Agelbert Jun 19 · 09:09:38 PM
Climate change and the permafrost carbon feedback

A number of ecosystem and Earth system models have incorporated a first approximation of global permafrost carbon dynamics….Model scenarios show potential carbon release from the permafrost zone in the range 37–174 Pg carbon by 2100 under the current climate warming trajectory (Representative Concentration Pathway RCP 8.5).

...At these rates, the observed and projected emissions of CO2 and CH4 from thawing permafrost are unlikely to occur at a speed that could cause abrupt climate change over a period of a few years to a decade. A large pulse release of permafrost carbon on this timescale could cause climate change that would incur catastrophic costs to society, but there is little evidence from either current observations or model projections to support such a large and rapid pulse.
They also consider undersea methane clathrates.

What is clear is that it would take thousands of years of CH4 emissions at the current rate to release the same quantity of CH4 (50 Pg) that was used in a modelled ten-year pulse to forecast tremendous global economic damage as a result of Arctic carbon release8, making catastrophic impacts such as those appear highly unlikely
Finally, once again, none of this suggests that we do not have a serious problem. Our differences in conclusions about timing arise from how much we trust researchers in the field and the peer reviewed publications.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

greenandblue  Agelbert Jun 19 · 09:36:11 PM
RCP-8.5 is not conservative in terms of C emissions.

Development of global primary energy supply in RCP8.5 (left-hand panel) and global primary energy supply in 2100 in the associated mitigation cases stabilizing radiative forcing at levels of 6, 4.5, and 2.6 W/m2
Development of global GHG emissions (CO2-eq., CO2, CH4, and N2O) in RCP8.5 and MESSAGE mitigation scenarios of this study (brown lines). For a comparison the trends of the official RCPs described elsewhere in this SI are shown as well (red = RCP6, blue = RCP4.5, green = RCP3-PD)
It is conservative in accounting for mitigation and changes to renewable energy, which is not accounted for in the diary of comments of the diary author.

As always, it can be improved, as noted with permafrost. But that does not make it conservative.

 Reply Recommended 0 times
[new] 
greenandblue  greenandblue Jun 19 · 09:55:14 PM
Correction, diary or comments by the author

 Reply Recommended 0 times

Agelbert  greenandblue Jun 19 · 07:29:05 PM
To give an idea about how far behind reality most of the published papers on sea level rise are, read this article from just two day ago:

SCIENTISTS SAW A NEARLY UNHEARD OF ANTARCTIC MELTDOWN

By Brian Kahn
   Published: June 17th, 2017
Antarctica is unfreezing. In the past few months alone, researchers have chronicled a seasonal waterfall, widespread networks of rivers and melt ponds and an iceberg the size of Delaware on the brink of breaking away from the thawing landscape.

A new study published in Nature Communications only adds to the disturbing trend of change afoot in Antarctica. Researchers have documented rain on a continent more known for snow and widespread surface melt in West Antarctica last summer, one of the most unstable parts of a continent that’s already being eaten away .by warm waters below the ice.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

greenandblue  Pescadero Bill Jun 19 · 12:04:42 PM
If we act upon the theoretically possible, then we should evacuate California, Japan and the rest of the ring of fire immediately. We need to base our actions in established and accepted science, while trusting experts with track records in studying the systems in question. Nobody here is arguing that humanity is sufficiently prepared for climate change. That is why we had the Paris agreement, and why leaders are pushing for more. IMO, making claims that exceed accepted science by an order magnitude in the near term and the timing of changes by two orders of magnitude, all while pushing unsubstantiated claims about the IPCC will do more to cause hopelessness and panic or doubt then they will to stimulate preparation. Saying that we have to build infrastructure for the next century is one thing. Saying that we must do it all in the next decade is not realistic or based in accepted science.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

Agelbert  greenandblue Jun 19 · 05:23:00 PM
Evacuate CALIFORNIA!!? Talk about being unrealistic. Hyperbole is a fallacious debating technique totally at odds with sound science.

If you want to make an argument that a 10 year transition is not “realistic”, provide some data instead of attempts at ridicule.

Nothing I wrote is simply a “low probability theoretical” possibly, but a GUARANTEED RCP- 8.5 outcome. And, YEAH, we ARE ON RCP- 8.5 or greater according to ALL the latest stats and data on global average temperatures and CO2 pollution levels. There is NOTHING “theoretical” about our present trajectory.

This web site run by Climate Scientists will fill you in, if you are interested in reality, that is.

www.realclimate.org

Look around your home, pal. How many appliance/machines/vehicles/gizmos/computers do you have there that are OLDER than 20 years? Usually, the answer is ZERO.

Do you know why that is? It’s because MTBF (mean time before failure) designs in our civilization TURN OVER NEW MACHINES in a much shorter than 20 year cycle.

Consequently, ANY PROCESS to transition to Renewable Energy in our civilization is NOT held back by industry or replacement costs spanning one, or at most, two decades. If you knew anything about how our manufacturing industries work, you would understand that.

The ONLY thing holding back the transition away from fossil fuel powered machinery is entrenched corruption defending polluting fuel sources, which fund ridiculously unscientific status quo defending propaganda like claiming a ten year transition is “unrealistic”.

Try again. :>)

 Reply Recommended 0 times
[new] 
greenandblue  Agelbert Jun 19 · 05:35:05 PM
sea level will most likely rise a minimum of 6 meters within 10 years, not 35 years.
Please provide a reference. It’s not in the Science paper you linked. I posted a reference of an estimate of 2 m by 2100. Here is the source in Nature. I was being generous. The authors state greater than 1 m, but I said 2m.

Also, please provide a reference predicting that rogue waves of up to 35 m will be frequent enough to  destroy the shipping industry.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

Agelbert  greenandblue Jun 19 · 06:47:55 PM
Please read PART II. It will be out around this Sunday.

As to the sea level rise within a decade, that is referenced in PART III. If you cannot wait that long, go to my forum, register, log in and I will be happy to provide sufficient well referenced data to answer your questions and doubts.

Your assumption that my article is “unrealistic” lacks objectivity. If our dire circumstances make you so uncomfortable that you have to retreat into overly conservative scenario happy talk, and then proceed to attempt to undermine the very high probability events predicted, then you have a denial problem.

The view, that you apparently have, that starkly stating the urgency of a radical transition will “create hopelessness” if no action is taken is what is unrealistic. People that need to be babied lack critical thinking skills.

We are walking the plank to extinction. This is not hyperbole. We need to turn around. We are not doing that. That is also not hyperbole.

Your comment about the fact that our emissions are steadily going down, while accurate, is not a sign of hope because of the FACT that our emissions must STOP, or we will certainly sentence billions of people, and a large part of the biosphere’s species we depend on to death.

That is reality. Why are you so uncomfortable with reality? Face it. 

I’m not a doomer. I propose solutions.  But the point at which those solutions could be incremental and gradual passed over 20 years ago. It is clear that you are not prepared to accept the reality of the urgency to take drastic action. But soon you will.

Renewable Revolution
 

 Reply Recommended 0 times

greenandblue  Agelbert Jun 19 · 08:22:21 PM
I didn’t say emissions were steadily going down. Here is what I said.

It looks like we may have started changing.
It’s far from acceptable or sustainable, but I will take it as a hopeful step. I will also accept the word of experts  when it comes to timing. Once again.

New analysis from Climate Dynamics this week finds that to keep warming well below 2C and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C in the most cost-effective way, rich countries must phase out coal-fired electricity by 2030, China by 2040 and the rest of the world by mid-century.
If you want to persuade me that your timing is correct, please provide references to predictions of a 6 m rise in sea level by 2050, along with one for increased frequency of waves that will destroy international shipping.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

greenandblue  Agelbert Jun 19 · 09:50:49 PM
I don’t understand this.

starkly stating the urgency of a radical transition will “create hopelessness” if no action is taken is what is unrealistic.
It will increase the probability of taking insufficient action. It is not a response of taking no action. If you can believe psychology experts, then you might be interested to know that creating hopelessness and other negative outcomes are real dangers associated with climate change communication.

Indeed, recognition that the psychological impacts of climate change pose a current threat to individual and community health—even to those who have not directly experienced biophysical impacts—has  the potential to lead to more active mitigation and adaptation activities.
Until it is falsified, I see no to disbelieve peer reviewed climate change science. Overstating the danger is denying the state of climate science and it risks tuning people out to effective responses.

 Reply Recommended 0 times
[new] 
greenandblue  greenandblue Jun 19 · 09:51:43 PM
Correction, I see no reason to disbelieve...

 Reply Recommended 0 times

greenandblue  Agelbert Jun 19 · 05:43:26 PM
The ONLY thing holding back the transition away from fossil fuel powered machinery is entrenched corruption defending polluting fuel sources
I disagree. It’s not that simple. But then, if you are correct that sea levels will rise 6 m in the next 10 years, then transitioning away from fossil fuels is not the only thing we need to do in that time frame.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

Agelbert  greenandblue Jun 19 · 07:55:22 PM
You are entitled to your opinion, of course.

In regard to the rapid sea level rise, here is a scenario, though you won’t find it published yet, that I envision based on new discoveries about the nature and movement of the  Greenland ice sheet. There is far more lubrication form melt water going on between the nearly mile high ice than had been assumed. Even the the temperature of the ice next to the ground is well below freezing, a phenomenon of liquid water is occurring due to the high pressure of the ice cap. The melt begins on the surface, but tunnels down to the ground here it spreads in capillaries and tributaries between the ice and the ground. This is not static. The area of the ice cap being lubricated by this super pressurized melt water increases ever year. Already the rate of glacier flows toward the ocean has accelerated. But the danger, in regard to rapid sea level rise, is that enough lubrication occurs to slide a massive amount of ice covering several hundred square mile into the ocean at once. This would ,in turn, trigger much faster movement (and melt rate) of the ice behind the broken segment on land. If this happens all over Greenland, a jump of a few inches could occur in only one year.

Watch Greenland. When she starts to really melt, all bets are off on slow sea level rise and there will be a lot of overly conservative scientists with egg on their faces.

Remember, the issue is not whether a change in temperature of 2 degrees C can raise the sea level 6 meters or more (that has been established by the measurement of the amount of ice on Antarctica and Greenland that would melt into the oceans). The issue is how fast it takes to reach equilibrium.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

greenandblue  Agelbert Jun 19 · 08:28:44 PM
I asked about this, though not as detailed or eloquently, in a comment in a another thread. Even so, I do not see it adding 6 m to sea level in the coming 1-3 decades, and this unrealized hypothesis is not enough to make me disregard peer reviewed experts.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

Agelbert  greenandblue Jun 20 · 01:17:29 PM
That’s your problem; you are reality challenged.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

greenandblue  Agelbert Jun 20 · 07:17:33 PM
OK, then enlighten me. Show us the public data and models where you or others have made the observations and done the calculations for the volume of ice threatening to collapse into the ocean as you described. Describe the details of any models of the physical processes involved, and present graphical maps of the probabilities for each region of ice cover to collapse.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

Agelbert  greenandblue Jun 23 · 06:04:58 PM
Sorry to be repetitive, but the models have been conclusively proven to be massively erroneous short on predicting ice melt , acidification rates and temperature increase rates. And none of the models even dwelt with wave action!

The only model  pointing somewhat towards reality is RCP 8.5. And that is, as the observed versus predicted effects evidence, short of reality as well, even tough that is considered the “business as usual” scenario.

The models have NOT been updated to reflect melt realities in Greenland and the positive feedback loops already evidenced.

The models have NOT been updated to reflect the new ancient evidence of more rapid equilibrium rates per Hansen and Dutton papers.

If that does not convince you that all the models are way too conservative, what can I say? Of course we need new models. They aren’t out yet. But the trajectory is clearly dangerous.

Part Two is now published for your perusal.


 Reply Recommended 0 times

Agelbert  greenandblue Jun 19 · 05:37:21 PM
I provide the details evidencing a 6 meter (or more) rise in part three. But as to your scientific paper reference, did you not read in my article about the massivly embarrasing errors from all the IPCC predictions? Where in God’s good earth do you think that “2 meter rise” prediction comes from, if not from the VERY SAME people in the IPCC betting on an RCP-  2.6 happy talk scenario when we left THAT ONE in the CO2 pollution dust over 15 years ago!!!?

They are overly conservative. Do you understand what that means? The evidence is in. They were, and ARE, wrong. Now if you want to believe outdated predictions, that is your thing. But if you want to get real about the existential threat the continued burning of fossil fuels represents to our civilization, then start looking at the trajectory, not the happy talk.

You are jumping the gun here. The rising sea level rate is important, but is not the main thrust of this three part article, which includes the predicted turbulent ocean conditions that will make modern shipping impossible. Read all the parts as a unit before going out of your way to doubt my conclusions and recommendations. Objectivity demands it.

 Reply Recommended 0 times
[new] 
greenandblue  Agelbert Jun 19 · 07:40:20 PM
Here is what the IPCC says

Models  reproduce  observed  continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades
Comparison of observed and simulated climate change based on three large-scale indicators in the atmosphere, the cryosphere and
the ocean: change in continental land surface air temperatures (yellow panels), Arctic and Antarctic September sea ice extent (white panels), and upper
ocean heat content in the major ocean basins (blue panels). Global average changes are also given. Anomalies are given relative to 1880–1919 for surface
temperatures, 1960–1980 for ocean heat content and 1979–1999 for sea ice. All time-series are decadal averages, plotted at the centre of the decade.
 Reply Recommended 0 times
[new] 
greenandblue  Agelbert Jun 19 · 07:47:56 PM
I asked for 2 references that are directly relevant to this diary.

1. 6 m rise in sea level by 2050

2. increased frequency of what are now called rogue waves of up to 35 m in height to the point of destroying international shipping.

There is no reason to withhold references.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

Agelbert  greenandblue Jun 19 · 05:57:21 PM
So tell me, what part of the  “near unanimous opinion outside of American conservatives that business as usual would be catastrophic”  truth about our situation do you think objectively defends piecemeal, step by step, remedial scenarios like you are advocating?

Which of my recommendations do you think are “unnecessary”? Or would you just toss them all out because you think they are “too drastic” (to polluter stock prices)?

Catastrophic is the trajectory we are on. Remedial actions CANNOT by mealy mouthed or piecemeal, unless you want to guarantee failure.

The giant waves are no longer going to be “rogue”. That is why structural improvements on ships will not cut it. Part II details all that. The predicted wave activity will routinely impact hulls with over 90 TONS per square meter of pressure. Ship hulls today are designed for much less (about 30 tons per square meter MAX, and then only if they bend to take the blow).

Try to be more patient instead of rushing to undermine the credibility of a well researched article. And try to be more patient abut reading all three parts before jumping to conclusions.

 Reply Recommended 0 times
[new] 
greenandblue Jun 19 · 07:45:02 PM
None. I am advocating trusting experts. If you provide references to back up claims that are one to two orders of magnitude beyond peer reviewed publications that I listed, then I will be more inclined to believe you.

 Reply Recommended 0 times
[new] 
greenandblue Jun 19 · 10:37:21 PM
Thank you for writing an intriguing diary and for participating in the discussion. I believe that you can do good work in getting people to respond to climate change, though you can see I have some reservations. If you provide the requested references, then I will reconsider these reservations. I do not want to continue hijacking your diaries or to appear as a stalker, so, in the coming weeks, I will refrain from commenting in your diaries, except to express the reservations laid out here, or, even better, to acknowledge any updated references.

 Reply Recommended 0 times
[new] 
graceadams830 Jun 20 · 05:32:01 PM
I suspect USA problem is  mostly political. I suspect we will have to pay double, to pay FOB prices for fossil fuel to get permission to keep it in the ground so we  can buy renewable energy to use. I have given my local soup kitchen some money over past few years to invest in improving their energy efficiency to prepare for rooftop solar. I hope in December 2017 to be able to give them some money for solar power.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

greenandblue Jun 20 · 10:00:58 PM
You mentioned a Hansen paper from 2015, but I didn’t see it linked, and my requests for references were not met, so I didn’t try to track it down until today, when I found this one.

Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate
modeling, and modern observations that 2◦ C global warming is highly dangerous
It is a great paper that I recommend for anybody interested. It is not my field of expertise, so I can’t fully critique it, but I can provide a few quotes that are relevant to this thread. I removed some citations for ease of reading.
Ice  melt  cooling  is  advanced  as  global  ice  melt  reaches  1 m  of  sea  level
in 2060, 1/3 from Greenland and 2/3 from Antarctica.
Melting at ice shelf grounding lines in West Antarctica and Wilkes Basin in East Antarctica has potential to result in rapid, nonlinear sea level rise because these basins have retrograde beds (beds sloping inland), a configuration with potential for unstable grounding line retreat and substantial ice sheet disintegration .... Multiple submarine valleys make much of the Greenland ice sheet vulnerable to
thermal forcing by a warming ocean, but with a few exceptions the valleys are prograde and thus rapid nonlinear growth of ice melt is not likely.
correlations of paleo temperatures and sea level show that lag of sea level change behind temperature is of order a century, not a millennium.
At any rate, it is not a decade, as implied in the diary. But don’t let that make you complacent. There is a lot of reason to be very concerned.

Sea level increases as  large  as ∼40 m  were  associated  with  large  insolation  forcings  at  107  and  86 ky b2k...Sea level rise as great as 10–15 m occurred in conjunction with some other D–O events during 65–30 ky b2k
Given current ice sheet melt rates, a 20 year doubling rate produces multi-meter sea level rise in a century, while 10 and 40 year doubling times require 50 and 200 years, respectively.
The doubling refers to loss of ice, and we are headed for the 10 year doubling time.  The authors also spell out why CO2 is a climate control knob, and we are putting amounts into the atmosphere that have not been seen in hundreds of thousands of years, at least.

In short, we don’t seem to be looking at 6 m in the next 1-3 decades, but if we do not act fast, then we will be looking at 6 m at minimum.

In regards to the potential for shutting down shipping, there is some reason to be concerned presented in this paper. There are many lines of evidence. One is boulders on island ridges.

Enormous  boulders  tossed  onto  an  older  Pleistocene  landscape provide a metric of powerful waves at  the  end  of  stage  5e...The boulders must have been transported to their present position by waves, as two of the largest ones are located on the crest of the island’s ridge
Which is applicable today and moving forward.

This image of our planet with accelerating meltwater includes growing climate chaos and storminess, as meltwater causes cooling around Antarctica and in the North Atlantic while the tropics and subtropics continue to warm.
I don’t see any probabilities for the frequencies of these storms, and how much it would be expected to slow global shipping. If they are periodic events, and not constant, then satellites and weather forecasts might be able to guide shipping routes and timing. At any rate, it won’t be nearly as easy as we have it now.

To be somewhat repetitive, the author and I agree on the big picture, if not the timing or specific details. References that I have found indicate that the changes are coming, but maybe not as fast as is written in this diary. It might give us time to work, but not for complacency. Urgency is still required.

 Reply Recommended 0 times

Agelbert  greenandblue Jun 23 · 05:37:54 PM
We are in agreement that urgency is required. Part Two of this series is now published here. I hope it answers some of your questions.

www.dailykos.com/...

 Reply Recommended 0 times

Agelbert  greenandblue Jun 23 · 05:43:47 PM
Also, Part Three, to be published within a week, deals with the Hansen paper and much of what you just quoted. That is why I asked you to be patient at the outset when you asked for references. Part Three has links to the Hansen paper and another one as well, which I listed in the Ethical Executive Summary comment request by another poster.




Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #922 on: June 26, 2017, 09:25:49 pm »
June 6, 2017

Agelbert NOTE: This is a sobering interview with much information about our dangerous climate change PRESENT, never mind our future, evidencing that we are basically out of time to successfully attack this Climate Emergency. From now on it will be a steady, painful attrition retreat from our from our previous state of plenty.  :(
 
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #923 on: June 26, 2017, 09:44:25 pm »
Published on Jun 18, 2017

Many have wondered about the identity of the prolific writer at Arctic-news.blogspot.com with the
 moniker, Sam Carana . In this video, we address this issue.


Agelbert NOTE: Sam Carana's posts may be found at the Arctic News Blog.

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2017/
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #924 on: June 26, 2017, 11:25:09 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: Finally!    The scientific papers are staring to catch up with the MELT RATE REALITY that the IPCC has been avoiding like the plague for a couple of decades.   But reality has a way of getting through eventually. 

Better late than never, I suppose.  ;)

Greenland now a major driver of rising seas: study

June 26, 2017 by Marlowe Hood

SNIPPET:

Ocean levels rose 50 percent faster in 2014 than in 1993, with meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet now supplying 25 percent of total sea level increase compared with just five percent 20 years earlier, researchers reported Monday.

The findings add to growing concern among scientists that the global watermark is climbing more rapidly than forecast only a few years ago, with potentially devastating consequences.

Hundreds of millions of people around the world live in low-lying deltas that are vulnerable, especially when rising seas are combined with land sinking due to depleted water tables, or a lack of ground-forming silt held back by dams.

Major coastal cities are also threatened, while some small island states are already laying plans for the day their drowning nations will no longer be livable.

"This result is important because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)"—the UN science advisory body—"makes a very conservative projection of total sea level rise by the end of the century," at 60 to 90 centimetres (24 to 35 inches), said Peter Wadhams, a professor of ocean physics at the University of Oxford who did not take part in the research.

Quote
That estimate, he added, assumes that the rate at which ocean levels rise will remain constant.

"Yet there is convincing evidence—including accelerating losses of mass from Greenland and Antarctica—that the rate is actually increasing, and increasing exponentially."

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-06-greenland-major-driver-seas.html#jCp
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #925 on: June 28, 2017, 07:51:56 pm »
Agelbert NOTE: This is a snippet from a Common Sense Proposal, totally free of hyperbole or alarmist claims, which was written some years ago. It's message is even more pressing, and valid, today.

University of New South Wales PhD candidate Laurence L. Delina has investigated the rapid, large, socio-economic changes made by several countries just before and during World War 2, wrote professor Mark Diesendorf from UNSW Australia in The Conversation:

“Laurence Delina found that we can learn from wartime experience in changing the labour force and finance. However, he also pointed out the limitations of the wartime metaphor for rapid climate mitigation.



Quote
Wartime mobilisation for climate  mitigation. Preprint   
of paper subsequently in Energy   Policy (2013) 58:371-­‐380.

 
1. Introduction

The German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) calculates that, to keep global warming less than 2ºC above preindustrial temperature (which may not be safe) with a probability of 67%, global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would have to peak by 2020 and reach zero by 2040 (WBGU, 2009: Fig. 3.2-1).

If the peak occurs after 2020, the maximum reduction rate would have to exceed 9% per year, an almost impossible challenge in the absence of widespread economic collapse.

Thus we are living in the critical decade, in which we must turn around the current warming trajectory, which has ‘roughly a 20% likelihood of exceeding 4ºC by 2100 and a 10% chance of 4ºC being exceeded as early as the 2070s’ (World Bank, 2012:1). Climate mitigation must be an urgent, rapid and effective transition.
 
This paper is motivated by the need to develop contingency plans now for possible future emergency climate mitigation responses. Considering that these responses entail the mobilisation of a huge volume of resources, we explore the extent to which emergency strategies could be devised reflecting the scale and scope of mobilisation for World War 2 (WW2).

To set the rapid mobilisation scenario in motion, we consider a hypothetical sudden major global climate impact that could galvanise governments around the world to take rapid actions. Such an event could be, for example, a sudden global sea level rise of about 2 metres caused by the collapse of part of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is currently being undermined by ocean surface temperatures several degrees warmer than a few decades ago and is losing mass at an increasing rate (Vaughan, 2008:72-76; Rignot et al., 2011).

In addition to the already expected emergency adaptation efforts from governments (which is important in addressing immediate threats but is beyond the scope of this paper), the scenario has governments of developed and rapidly developing countries—all OECD countries and newly industrialised countries such as Brazil, India, China and South Africa—agreeing to achieve a global target of close to zero emissions from the energy sector in 25 to 40 years.

This international context is a vital component for rapid mitigation, especially in setting up the stage for deep national emission cuts, either in the form of a strengthening of the Kyoto Protocol or as an entirely new protocol.

On the assumption that this agreement is quickly forged and places strong targets on all developed and rapidly developing countries, this paper addresses actions at the national level.



http://climatesafety.net/australia-laurence-delina-learning-from-war/

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #926 on: June 28, 2017, 08:30:57 pm »
Mesmerising animation of 2016 sea surface temperature

April 20, 2017

still image from the Year of Sea Surface Temperature animation, showing record low sea ice extent in late 2016. Credit: European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites (EUMETSAT)

In a recent animation produced by EUMETSAT, Remote Sensing Scientist Anne O'Carroll describes a year of sea surface temperature (SST) in 2016.

The animation combines satellite data with ocean surface measurements. The satellite data used come from both the geostationary ring of satellites and polar-orbiting satellites including from Europe, America and Japan.

The global sea surface temperature animation is compiled from the Operational Sea Surface Temperature and Sea Ice Analysis (OSTIA) as produced by the UK Met Office. The products are available from the Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service (CMEMS).

"The animation is important to see the changes on a global scale of the surface temperatures of our ocean and to consider how these influence weather patterns and thus our daily lives," Mrs O'Carroll said.

Mrs O'Carroll goes through each month of the year highlighting specific weather events, currents and changes in temperatures in different zones of the Earth, focusing especially on El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and La Niña.

As seasons change, colder temperatures are coloured in blue while warmer surface temperatures evolve from yellow to magenta, and while currents move we can see the changes in temperatures twirling around.

According to the scientist, "The animation shows the beauty of the movement of our ocean and the changes in temperature and how energy is distributed and spreads around our globe, affecting the weather, climate, ecosystem and all our daily lives."



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-04-mesmerising-animation-sea-surface-temperature.html#jCp
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #927 on: June 28, 2017, 09:48:26 pm »
Hotter and Hotter Sea Surface Temperatures brought to you by 410 PPM of CO2 fossil fuel industry profit over planet
   
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #928 on: June 29, 2017, 02:37:27 pm »
JUNE 29, 2017

Next Three Years Will Decide Fate of Our Planet's Climate, Experts Warn

SNIPPET:

Never has the paradox been greater. While the most powerful politician in the world is a climate denier, scientists are now warning that we have just three years to start making radical reductions to greenhouse gases.

Put it another way: that is the term of the Trump presidency. We have three and a bit years left of Trump (if he does not get impeached in the meantime) and we have three years left to save the climate, and begin to bring emissions down by 2020.

Writing in the scientific journal Nature, leading climate scientists have issued their sternest warning yet that time is seriously running out to prevent runaway climate change.

"Should emissions continue to rise beyond 2020, or even remain level, the temperature goals set in Paris become almost unattainable," they warn. "Lowering emissions globally is a monumental task, but research tells us that it is necessary, desirable and achievable."

Indeed, if action is not taken by 2020, we could see that Paris agreed limit of 1.5 to 2 degrees being surpassed quite quickly.

They tell world leaders to be driven by the science rather than "hide their heads in the sand." "Entire ecosystems" were already collapsing, they warn.

The article was signed by more than 60 scientists, including professor Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University as well as politicians such as former Mexican President Felipe Calderon and ex-Irish President Mary Robinson, and former UN climate chief Christiana Figueres.

https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-scientists-nature-2450295396.html



Adrian Grenier: 'We Must Usher in a New Era of Compassion Through Forward Thinking Environmental Programs'

By Stefanie Spear
 
Adrian Grenier was named UN Goodwill Ambassador earlier this month.The Hollywood actor, best known for his iconic role of A-list movie star Vincent Chase in the HBO smash hit and film Entourage, will advocate for drastically reducing single-use plastic and protection of marine species, and encourage his followers to make conscious consumer choices to reduce their environmental footprint, according to the UN Environment announcement.

"Together we must usher in a new era of compassion and carefulness through forward thinking environmental programs to drive measurable change," Grenier said. "I am personally committed to creating ways in which the global community can come together to help solve our most critical climate crises through routine, collective action.

"The more we connect to nature in our daily lives, the more dedicated we will become to our individual commitments. Together, I believe we can go further, faster in our race to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals by 2030."

Watch the video above to learn more.



We've Made History': Ireland Joins France, Germany and Bulgaria in Banning Fracking 

https://www.ecowatch.com/ireland-ban-fracking-2450255362.html



Trial Date Set in Kids Climate Lawsuit Against U.S. Government

SNIPPET:

U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin issued an order Thursday in the climate lawsuit brought by 21 youth, Juliana v. United States, setting a trial date for Feb. 5, 2018 before U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken in Eugene, Oregon.

Juliana v. United States was brought by 21 young plaintiffs and Earth Guardians who argue that their constitutional and public trust rights are being violated by the government's creation of climate danger. The case is one of many related legal actions brought by youth in several states and countries, all supported by Our Children's Trust, seeking science-based action by governments to stabilize the climate system.

https://www.ecowatch.com/our-childrens-trust-trial-date-2450252842.html

Agelbert NOTE: Our very existence hangs in the balance, and our "legal" system schedules  a trial on this issue for February of 2018... 

Trump's Energy Week Looks Like His Health Care Bill: A Disaster for America

SNIPPET:

We don't work on health care on a day-to-day basis at Oil Change International , but having tracked the oil and gas industry    for over a decade, we know a disaster when we see one. That's why we joined 16 major environmental organizations on a letter to Senators expressing our outrage at the cruelty demonstrated in the bill now being considered by lawmakers. The legislation would make it harder for low-income people to afford health insurance and access frontline service providers—the same Americans that shoulder the heaviest burden from industrial pollution, environmental disasters and the effects of climate change. We know that there can be no climate justice without social justice. And this health care bill is not a just policy.

In what amounts to a staggering transfer of wealth, the GOP health care bill slashes public services and forces ordinary Americans to absorb the costs in higher premiums or going without health care, to make room for tax cuts for the nation's richest households. The Congressional Budget Office calculates it would cut $772 billion in funding over the next ten years to Medicaid, a critical program that makes health care affordable to tens of millions who couldn't otherwise afford it. These cuts could force rural hospitals and clinics to shut their doors, leaving families living in poverty outside of population centers even farther from preventative and emergency services.

https://www.ecowatch.com/energy-week-health-care-bill-2449710526.html



Weed Resistance to Glyphosate on GMO Crops:    EPA  Needs to Do Better

Agelbert NOTE: The 'fox' in the EPA 'hen house'  is doing exactly what Fracking billionaire Hamm (Pruitt's OWNER) and the rest of his polluter pals want him to do.

https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-glyphosate-resistance-2449686645.html

World's Largest Wind Turbine Will Be Taller Than Empire State Building 

https://www.ecowatch.com/worlds-largest-wind-turbine-2449212399.html

Agelbert NOTE: Unlike onshore wind turbines, Offshore wind turbines are not limited in size and diameter by highway overpass heights and highway widths. So, these new giants will be far more efficient, AND RELIABLE, than any fossil fuel or nuclear power plant that has EVER been built. Therefore, expect Trump and friends to go to great lengths to keep these Renewable Energy Marvels from going up in our oceans and the great lakes. The Fossil Fuelers have NEVER been about a level ERoEI (energy return on energy invested) playing field. And as to the claim of these crooks and liars that they provided, and still provide, a polluting product because we-the-people "wanted" them to, as government subisies of polluting fuels for a century attest, just throw the following quote at them: ;D
Quote
"There is a nice legal concept called estoppel. If you argue that you didn't kill the Major in the library with the Ming vase because you were in bed with his wife, you are estopped from pleading self-defence. In the same way, polluters are estopped from arguing that they were only complying with public policy as laid down in the law, because they spent tens of millions shaping those policies and laws to their advantage." James Wimberley

The fossil fuel industry is hell bent to trash the beauty and life that is left on our biosphere. Don't let them get away with it!





11 Stunning Photos of the World's Newest Biosphere Reserves 

https://www.ecowatch.com/un-biosphere-reserves-2449056861.html
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33007
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Re: 🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️
« Reply #929 on: June 30, 2017, 05:12:35 pm »
To whom it may concern: NONE of the IPCC Climate models, including the RCP 8.5 "business as usual" polluting, has GREENLAND ICE in the sea level rise calculations programmed into the models...
Greenland now a major driver of rising seas: study

June 26, 2017 by Marlowe Hood

Greenland contains enough frozen water to lift oceans by about seven metres (23 feet), though experts disagree on the global warming threshold for irreversible melting, and how long that would take once set in motion.

Ocean levels rose 50 percent faster in 2014 than in 1993, with meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet now supplying 25 percent of total sea level increase compared with just five percent 20 years earlier, researchers reported Monday.

The findings add to growing concern among scientists that the global watermark is climbing more rapidly than forecast only a few years ago, with potentially devastating consequences.

Hundreds of millions of people around the world live in low-lying deltas that are vulnerable, especially when rising seas are combined with land sinking due to depleted water tables, or a lack of ground-forming silt held back by dams.

Major coastal cities are also threatened, while some small island states are already laying plans for the day their drowning nations will no longer be livable.

"This result is important because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)"—the UN science advisory body—"makes a very conservative projection of total sea level rise by the end of the century," at 60 to 90 centimetres (24 to 35 inches), said Peter Wadhams, a professor of ocean physics at the University of Oxford who did not take part in the research.

Quote
That estimate, he added, assumes that the rate at which ocean levels rise will remain constant.

"Yet there is convincing evidence—including accelerating losses of mass from Greenland and Antarctica—that the rate is actually increasing, and increasing exponentially."

Greenland alone contains enough frozen water to lift oceans by about seven metres (23 feet), though experts disagree on the global warming threshold for irreversible melting, and how long that would take once set in motion.

"Most scientists now expect total rise to be well over a metre by the end of the century," Wadhams said.

The new study, published in Nature Climate Change, reconciles for the first time two distinct measurements of sea level rise.

The first looked one-by-one at three contributions: ocean expansion due to warming, changes in the amount of water stored on land, and loss of land-based ice from glaciers and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.

Overall, the pace of global average sea level rise went up from about 2.2 millimetres a year in 1993, to 3.3 millimetres a year two decades later

'A major warning'

The second was from satellite altimetry, which gauges heights on the Earth's surface from space.

The technique measures the time taken by a radar pulse to travel from a satellite antenna to the surface, and then back to a satellite receiver.

Up to now, altimetry data showed little change in sea levels over the last two decades, even if other measurements left little doubt that oceans were measurably deepening.

"We corrected for a small but significant bias in the first decade of the satellite record," co-author Xuebin Zhang, a professor at Qingdao National Laboratory of Marine Science and Technology in China's Shandong Province, told AFP.

Overall, the pace of global average sea level rise went up from about 2.2 millimetres a year in 1993, to 3.3 millimetres a year two decades later.

In the early 1990s, they found, thermal expansion accounted for fully half of the added millimetres. Two decades later, that figure was only 30 percent.

Andrew Shepherd, director of the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling at the University of Leeds in England, urged caution in interpreting the results.

"Even with decades of measurements, it is hard to be sure whether there has been a steady acceleration in the rate of global sea level rise during the satellite era because the change is so small," he said.

Disentangling single sources—such as the massive chunk of ice atop Greenland—is even harder.

But other researchers said the study should sound an alarm


"This is a major warning about the dangers of a sea level rise that will continue for many centuries, even after global warming is stopped," said Brian Hoskins, chair of the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London.

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-greenland-major-driver-seas.html
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

 

+-Recent Topics

Experts Knew a Pandemic Was Coming. Here’s What They’re Worried About Next. by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:46:22 am

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
May 12, 2020, 07:40:17 am

Profiles in Courage by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:47:35 pm

Money by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 11:27:30 pm

Creeping Police State by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:35:38 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:19:30 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 10:07:28 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:54:48 pm

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 09:10:24 pm

Intelligent Design by AGelbert
May 09, 2020, 06:38:41 pm