I'm using all my strength to fight climate change, says Merkel

[brokenbone]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

"yes they do, due to the abundance of co2 when they evolved, like every other living specie they thrive at higher co2,

that is the origin of their history,

that is what they optimized to live in

https://phys.org/news/2014-11-corals-benefit-climate-effects.html"

Nonsense. Calcium carbonate in various forms is the building block of Coral.

As for that article you link to, it's typical of your, at best, carelessness and at worst dishonesty. You take a study about one species of coral and generalize to all corals. Ridiculous.

"The study showed that this species of coral (Siderastrea siderea) exhibited a peaked or parabolic response to both warming and acidification, that is, moderate acidification and warming actually enhanced coral calcification, with only extreme warming and acidification negatively impacting the corals," Ries said. "This was surprising given that most studies have shown that corals exhibit a more negative response to even moderate acidification."

https://phys.org/news/2014-11-corals-benefit-climate-effects.html

 

"they are not rapidly shrinking, it fluctuate as usual,

and currently the net result is zero."

Himalaya Glaciers Shrinking at Faster Rate, Study Finds
Scientists attribute melting to warmer temperatures, says glaciers’ retreat threatens water source for 2 billion people in South Asia

A new study—based partly on declassified spy-satellite data—found that glaciers in the Himalayas were losing volume at much faster rates in recent years, adding more evidence suggesting that a changing climate is affecting an important water source.

The rate at which Himalayan glaciers lost volume more than doubled between 2000 and 2016, compared with the rate between 1975 and 2000, according to the study, which was published Wednesday in the journal Science Advances.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/himalaya-glaciers-shrinking-at-faster-rate-study-finds-11560967200

 

Melting in the Andes: Goodbye glaciers

Researchers are racing to determine how shrinking glaciers in the Andes will affect the water supply of millions of people

According to Rabatel, glaciers above 5,400 metres — such as those on Huascarán, Peru's highest peak — will shrink but survive because temperatures there will remain relatively cool. But those at lower elevations are doomed to disappear. In the past few decades, those glaciers have lost twice as much mass as ones at higher elevations¹.

https://www.nature.com/news/melting-in-the-andes-goodbye-glaciers-1.11759

 

"among others, ipcc acknowledge him as the worlds premiere expert, they contracted him as head of sea level group for the first ipcc report"

The present tense of "acknowledge"? Really? When was the first IPCC report issued? I got a clue for you: earlier than 1991.

 

And just because a graphic has the name of the IPCC on it, doesn't mean it came from the IPCC. Why are you so reluctant to reveal the source of that graphics? For that matter, I don't see links to any of the other images you've posted.

 

 

 

The average rate of rise over the last 100 years has been 1 0 2 0 mm yr ' There is no firm evidence ol accelerations in sea level rise during this centuiy

page 261 5 of 25

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_09.pdf

 

for the other image, i always get a 'cant find',

i suspect it went the way of the UNEP graph,

into the trashcan,

but i found the origin of that cyclone graph here

http://climatlas.com/tropical/

Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low.

 

yes, nils axel morner has reached age of career end,

that is why he doesnt need alarmist approval

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/3/2020 at 3:41 AM, sawadee1947 said:

I'm always surprised and shocked to meet people who are favoring nuclear plants.

Obviously you don't know that up to now there is no solution for radioactive waste disposal.

Sure, with your idea the air might be clean but you will die because of radioactive contamination.

I suppose you don't know what you are talking about.

 

 

Solutions are out there, but governments don't want to pay for them.

[bristolboy]

On 1/4/2020 at 3:21 PM, brokenbone said:

The average rate of rise over the last 100 years has been 1 0 2 0 mm yr ' There is no firm evidence ol accelerations in sea level rise during this centuiy

page 261 5 of 25

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_09.pdf

 

As a look at the bibilography in its bibliography will show you, this IPCC report  cuts its research base several years before the report is issued.  In this case there was nothing I could find later than 2104. Given the size and collaborative nature of these reports, that is inevitable. But since then 2 major studies show that the rate of sea level rise accelerating.

New Study Finds Sea Level Rise Accelerating

Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

 

This acceleration, driven mainly by increased melting in Greenland and Antarctica, has the potential to double the total sea level rise projected by 2100 when compared to projections that assume a constant rate of sea level rise, according to lead author Steve Nerem...

If the rate of ocean rise continues to change at this pace, sea level will rise 26 inches (65 centimeters) by 2100 -- enough to cause significant problems for coastal cities, according to the new assessment by Nerem and colleagues from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland; CU Boulder; the University of South Florida in Tampa; and Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating

 

Global sea level rise began accelerating ‘30 years earlier’ than previously thought

Global sea level rise began to accelerate in the 1960s, 30 years earlier than suggested by previous assessments, a new study finds.

The study, published in Nature Climate Change, introduces a new technique to more accurately determine historical global sea levels by combining two different statistical approaches.

It was found that the southern hemisphere, home to many developing small island nations, experienced the majority of the observed sea level rise, the lead author tells Carbon Brief.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/global-sea-level-rise-began-accelerating-30-years-earlier-than-previously-thought

[bristolboy]

On 1/4/2020 at 3:21 PM, brokenbone said:

but i found the origin of that cyclone graph here

http://climatlas.com/tropical/

Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s. Additionally, the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low.

 

 

Ah, yes. Ryan Maue's website. Here's a little tidbit about how a British politician was caught out when he depended on data from Ryan Maue.

Major Climate Change Denial Think Tank Admits To Using False Data

 

“It has been brought to our attention that a temperature chart prepared by US meteorologist Ryan Maue and published by Joe Bastardi, and which was referred to in the Today programme appearance of Lord Lawson, was erroneous.

“We are therefore happy to correct the record.”

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/major-climate-change-denial-think-tank-admits-using-false-data/

 

In fact, there are 2 distinct aspects of the dangers posed by tropical cyclones. One is frequency and one is intensity. There actually has been an observed increase in tropical cyclones. However, as this paper points out, that's most likely due to monitoring being better due to improved technology. Most likely, the frequency over time is unchanged.

https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea-eos-may012007.pdf

 

But then there is the question of intensity. And there the story is quite different. Back in 2008 climatologist James Eisner and colleagues surveyed hurricane activity in all the world's major ocean basins. What he found was that while weaker hurricanes and tropical storms were little changed in intensity, upwards of the 70th percentile, their wind speeds had increased significantly.

The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones

"We find significant upward trends for wind speed quantiles above the 70th percentile, with trends as high as 0.3 ± 0.09 m s^-1 yr^-1 (s.e.) for the strongest cyclones. We note separate upward trends in the estimated lifetime-maximum wind speeds of the very strongest tropical cyclones (99th percentile) over each ocean basin, with the largest increase at this quantile occurring over the North Atlantic, although not all basins show statistically significant increases. Our results are qualitatively consistent with the hypothesis that as the seas warm, the ocean has more energy to convert to tropical cyclone wind."

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07234

 

[brokenbone]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Ah

i think roy spencer at nasa said it best, its an issue of funding,

and its an issue of mandate

[bristolboy]

46 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

i think roy spencer at nasa said it best, its an issue of funding,

and its an issue of mandate

  The evidence contradicts what you're saying. For instance there was a major NASA study looking at the frequency of hurricanes. And it did look like the frequency was increasing. Which would certainly be a boost for ACC supporters. But a deeper look into the data showed that this apparent increase in frequency was the result of better data collection. Or take the case of the hypothesis that the loss of arctic sea ice was responsible for the weakening and wavering of the jet stream. That would have been another big plus for ACC supporters. But a major paper disproved that idea. And these examples are only a two of many.

For this fraud to work there would have to be a conscious conspiracy among the 30,000 plus climatologists out there. Because if someone came up with a paper that didn't agree with an earlier one, he or should would have to falsify their results so as not to challenge the work of others. And this would all have to be coordinated by some central authority.  This would be a fantastically complicated enterprise.

Ray Spencer's allegations are those of a sore loser who is trying to mislead people who simply don't have a clue about how science works.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 1/7/2020 at 4:03 PM, bristolboy said:

It was found that the southern hemisphere, home to many developing small island nations, experienced the majority of the observed sea level rise, the lead author tells Carbon Brief.

What observed sea level rise?

Unless they claim sea level rises in one part of the ocean and not others, sea level has not risen significantly on the Pacific coast of NZ in my lifetime, ergo, not anywhere in the Pacific.

Has it risen on the California coast? I've heard nothing about that.

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

What observed sea level rise?

Unless they claim sea level rises in one part of the ocean and not others, sea level has not risen significantly on the Pacific coast of NZ in my lifetime, ergo, not anywhere in the Pacific.

Has it risen on the California coast? I've heard nothing about that.

Can you ever be bothered to do research? Ever?

It took me under a minute to find this:

"From 1993 to 2016 the global average sea level rose at an average rate of about 3.4 mm per year. 

Due to the influence of regional climate trends and gravitational effects, sea level does not rise uniformly around the globe. Sea levels in New Zealand rose on average by 1.7 mm per year from 1900 to 2008."

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/climate-change-and-government/adapting-climate-change/adapting-sea-level-rise

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Can you ever be bothered to do research? Ever?

It took me under a minute to find this:

"From 1993 to 2016 the global average sea level rose at an average rate of about 3.4 mm per year. 

Due to the influence of regional climate trends and gravitational effects, sea level does not rise uniformly around the globe. Sea levels in New Zealand rose on average by 1.7 mm per year from 1900 to 2008."

https://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/climate-change-and-government/adapting-climate-change/adapting-sea-level-rise

 

Sooooo, even if we say the Pacific rose at a rate of 7 mm per year from 1993 to 2016, that comes out at a rise of, wait for it, 161 MILLIMETERS. Let's not start panicking just yet.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Sooooo, even if we say the Pacific rose at a rate of 7 mm per year from 1993 to 2016, that comes out at a rise of, wait for it, 161 MILLIMETERS. Let's not start panicking just yet.

New Study Finds Sea Level Rise Accelerating

Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

Given that even if CO2 levels were sharply cut by 2030 sea level rises would still be ongoing for some time, maybe the time to act is now.

Edited January 8, 2020 by bristolboy

[RideJocky]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

New Study Finds Sea Level Rise Accelerating

Global sea level rise has been accelerating in recent decades, rather than increasing steadily, according to a new study based on 25 years of NASA and European satellite data.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2680/new-study-finds-sea-level-rise-accelerating/

Given that even if CO2 levels were sharply cut by 2030 sea level rises would still be ongoing for some time, maybe the time to act is now.

Assuming the increase is due to ice melting it would pretty much have to accelerate. 

[Saint Nick]

On 1/4/2020 at 2:11 PM, Number 6 said:

Too bad it's not used to fight crime and illegal immigration.

 

She should have left politics a decade ago on the upside, reputation intact.

Crime in Germany is generally on a decline!

So...well done, Angela!

Number 6 is very happy with your politics!

Edited January 8, 2020 by Saint Nick

[Saint Nick]

On 1/7/2020 at 4:34 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

Solutions are out there, but governments don't want to pay for them.

Especially as there are alternatives, that are less dangerous and far cheaper...

[RideJocky]

1 hour ago, Saint Nick said:

Especially as there are alternatives, that are less dangerous and far cheaper...

For example?

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, RideJocky said:

Assuming the increase is due to ice melting it would pretty much have to accelerate. 

Quite right:

Glacier loss is accelerating because of global warming

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/apr/18/glacier-loss-is-accelerating-because-of-global-warming