Seas Rising 60 Percent Faster Than Projected, Study Shows

[boomerangutang]

Ok perhaps the GW deniers concede that the Arctic region and Greenland are melting alarmingly, so let's take a look at Antarctica: here are excerpts from two articles:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As much as 90 percent of the ice loss in some parts of Antarctica happens beneath the water, according to researchers who report that much more ice is melting from the undersides of submerged ice shelves than previously thought.

source

Iceberg production and melting results in 2,800 cubic kilometres of ice leaving the Antarctic ice sheet annually. Most is replaced by snow falling on the continent, but any imbalance means a change in global sea level. -

During the last decade the Antarctic ice sheet has been losing an increasing amount of volume.

The researchers found that, for some ice shelves, melting of their underbellies could account for as much as 90% of the mass loss, while for others it was only 10%.

source

[canman]

Temperatures have been rising since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Glaciers are largely the last remanents of the last ice age and are continueing to retreat. The so called correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperature increase has been shown not to be a correlation at all. The ICC are scrambling now and making all sorts of silly comments to explain why all of their predictions and models are proving to be so so wrong.

[boomerangutang]

Temperatures have been rising since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. Glaciers are largely the last remanents of the last ice age and are continueing to retreat. The so called correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperature increase has been shown not to be a correlation at all. The ICC are scrambling now and making all sorts of silly comments to explain why all of their predictions and models are proving to be so so wrong.

Ok, maybe that fits, and the planet would ordinarily be on a warming trend, coming off from the most recent 'ice age.' I take it that you then acknowledge there is a warming trend.

From the above post, then the stickler is whether human's pollution (particularly CO2 emissions), is speeding up that process. I and many other believe it is. Even so, each person is allowed their opinion. Take a look at the overwhelming scientific data, and you'll probably agree that there is a connection between gross pollution and increased warming.

However, any people who absolutely don't want to believe that's possible (for whatever reason. Maybe they work for a fossil fuel company?) ....then again, that's their choice to not believe what the overwhelming majority of scientists and observers are seeing happening.

[RickBradford]

Take a look at the overwhelming scientific data, and you'll probably agree that there is a connection between gross pollution and increased warming.

I assume you are not dim enough to be referring to CO2, one of the key molecules sustaining all life on this planet, as 'gross pollution'.

So what is this 'gross pollution' you are referring to which has a connection to increased warming?

[boomerangutang]

Take a look at the overwhelming scientific data, and you'll probably agree that there is a connection between gross pollution and increased warming.

I assume you are not dim enough to be referring to CO2, one of the key molecules sustaining all life on this planet, as 'gross pollution'.

So what is this 'gross pollution' you are referring to which has a connection to increased warming?

There's a very obscure song by a group called "The End" which no one has heard. It's called "Too Much of Anything Ain't Good For Nobody." Here's an excerpt:

"Too many cups of coffee, will keep you wide awake

Too much cake and ice cream, will give you a stomach ache"

CO2 can be useful for plants, just as their toxic emission, oxygen, is good for animals. But too much CO2 can have adverse affects on the overall climate. How many thousands of tons do we humans emit each hour? I'm sure it's googlable, but I'm too lazy to google right now. I've been invited to go play Reggae guitar at a club. gotta go, bye. Hasta manana, hombres.

Edited September 20, 2013 by boomerangutang

[RickBradford]

CO2 can be useful for plants

"can be useful"? Really? That's all?

[Gulfsailor]

The global temperature hasn't risen since 2002. That doesn't mean that arctic ice is not melting, as long as the cold comes back in other places, like the Antarctic, which sees increasing ice. At the same time human co2 output keeps increasing. So if it wasn't the co2 that resulted in the global warming, then what is/was. New research points at CFC's. The same stuff that was blamed on killing the ozone layer (also false actually!) might actually be the cause of the warming. See this research;

http://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says

[boomerangutang]

As the Arctic warms, increasing amounts of permafrost thaw, and yet more CO2 is released - much more than can be effectively absorbed by plants. So, the 'greenhouse effect' exacerbates, more warming, more thawing, and so on. That's just one cycle that's gaining momentum. Another is increased amounts of methane bubbling out of the oceans and elsewhere, where it ordinarily was kept naturally cool and out of the way. Methane is more of a greenhouse gas than CO2.
Add that to increased melting of under-layments (which are difficult to gauge) of Antarctic ice cover, plus several other major trends, and the cumulative affect on increased GW is sobering, to say the least.

[Gulfsailor]

As the Arctic warms, increasing amounts of permafrost thaw, and yet more CO2 is released - much more than can be effectively absorbed by plants. So, the 'greenhouse effect' exacerbates, more warming, more thawing, and so on. That's just one cycle that's gaining momentum. Another is increased amounts of methane bubbling out of the oceans and elsewhere, where it ordinarily was kept naturally cool and out of the way. Methane is more of a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Add that to increased melting of under-layments (which are difficult to gauge) of Antarctic ice cover, plus several other major trends, and the cumulative affect on increased GW is sobering, to say the least.

Thank you for this quick summary of what dangers await us if we don't act now. But then, how is it that global temperatures have been FALLING since 2002? It's time to come up with a new scary story. The GW one is busted.

[boomerangutang]

As the Arctic warms, increasing amounts of permafrost thaw, and yet more CO2 is released - much more than can be effectively absorbed by plants. So, the 'greenhouse effect' exacerbates, more warming, more thawing, and so on. That's just one cycle that's gaining momentum. Another is increased amounts of methane bubbling out of the oceans and elsewhere, where it ordinarily was kept naturally cool and out of the way. Methane is more of a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Add that to increased melting of under-layments (which are difficult to gauge) of Antarctic ice cover, plus several other major trends, and the cumulative affect on increased GW is sobering, to say the least.

Thank you for this quick summary of what dangers await us if we don't act now. But then, how is it that global temperatures have been FALLING since 2002? It's time to come up with a new scary story. The GW one is busted.

Global temps have been rising.

[boomerangutang]

It's time to come up with a new scary story. The GW one is busted.

Wait, not fair. GW deniers keep changing post to post, or maybe I'm getting mixed up, because they don't think alike.

Some deniers admit there's GW, but it's not affected by human activities such as a bazillion tons of pollutants dumped in to the atmosphere.

Other deniers deny there's GW at all.

And then there are the deniers who see a scientific chart that doesn't fit with their fixation, so they proceed to try and dismiss whichever scientific organization published the chart.

Which is it?

reason for edit: quote function keeps malfuntioning

Edited September 21, 2013 by boomerangutang

[Gulfsailor]

It's time to come up with a new scary story. The GW one is busted.

Wait, not fair. GW deniers keep changing post to post, or maybe I'm getting mixed up, because they don't think alike.

Some deniers admit there's GW, but it's not affected by human activities such as a bazillion tons of pollutants dumped in to the atmosphere.

Other deniers deny there's GW at all.

And then there are the deniers who see a scientific chart that doesn't fit with their fixation, so they proceed to try and dismiss whichever scientific organization published the chart.

Which is it?

reason for edit: quote function keeps malfuntioning

Uhm. The only ones systematically ignoring or misinterpreting peer reviewed scientific literature are the GW doom sayers.

First of all. Global temps have not risen since 2002. Why do you think it is that IPPC constantly has to adjust its models and predictions.

Peer reviewed scientific info from the past years has been gathered and categorized in the most extensive research ever done into the subject of GW. Here the excerpt, aptly titled "Objective Science Unmasks Global Warming Alarmists As The True Science 'Deniers'" http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/20/objective-science-unmasks-global-warming-alarmists-as-the-true-science-deniers/

A quote from one of the scientists; "Until recently the public have been relentlessly misinformed that human-caused global warming was causing polar bears to die out, more and more intense storms, droughts and floods to occur, the monsoons to fail, sea-level rise to accelerate, ice to melt at unnatural rates, that late 20th century temperature was warmer than ever before and that speculative computer models could predict the temperature accurately one hundred years into the future. It now turns out that not one of these assertions is true,

[thaibeachlovers]

It's time to come up with a new scary story. The GW one is busted.

Wait, not fair. GW deniers keep changing post to post, or maybe I'm getting mixed up, because they don't think alike.

Some deniers admit there's GW, but it's not affected by human activities such as a bazillion tons of pollutants dumped in to the atmosphere.

Other deniers deny there's GW at all.

And then there are the deniers who see a scientific chart that doesn't fit with their fixation, so they proceed to try and dismiss whichever scientific organization published the chart.

Which is it?

reason for edit: quote function keeps malfuntioning

Whatever the temperature may or may not be doing it is a fact that snow levels on mountains are rising ( and have been since 1973 when I started skiing ) and sea levels are rising.

However, even if man is causing it, or not, IMO there is zero chance that mankind is prepared to take the extreme action that would be necessary to change anything ( it would be necessary to reduce the world's population by at least 50% for starters ), so I'm just glad that I won't be around for that many more years and that I never had any children to be left to suffer whatever happens as Gaia sorts out the problem.

However, I recently saw a doco that said Australian scientists have invented a process for turning CO2 into rock, which can be used for building things. So, IF governments can build enough of the factories to make a real difference, it MIGHT save the human race from it's own stupidity and greed, at least until Gaia works out some other way to get rid of us.

[boomerangutang]

There have been some interesting proposals for CO2 'sinks.' One plan calls for seeding the oceans with iron-oxide (rust) to increase algae blooms, which would soak up CO2. There are proposals to pump CO2 in to deep chasms underground. I don't know.

As for increased temps: Wherever glaciers form, they're receding noticeably: Alps, Himalayas, Greenland, Antarctica, Andes. Even Kilimanjaro is projected to be glacier-free for the first time (in human history) in near future. If there were no other indications for a layman like me, that would be enough to strongly indicate GW. Indeed, lakes are forming on Greenland in places which never had lakes before. In the Alps, Swiss are putting insulating white blankets on glaciers. Such stories keep popping up. If it quacks, waddles and looks like a duck, it must be a duck.

[RickBradford]

Another is increased amounts of methane bubbling out of the oceans and elsewhere, where it ordinarily was kept naturally cool and out of the way. Methane is more of a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Just like the CO2 scare has been comprehensively busted, so has the silly methane panic.

As Nature magazine noted in July this year:

Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2ºC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years. Most of Earth’s gas hydrates occur at low saturations and in sediments at such great depths below the seafloor or onshore permafrost that they will barely be affected by warming over even 10^3 yr.

Too bad that the doomsayers are so busy throwing around terms like 'denier' that they don't have time to do any research.

[boomerangutang]

Another is increased amounts of methane bubbling out of the oceans and elsewhere, where it ordinarily was kept naturally cool and out of the way. Methane is more of a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Just like the CO2 scare has been comprehensively busted, so has the silly methane panic.

As Nature magazine noted in July this year:

Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2ºC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years. Most of Earth’s gas hydrates occur at low saturations and in sediments at such great depths below the seafloor or onshore permafrost that they will barely be affected by warming over even 10^3 yr.

Too bad that the doomsayers are so busy throwing around terms like 'denier' that they don't have time to do any research.

Methane is already bubbling out of permafrost and lakes in the Arctic region - at increasing rates.

[RickBradford]

Even Kilimanjaro is projected to be glacier-free for the first time (in human history) in near future. If there were no other indications for a layman like me, that would be enough to strongly indicate GW.

No doubt. However, scientists disagree with you.

If there is a poster child for global warming, it may be the vanishing snows of Kilimanjaro, which were predicted to disappear as early as 2015 in a widely-publicized report a decade ago. However, the famed snowcap is stubbornly persisting on the African peak and may not fully vanish for another 50 years, according to a University of Massachusetts scientist who had a hand in the prediction.

The 2001 forecast was indirectly part of key evidence for global warming offered during the 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” which warned of the threats of rising global temperatures. In it, former vice president Al Gore stated, “Within a decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro” due to warming temperatures.

“Unfortunately, we made the prediction. I wish we hadn’t,” says Douglas R. Hardy, a UMass geoscientist who was among 11 co-authors of the paper in the journal Science that sparked the pessimistic Kilimanjaro forecast. “None of us had much history working on that mountain, and we didn’t understand a lot of the complicated processes on the peak like we do now.”

H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow and head of environmental programs at the National Center for Policy Analysis, a conservative think tank based in Texas, said the Kilimanjaro prediction “is just one in a number of global warming scare stories that scientists have had to recant or at least modify in the face of substantial counter evidence.”

“The Kilimanjaro predictions were suspect at the time they were made. Critics noted that there was abundant evidence that the snow caps on Kilimanjaro had been in retreat decades before greenhouse gas emissions began to rise dramatically in the middle of the century,” he said.

“This doesn’t prove that humans aren’t contributing to global climate change, but it should call into question the confidence we can have in such claims,” Burnett said.

Edited September 21, 2013 by RickBradford

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted. Please discuss the topic and not the poster.

[boomerangutang]

"The famed snows of Kilimanjaro may soon appear only in old tourist photos and a short story by Ernest Hemingway if current rates of melting persist, a new study suggests.

Warming in recent decades has caused high-altitude glaciers worldwide, especially in tropical areas, to shrink substantially. Recent studies atop Tanzania’s Mount Kilimanjaro show ice loss to be proceeding apace on the African peak:

*(Edited for fair use)*

source

Edited September 21, 2013 by Scott
Edited for fair use

[RickBradford]

And the full headline on that article, for those who don't want to follow the link

FALSE ALARM: KILIMANJARO SNOW MAY SOON VANISH

[Gulfsailor]

For the posters who care about this subject and thus take the time to comment on and read this thread, I ask them to watch the following presentation:

For many it will be an eye opener.

[boomerangutang]

the above video is in German. I no speakensi deutch.

[cooked]

The video is in English. However it is full of statistical mathematics that I doubt many of us will understand much. I did the maths a long time ago but am not willing (or able) to sit down for 6 hours and work out what the guy is talking about. I know that he has some valid points to make but it doesn't change the fact that we are approaching a catastrophe. e can't do anything about it, no amount of collecting aluminium and waste paper is going to make an impact.

I long gave up worrying about this stuff. I worry more about getting brewer's droop.

[boomerangutang]

The video is in English. However it is full of statistical mathematics that I doubt many of us will understand much. I did the maths a long time ago but am not willing (or able) to sit down for 6 hours and work out what the guy is talking about. I know that he has some valid points to make but it doesn't change the fact that we are approaching a catastrophe. e can't do anything about it, no amount of collecting aluminium and waste paper is going to make an impact.

I long gave up worrying about this stuff. I worry more about getting brewer's droop.

You say, "it doesn't change the fact that we are approaching a catastrophe."

and then; "e (sic) can't do anything about it, no amount of collecting aluminium and waste paper is going to make an impact."

I can understand folks getting more cynical as they approach senility, but let's at least either give some hope (and workable ideas) to younger generations, or simply step aside. Reinforcing helplessness is easy to do, but doesn't do anyone any good. Perhaps there's no intention to do good, well that's ok also, but again, step aside and let other with good energy and good ideas take the helm.

It's like saying, "I got dark bags under my eyes, deep wrinkles, and a pot belly, so nothing I do is going to make me look or feel any better. So I'll just resign myself to looking more like a sick walrus each passing day - and tell anyone who want to listen, that trying to get healthy is foolish, as we're all approaching senility, and we'll die someday. So don't even try."

[thaibeachlovers]

The video is in English. However it is full of statistical mathematics that I doubt many of us will understand much. I did the maths a long time ago but am not willing (or able) to sit down for 6 hours and work out what the guy is talking about. I know that he has some valid points to make but it doesn't change the fact that we are approaching a catastrophe. e can't do anything about it, no amount of collecting aluminium and waste paper is going to make an impact.

I long gave up worrying about this stuff. I worry more about getting brewer's droop.

You say, "it doesn't change the fact that we are approaching a catastrophe."

and then; "e (sic) can't do anything about it, no amount of collecting aluminium and waste paper is going to make an impact."

I can understand folks getting more cynical as they approach senility, but let's at least either give some hope (and workable ideas) to younger generations, or simply step aside. Reinforcing helplessness is easy to do, but doesn't do anyone any good. Perhaps there's no intention to do good, well that's ok also, but again, step aside and let other with good energy and good ideas take the helm.

It's like saying, "I got dark bags under my eyes, deep wrinkles, and a pot belly, so nothing I do is going to make me look or feel any better. So I'll just resign myself to looking more like a sick walrus each passing day - and tell anyone who want to listen, that trying to get healthy is foolish, as we're all approaching senility, and we'll die someday. So don't even try."

So, do you actually believe that people are prepared to give up their lifestyle to try to reverse the onset of climatre change? I'm far too cynical to believe that!

Besides, even if the entire populations of Australia ,New Zealand and every expat in Thailand gave up internal combustion engines tomorrow, it would make absolutely no difference in the overall scheme of things.

[cooked]

I think that what Boomerangutang is saying is that we must leave young people with hope, that they need something to fight for. I gave up long ago '

[thaibeachlovers]

I think that what Boomerangutang is saying is that we must leave young people with hope, that they need something to fight for. I gave up long ago '

It seems that young people these days are too busy looking up face rubbish and twittering stupidity to take any interest in the environment.

If they care about THEIR future, they should be giving up international air travel for a start, and not flocking to LOS to get pissed on Had Rin.

Take away their I stupid phones and most of them wouldn't know what to do.

[nong38]

It's time to come up with a new scary story. The GW one is busted.

Wait, not fair. GW deniers keep changing post to post, or maybe I'm getting mixed up, because they don't think alike.

Some deniers admit there's GW, but it's not affected by human activities such as a bazillion tons of pollutants dumped in to the atmosphere.

Other deniers deny there's GW at all.

And then there are the deniers who see a scientific chart that doesn't fit with their fixation, so they proceed to try and dismiss whichever scientific organization published the chart.

Which is it?

reason for edit: quote function keeps malfuntioning

Uhm. The only ones systematically ignoring or misinterpreting peer reviewed scientific literature are the GW doom sayers.

First of all. Global temps have not risen since 2002. Why do you think it is that IPPC constantly has to adjust its models and predictions.

Peer reviewed scientific info from the past years has been gathered and categorized in the most extensive research ever done into the subject of GW. Here the excerpt, aptly titled "Objective Science Unmasks Global Warming Alarmists As The True Science 'Deniers'" http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/20/objective-science-unmasks-global-warming-alarmists-as-the-true-science-deniers/

A quote from one of the scientists; "Until recently the public have been relentlessly misinformed that human-caused global warming was causing polar bears to die out, more and more intense storms, droughts and floods to occur, the monsoons to fail, sea-level rise to accelerate, ice to melt at unnatural rates, that late 20th century temperature was warmer than ever before and that speculative computer models could predict the temperature accurately one hundred years into the future. It now turns out that not one of these assertions is true,

The British Meteorlogical Office have stated there has been no rise in temps for 15 years, the UN also knows this to be true, but, as you say this is witheld from the public and one of the main reasons is all the new taxes which are associated with global warming. Lets be honest about it they are just taxes, new taxes however you want to dress them up, the taxes are going to stay and global warming will be the reason, until politicians can dream up another excuse to charge you more taxes.

[boomerangutang]

The video is in English. However it is full of statistical mathematics that I doubt many of us will understand much. I did the maths a long time ago but am not willing (or able) to sit down for 6 hours and work out what the guy is talking about. I know that he has some valid points to make but it doesn't change the fact that we are approaching a catastrophe. e can't do anything about it, no amount of collecting aluminium and waste paper is going to make an impact.

I long gave up worrying about this stuff. I worry more about getting brewer's droop.

You say, "it doesn't change the fact that we are approaching a catastrophe."

and then; "e (sic) can't do anything about it, no amount of collecting aluminium and waste paper is going to make an impact."

I can understand folks getting more cynical as they approach senility, but let's at least either give some hope (and workable ideas) to younger generations, or simply step aside. Reinforcing helplessness is easy to do, but doesn't do anyone any good. Perhaps there's no intention to do good, well that's ok also, but again, step aside and let other with good energy and good ideas take the helm.

It's like saying, "I got dark bags under my eyes, deep wrinkles, and a pot belly, so nothing I do is going to make me look or feel any better. So I'll just resign myself to looking more like a sick walrus each passing day - and tell anyone who want to listen, that trying to get healthy is foolish, as we're all approaching senility, and we'll die someday. So don't even try."

So, do you actually believe that people are prepared to give up their lifestyle to try to reverse the onset of climatre change? I'm far too cynical to believe that!

Besides, even if the entire populations of Australia ,New Zealand and every expat in Thailand gave up internal combustion engines tomorrow, it would make absolutely no difference in the overall scheme of things.

It's not a black and white situation. In other words, it's not as though one sort of lifestyle will be a panacea and another will spell doom. It's a matter of degrees (pun intended).

Here's an example: if I chose to stop drugs, including alcohol and sugar and caffeine, starting tomorrow, I would not attain excellent health, even if I lived 50 more years. However, I would improve my health, compared to indulging in the harmful foods. Multiply that by half the people in the world, and peoples' overall health would improve. Pharma and hospitals would be pissed off, but tough tamales.

Similarly, if increasing # of people were first conscious of living better lifestyle and secondly practiced it, then improvements would happen. It might not lessen GW (if that is happening, which I believe it is), but less internal combustion engine usage, less electricity usage, less multi-packaged consumer items, less coal-fired power plants, ad infinitum - would leave a cleaner environment.

Here's an example: about 100 yrs ago, it was high fashion to have bird plumage in ladies hats. An environmentalist noticed birds (providing plumage) nearly extinct in Florida's Everglades. He started a movement to create awareness. It caught on. Now the birds are prolific. If not for his efforts, many of those species of birds would be extinct. Similar with fur trade. The examples of awareness and do-good movements catching on are many. California condor is another. Saving the 'right whale' is another. There are many other examples of grass-roots movements having a tangibly good effect.

As for CO2 emissions, there are a multitude of movements to lessen pollution, and there is some success therein. Of course there is colossal amount more which can be done, but all good movements have to start somewhere, with some forward-thinking people - creating awareness among others. Such movements won't start in Thailand, but most start in California.

As for young people. I meet about 200 young backpackers annually - as part of a home-stay program I host. All are fine folks. I have beaucoup faith in the younger generation, and perhaps that's what keeps me from slipping in to abject cynicism. I could be fatalistic and cynical. It's easy to slip down that slope. But I choose not to. It takes a measure of self-counseling, but that's another rap.

Edited September 22, 2013 by boomerangutang

[RickBradford]

There are many other examples of grass-roots movements having a tangibly good effect.

That's exactly the point.

The AGW situation is not a grass-roots movement -- it is the exact opposite; a top-down, bureaucratic, elitist, imposed, burdensome regime which has no point of contact with ordinary people beyond making their lives more expensive and restricted.