Seas Rising 60 Percent Faster Than Projected, Study Shows

[maidu]

I think we agree on many points, even tho we may describe them differently and attribute varied importance to different items. I'm writing a paper (I write about 4 books/year) which focuses mostly on the 'Great Pacific Trash Vortex', which is estimated to contain as much as 100 million tons of degraded plastic in a texas-sized vortex in the upper/middle Pacific Ocean - and it's growing minute by minute.

As for GW, it seems some of the best places to reside, for future generations, are Canada and parts of Russia (Siberia, etc). Tasmania and Patagonia get honorable mention. Just for fun, I googled Siberian Land for Sale, and found only Russkies can legally purchase there (sounds like Thailand's restrictive laws), plus the North Korean gov't has sent work crews up there (with clandestine deals made with Russkie big shots) in order to harvest the seemingly endless stands of Sitka spruce. Oh well, maybe marrying a Siberian reindeer herding gal is the way to go about surviving GW. BTW, roughly half the world's population resides in coastal regions which could well get flooded in upcoming decades. It already happened in Bkk in 2011, though much worse is predicted there.

[RickBradford]

He simply preaches the gospel of educational sources such as Foxnews, and really believes it to be right.

I have never watched Fox News; I get my scientific information from scientific journals to which I subscribe.

'Big Green' and 'renewables biz' could be inventions of their propaganda department

'Big Green' is quite a common appellation for the largest of the billion-dollar rent-seekers of the 'environmental' movement, such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund, and also refers to their main business activities of lobbying governments for more money and indoctrinating children.

'Renewables' is short for 'renewable energy sources', principally wind and solar, and so the 'renewables biz' means the business of securing multi-billion dollar subsidies and tax-free grants (from government, which is to say, taxpayers' money) for producing derisory amounts of energy at ruinous cost, and pocketing the subsidies.

Edited December 12, 2012 by RickBradford

[maidu]

....I don't think the sea level will rise substantially soon, because it doesn't matter on Antartica if the temperatures rise by a few degrees, it remains solidly frozen. ....

I think it will matter for Antarctica if temps rise a few degrees. Already, just with moderate temp rises, very large icebergs are calving from there. Much of climate change effects things we can't readily see. Example: if/when thick ice melt at places where they meet the rock they sit upon, then the water acts like a lubricant which (with gravity) eases them down to the sea. It's already happening with some glaciers and it appears to be happening at parts of the thick ice cover in the Antarctic. The Arctic and Greenland appear to be losing their ice faster than Antarctica, but that's largely due to how differently the ice manifests in each region. The Arctic is mostly water borne ice and there's also a lot of permafrost. As you know the Antarctic is a rocky landmass with v. thick ice cover - even tho it could be described as a desert, because of its low percipitation.

[maidu]

'Renewables' is short for 'renewable energy sources', principally wind and solar, and so the 'renewables biz' means the business of securing multi-billion dollar subsidies and tax-free grants (from government, which is to say, taxpayers' money) for producing derisory amounts of energy at ruinous cost, and pocketing the subsidies.

Last time I checked, Big Oil and nuclear get a lot bigger hand-outs than renewables. Even our friends at the Big Three (US auto) got large grants from US feds, awhile ago, to develop better battery technology - which relates directly to improving alternative power. Of course, Big Auto (and their buddies in 'Big Oil') don't like alternatives, so what did they do with those hundreds of millions of $$'s of grants? We don't know. They may have found better battery technology, and/or they may have bought inventions from some 'small-time inventors' in order to suppress the innovations, .....but the result was: No improved battery technology. The car battery of today is essentially the same heavy cumbursome innefficient technology from a hundred years ago. Taxpayers shoveled out truckloads of money and received nothing in return. Who's surprised?

Edited December 12, 2012 by maidu

[canman]

Recent studies show that the antarctic ice mass is increasing. Icebergs have always broken away from the antarctic ice sheet and always will. There is no evidence which supports the conjecture that the icebergs are any larger now then in the past.

I do not buy the anthropomorphic climate change panic. The evidence which is overwhelmingly offered up to support the CO2 climate change theory is a tenuous correlation of atmospheric CO2 versus temperature rise. To all those who point to this data as scientific fact you are overlooking one of the pillars of the scientific method which is correlation does not equal causation.

If anyone can point me to the hard scientific reasoning why a trace amount of a heavy gas can have such a dramatic influence on climate I would highly appreciate it. Don't bother with articles on dipole spins as that means nothing when you compare to atmospheric water vapour.

[RickBradford]

Last time I checked, Big Oil and nuclear get a lot bigger hand-outs than renewables.

Big Oil doesn't get 'hand-outs', aka subsidies and tax-free grants. That's reserved for the renewables biz. What the fossil-fuel industries receive are tax breaks, which are not the same.

While governments rewrite national economies to help “green” companies, about half of the help for fossil fuels is simply that the government didn’t take as much off them as it could. The net flow of money is still from Big-Fossil-Energy towards Big-Government. It takes a special kind of grand entitlement to call that a hand-out.

Furthermore, the fossil fuel vs renewable argument is rendered pointless when you scan the list of the 12 countries with the biggest fossil fuel subsidies: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, India, China, Egypt, Venezuela, UAE, Indonesia, Uzbekistan, Algeria, Iraq. I’m sure the poor in those countries would appreciate being told by rich Westerners that they should pay more for fuel.

The reality is that governments around the world are paying billions each year ($70 billion last year) to prop up a renewables industry that is inefficient, uncompetitive and unproductive. It’s money that is desperately needed in real scientific research or environmental protection.

[maidu]

Recent studies show that the antarctic ice mass is increasing. Icebergs have always broken away from the antarctic ice sheet and always will. There is no evidence which supports the conjecture that the icebergs are any larger now then in the past.

I do not buy the anthropomorphic climate change panic. The evidence which is overwhelmingly offered up to support the CO2 climate change theory is a tenuous correlation of atmospheric CO2 versus temperature rise. To all those who point to this data as scientific fact you are overlooking one of the pillars of the scientific method which is correlation does not equal causation.

If anyone can point me to the hard scientific reasoning why a trace amount of a heavy gas can have such a dramatic influence on climate I would highly appreciate it. Don't bother with articles on dipole spins as that means nothing when you compare to atmospheric water vapour.

it sounds like your opinion on that is already fixed, and that no reliable scientific data is going to change that. You say 'trace amounts' - the word 'trace' is open to opinions. However, recent readings have shown CO2 in arctic air at 400 parts per million.

"Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels hit a record high of 34.8 billion tons in 2011, up 3.2 percent, the International Energy Agency announced last week." source

Maidu continues: Astronauts can see dark yellow haze patches over all regions where people reside. If that's ok with you, then so be it. It's not ok with me.

[canman]

Recent studies show that the antarctic ice mass is increasing. Icebergs have always broken away from the antarctic ice sheet and always will. There is no evidence which supports the conjecture that the icebergs are any larger now then in the past.

I do not buy the anthropomorphic climate change panic. The evidence which is overwhelmingly offered up to support the CO2 climate change theory is a tenuous correlation of atmospheric CO2 versus temperature rise. To all those who point to this data as scientific fact you are overlooking one of the pillars of the scientific method which is correlation does not equal causation.

If anyone can point me to the hard scientific reasoning why a trace amount of a heavy gas can have such a dramatic influence on climate I would highly appreciate it. Don't bother with articles on dipole spins as that means nothing when you compare to atmospheric water vapour.

it sounds like your opinion on that is already fixed, and that no reliable scientific data is going to change that. You say 'trace amounts' - the word 'trace' is open to opinions. However, recent readings have shown CO2 in arctic air at 400 parts per million.

"Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels hit a record high of 34.8 billion tons in 2011, up 3.2 percent, the International Energy Agency announced last week." source

Maidu continues: Astronauts can see dark yellow haze patches over all regions where people reside. If that's ok with you, then so be it. It's not ok with me.

I would not say my opinion is fixed. I am willing to evaluate objective evidence, direct observations and reasoned arguments. Based on what I have read there is far too much emotion and hyperbole on both sides of the argument and it is very difficult to tease out the actual facts. It seems to me you have devoted more time in researching this then I have so I would ask you to point me to objective hard scientific facts which prove that the observed CO2 rises are increasing the average global temperature.

[maidu]

Recent studies show that the antarctic ice mass is increasing. Icebergs have always broken away from the antarctic ice sheet and always will. There is no evidence which supports the conjecture that the icebergs are any larger now then in the past.

I do not buy the anthropomorphic climate change panic. The evidence which is overwhelmingly offered up to support the CO2 climate change theory is a tenuous correlation of atmospheric CO2 versus temperature rise. To all those who point to this data as scientific fact you are overlooking one of the pillars of the scientific method which is correlation does not equal causation.

If anyone can point me to the hard scientific reasoning why a trace amount of a heavy gas can have such a dramatic influence on climate I would highly appreciate it. Don't bother with articles on dipole spins as that means nothing when you compare to atmospheric water vapour.

it sounds like your opinion on that is already fixed, and that no reliable scientific data is going to change that. You say 'trace amounts' - the word 'trace' is open to opinions. However, recent readings have shown CO2 in arctic air at 400 parts per million.

"Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels hit a record high of 34.8 billion tons in 2011, up 3.2 percent, the International Energy Agency announced last week." source

Maidu continues: Astronauts can see dark yellow haze patches over all regions where people reside. If that's ok with you, then so be it. It's not ok with me.

I would not say my opinion is fixed. I am willing to evaluate objective evidence, direct observations and reasoned arguments. Based on what I have read there is far too much emotion and hyperbole on both sides of the argument and it is very difficult to tease out the actual facts. It seems to me you have devoted more time in researching this then I have so I would ask you to point me to objective hard scientific facts which prove that the observed CO2 rises are increasing the average global temperature.

You can do the research. Google is powerful.

[turboturtle]

And the earth's plants just love it....

The diminishing numbers on land do but the increased CO2 tension is forming more carbonic acid in the sea and affecting the algae, which contribute significantly to the O2<>CO2 cycle.

Don't waste your time trying to convince warming deniers with scientific data. They're hard-wired to disbelieve every bit of evidence that the planet is warming, and a significant cause of it is people-generated.

Most of these fools are over consuming gluttons on TV so don't expect them to agree with this article...

[Thaddeus]

You can do the research. Google is powerful.

And just like in real life, the hot air, amongst other stuff, is plentiful and rises to the surface.

[Potosi]

CO2 is a TRACE gas. We are having NO effect.

Ozone is a trace compared to CO2 in the atmosphere, yet it filters most of the UV light out. The freons that harmed the layer, were a trace compared to ozone. While I'm not sure there is GW, a trace can have a profound effect. Why should it not be at least as effective in holding infrared light back, as ozone UV? It's a larger molecule, after all.

[RickBradford]

Why should it not be at least as effective in holding infrared light back, as ozone UV? It's a larger molecule, after all.

Actually, it's a smaller molecule -- in mass (44 v 48 g mol−1), and shorter bonds, (116 v 128 picometers)

[maidu]

You can do the research. Google is powerful.

And just like in real life, the hot air, amongst other stuff, is plentiful and rises to the surface.

Build a big balloon and harness it. I bet the view is great, when you get away from smog-addled cities.

Addendum: a young British couple visited two months ago, but had not yet traveled outside of Chiang Rai, where I reside. Last week, the took a trip to Bkk to see what that was about. The first thing they said when they returned; "That place reeks of swamp smell." I asked whereabouts? They said "everywhere we went in the city - smelled like soggy garbage."

Edited December 12, 2012 by maidu

[Potosi]

Why should it not be at least as effective in holding infrared light back, as ozone UV? It's a larger molecule, after all.

Actually, it's a smaller molecule -- in mass (44 v 48 g mol−1), and shorter bonds, (116 v 128 picometers)

Yes, my bad. Why don't we have a runaway greenhouse effect like Venus, anyway? Water vapor is the major greenhouse gas, and we have plenty of water. Can't be clouds, they absorb uv radiation and emit infrared just like the land or sea, just further up.

[canman]

CO2 is a TRACE gas. We are having NO effect.

Ozone is a trace compared to CO2 in the atmosphere, yet it filters most of the UV light out. The freons that harmed the layer, were a trace compared to ozone. While I'm not sure there is GW, a trace can have a profound effect. Why should it not be at least as effective in holding infrared light back, as ozone UV? It's a larger molecule, after all.

I am not sure if Ozone qualifies as a trace gas. There is a thin layer of highly concentrated ozone in the upper reaches of the stratosphere. O3 is not distributed throughout the atmosphere in any meaningful amounts, it exists mostly at a certain height and is produced from a photo reaction.

[RickBradford]

There's a glaring fallacy at the heart of alarmist thinking, but one they seem incapable of grasping.

They seem to think that humanity is on the one hand so powerful that we can alter the earth's climate in significant ways, and simultaneously so puny that we cannot adapt to the changes we may be causing.

Consider this. Geological data shows that sea levels have risen about 390 feet as Earth has warmed from the last ice age 20,000 years ago. And we're getting all hysterical about a 7-8 inch rise over the last 100 years?

It is quite absurd, especially when no-one can tell how much, if any, of the recent rise is man-made.

Somehow, modern humanity (or the Western middle classes, anyway), seems to have regressed to that mythic realm where the gods punish humanity for its sins, by sending storms and plagues against them.

[catmac]

Well said, Rick. But you forgot the greatest plague of all.....Taxation. The do-gooders and the chattering classes now have the glorious excuse to slam taxes on anything they like, with the smug glow of self-rightousness "but it's to stop global warming"! Then don't forget that great scam of carbon credit trading, I wonder who is making a killing out of that? As if we don't know!

[RickBradford]

Then don't forget that great scam of carbon credit trading, I wonder who is making a killing out of that?

The Mafia, mainly.

As Europol said:

"The European Union (EU) Emission Trading System (ETS) has been the victim of fraudulent traders. This resulted in losses of approximately 5 billion euros for several national tax revenues. It is estimated that in some countries, up to 90% of the whole market volume was caused by fraudulent activities. Europol has set up a specific project to collect and analyse information in order to identify and disrupt the organised criminal structures behind these fraud schemes."

Your tax dollars at work.

[Credo]

In the meantime, we will have some big volcanic eruption someplace that will blot out a significant portion of sunlight and cool everything down and slow the whole process down.

[maidu]

There's a glaring fallacy at the heart of alarmist thinking, but one they seem incapable of grasping.

They seem to think that humanity is on the one hand so powerful that we can alter the earth's climate in significant ways, and simultaneously so puny that we cannot adapt to the changes we may be causing.

Consider this. Geological data shows that sea levels have risen about 390 feet as Earth has warmed from the last ice age 20,000 years ago. And we're getting all hysterical about a 7-8 inch rise over the last 100 years?

It is quite absurd, especially when no-one can tell how much, if any, of the recent rise is man-made.

Somehow, modern humanity (or the Western middle classes, anyway), seems to have regressed to that mythic realm where the gods punish humanity for its sins, by sending storms and plagues against them.

I agree, humankind as rather adaptable. No amount of global warming will wipe out the human race, and I don't think any scientist is saying that. One of the major concerns, is severe flooding for the many big cities on coasts, Bkk included. I personally don't care that much, but concern for massive deaths, disease, shifts of populations, and wars are what people are supposed to care very much about. That's a big part of what makes headlines in newspapers (Besides any stupid utterance of Thaksin).

No one disputes giant rises and falls of sea levels historically. And yes, there are very many people who will continue to believe in religious and metaphysical/paranormal myths, .....but is that key to this conversation? Maybe.

If you doubt human activities can have an profound effect on this planet, consider the following: Man-made earth moving machines are the one biggest factor regarding moving earth. Man's machines move more earth each year than tides, volcanos, and erosion altogether.

Our species puts out over 80 million tons of plastic each year. The Great Pacific Trash Vortex is estimated to hold 100 million tons of plastic. In 2006 alone, according to a study by EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration), 331 million barrels of liquid petroleum gas (LPG) and natural gas liquids (NGL) were used in plastic production. Additionally it took nearly 20 billion kilowatt hours of electricity to produce that plastic.

As for CO2 and carbon monoxide and other emissions

Year Carbon Emissions

2009 9.28 billion metric tonnes per year

2008 9.45 billion of metric tonnes per year

2007 9.31 billion metric tonnes per year

2006 9.22 billion metric tonnes per year

we must be well over 10 billion tons/annually currently. And someone is saying people don't have an effect on CO2 or dirtying the atmosphere or affecting climate?!?! We don't agree, is the nicest way I can put it.

[Potosi]

In the case GW isn't real, and you don't like the premiums you pay, you are still blaming scapegoats. A new commodity has been created, emission rights, and the market is dominated by the big private corporations. Not the government profits from it as much, not science, not new-technologies startups. Address who's really behind it, and start perhaps with Deutsche Bank.

http://dealbook.nyti...vasion-inquiry/

Edited December 13, 2012 by Potosi

[RickBradford]

And someone is saying people don't have an effect on CO2

I don't know anyone who is saying that.

As for the 10 billion tons annually of emissions, we should keep it in perspective -- the earth is a very big place.

Take the invisible sliver (not the thin one), and that's where your 10 billion tons of carbon sit in relation to the rest of the atmosphere. (And that's not including the water vapour up there, either)

The 'consensus climate scientists' are pushing the line that that invisible sliver drives -- not just affects, but essentially controls -- the temperature of the earth. That's not just the tail wagging the dog, but a single hair on the tail wagging the dog.

Now someone who tells me that just that invisible sliver of a non-reactive, non-toxic gas, which isn't even a particularly effective greenhouse gas, can control the earth's temperature as completely as the thermostat in an air-conditioner** -- we don't agree, is the nicest way I can put it.

** There is a well-known organisation called 350.org, which has explicitly stated that reducing CO2 levels to 350ppm will keep earth's temperature rise to under 2C and "solve the climate crisis." They cite scientists as the source of this statement.

Edited December 13, 2012 by RickBradford

[maidu]

In the case GW isn't real, and you don't like the premiums you pay, you are still blaming scapegoats. A new commodity has been created, emission rights, and the market is dominated by the big private corporations. Not the government profits from it as much, not science, not new-technologies startups. Address who's really behind it, and start perhaps with Deutsche Bank.

http://dealbook.nyti...vasion-inquiry/

There are dozens of things that bother me more than 'emission rights.' If you're a big corporation, you may not like it. There are a lot of things big corporations don't like. They don't like taxes of any kind, and they're adept at avoiding them. They don't like having to be honest about profits and losses, they don't like regulations. Are we supposed to feel sorry for corporations like Enron and AIS? To me the GW issue is about pollution, warming, rising seas, sick people, too many people, wasting resources, snuffing out alternative technology, ......the list could go on and on of issues that concern me more than corporations having to pay some tax to pollute.

I also don't like that China, which is the world's #2 largest economy, doesn't want to do its part in trying to clean up the environment and reduce emissions. If only for that reason, I'm ok with the US not signing any Kyoto deal on reducing emissions, because China and India don't want to lift a finger to assist.

[maidu]

And someone is saying people don't have an effect on CO2

I don't know anyone who is saying that.

As for the 10 billion tons annually of emissions, we should keep it in perspective -- the earth is a very big place.

Take the invisible sliver (not the thin one), and that's where your 10 billion tons of carbon sit in relation to the rest of the atmosphere. (And that's not including the water vapour up there, either)

The 'consensus climate scientists' are pushing the line that that invisible sliver drives -- not just affects, but essentially controls -- the temperature of the earth. That's not just the tail wagging the dog, but a single hair on the tail wagging the dog.

Now someone who tells me that just that invisible sliver of a non-reactive, non-toxic gas, which isn't even a particularly effective greenhouse gas, can control the earth's temperature as completely as the thermostat in an air-conditioner** -- we don't agree, is the nicest way I can put it.

** There is a well-known organisation called 350.org, which has explicitly stated that reducing CO2 levels to 350ppm will keep earth's temperature rise to under 2C and "solve the climate crisis." They cite scientists as the source of this statement.

Not sure if that's fair to include N and O in that graph. It looks interesting, but not realistic. It's like saying, if I take a glass of pure water and add only a tiny amount of poison or a pathogen, is it still pure enough for you to drink it? I'm not saying CO2 is either of those things, but instead; that a trace amount of something can sometimes have a large effect overall.

400 parts per million of CO2 (measured at the Arctic) may sound like an insignificant amount, but climate scientists don't think so. It's also relevent, where (what layer) the chemicals are in the atmosphere, and a lot of other considerations. That 400 ppm is just the latest number. The incidence appears to go up year by year. Remember ozone depletion was a big issue years ago? CFC's were one of the culprits. They were there only in trace amounts, but their chemical reactions kept going on and on. In other words, one small molecule can effect many other molecules. Yet another example of a trace amount having a big effect, depending on circumstance.

[maidu]

10 million tons of carbon

a train car can carry about 105 tons of carbon

Imagine 95,000 train cars, filled to the brim with super fine coal dust, and floated up very high in the atmosphere and dumped out.

That's 260 per day, or more than ten per hour. Sure the atmosphere is big, but do you think all that human-emitted CO2 is not affecting anything? Even if it were as benign as a sunset, it still gross. Plus, at least half (probably closer to 3/4) of that CO2 emitted is not needed, if people were able to think and act with a sensitivity for conservation of resources. That's my statistic, garnered from just looking around at the incessent and profound wastefullness of electricity and internal combustion engines.

I've seen those giant tourist buses, with one Thai guy snoozing inside, with the motor idling high for hours, just so he can have the AC going, and the doors of the bus are open, and it's already cool outside. That's just one of a million examples I could cite, so don't get me going.

[Potosi]

It's not 10 billion tons, but in excess of 40 billion tons this year. 36.6 billion tons in 2010.

The earth is a big place indeed. To lift the CO2 content by 30% in a century required a determind effort. If the 40 billion tons were water, one could put a belt 1 km wide and high almost all the way around the world. Good that the earth is flexible and removed much of the surplus CO2 in carbon sinks, and lets hope this quality doesn't diminish.

[GentlemanJim]

It's not 10 billion tons, but in excess of 40 billion tons this year. 36.6 billion tons in 2010.

The earth is a big place indeed. To lift the CO2 content by 30% in a century required a determind effort. If the 40 billion tons were water, one could put a belt 1 km wide and high almost all the way around the world. Good that the earth is flexible and removed much of the surplus CO2 in carbon sinks, and lets hope this quality doesn't diminish.

I don't know where you are getting your maths from, but it seems to be the same place as the climate scientists. Would you care to try again? You are saying that you could put a belt 1km wide and high almost all the way around the planet? A 1KM cube has to weigh 1 billion tons, so your belt would be 1km high, 1km wide and 40 kms long, thats a lot lot shorter than going around the whole planet! That is what sensationalism does. Did you read that without checking it or did you just calculate wrong? It is a BIG BIG error!

Edited December 13, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[Thaddeus]

but climate scientists don't think so.

Which ones? ..... we need names and evidence.

[RickBradford]

Well, I think it's fair to say that the scientists who prepare the UN's IPCC reports generally believe that CO2 is a major player in climate.

That's partly because any scientist who doesn't toe the Party line gets purged, or is forced into such an untenable position that their only option is to resign (Chris Landsea, Paul Reiter).

But even this is changing. For 18 years and four massive reports, the IPCC team has argued that the sun plays no part in global warming (no, seriously).

Finally, this year, facing a barrage of new scientific papers showing how the sun affects the atmosphere in many ways apart from direct heating, the IPCC team has admitted strong evidence ("many empirical relationships") for enhanced solar forcing** (forcing beyond just sunlight, which they call Total Solar Irradiance, or TSI).

That's not to say that they have recanted completely; the IPCC is slower to turn than a fully-laden oil tanker. But it does show that they can no longer pretend that the sun has no effect on climate, which has been the Party dogma for almost 20 years.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of scientific papers documenting links between solar activity and the earth's climate, all of which have been ignored up until now in the desperate attempt to convict CO2 (and hence mankind) as the sole climate villain.

** These include factors such as solar magnetic activity and cosmic ray activity (which is moderated by solar activity).