Seas Rising 60 Percent Faster Than Projected, Study Shows

[maidu]

It's doubtful any climate scientist discounts the role of the mighty sun. Indeed, it's the capture of sunlight in the 'greenhouse effect' which is key to the heated discussions.

but climate scientists don't think so.

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

Here's the complete sentence those words were culled from: "400 parts per million of CO2 (measured at the Arctic) may sound like an insignificant amount, but climate scientists don't think so."

Are you suggesting that every thing a poster mentions should be accompanied by reams of citations? If you want all that, do the research yourself. I'm summarizing. If I say the moon's gravity has an effect on the tides, do I need to cite every scientific article and every researcher who has studied that phenomenum? Get real.

[RickBradford]

It's doubtful any climate scientist discounts the role of the mighty sun.

Excuse me, but the IPCC has been consistently discounting the sun for 20 years as a central plank of their war on CO2

In 2007, they said that CO2 was 14 times more important than the sun for global warming ("radiative forcing" in their terms), and earlier this year they discounted it again to a ratio of 40 to 1.

Some of the IPCC scientists have now been forced (see above) to acknowledge the sun's role, but that won't stop them discounting that role heavily.

[thaibeachlovers]

At the current rate, 50 billion people will be on earth by the year 2100.

I'm sorry, but that is complete nonsense.

The UN predicts between 6 and 16 billion, with the best estimate at 10 billion.

If you start out with data that's wrong by a factor of 5. your conclusions simply aren't worth looking at.

You're not a climate scientist, by any chance, are you?

IMO there will never be 16 billion people on earth. War, pestilence or starvation will lower the population to something that is actually sustainable, or more likely, humanity will be exterminated by Gaia.

[thaibeachlovers]

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.

End of the day, whether GW is caused by man or nature, nothing realistic is being done to change the end result. Flying thousands of people to discuss climate change is just one reason that no politician will ever change anything to actually make a difference.

If they were serious, all carbon/ methane producing activity would have to be stopped NOW, for a number of years, but obviously that would have catastrophic consequences, so it won't happen.

IMO, enjoy the ride and hope to die before the methane storms start.

I do pity the kids though. They weren't the ones that stuffed it up. but they will suffer the consequences.

The only alternative would be to extract GH gases ( if in fact they are the cause of the problem ) from the atmosphere and store them somehow, but I haven't heard of any attempt to do so in a large scale manner. Instead, the carbon stores of Amazonia and indonesia are being destroyed at ever increasing rates, and more oil is being extracted and used than ever before- Alberta tar sands anyone?.

It's hopeless!

[GentlemanJim]

It's doubtful any climate scientist discounts the role of the mighty sun. Indeed, it's the capture of sunlight in the 'greenhouse effect' which is key to the heated discussions.

but climate scientists don't think so.

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

Here's the complete sentence those words were culled from: "400 parts per million of CO2 (measured at the Arctic) may sound like an insignificant amount, but climate scientists don't think so."

Are you suggesting that every thing a poster mentions should be accompanied by reams of citations? If you want all that, do the research yourself. I'm summarizing. If I say the moon's gravity has an effect on the tides, do I need to cite every scientific article and every researcher who has studied that phenomenum? Get real.

So you call one poster a liar in one sentence and tell another one to get real and do some research in another!

You have already had it explained to you the stance of the IPCC concerning the Sun and heating of the earth. If you do not agree with that then as you put it, get real and do your own study and referencing before you diss somebody else without so much as a reason.

It is also mighty heartwarming to hear you acknowledge that the moon influences tides....and therefore sea level. Since the start of this thread you have been obsessing with the fact that GW is causing seas to rise by inches in the last century, when in truth it is impossible to determine as there is no satisfactory, constant benchmark is there. The tidal characteristics are so so complex, with direct inputs from the moon, the sun, the earth and other planets that I truly doubt that a Train Engineer is the man to grasp that complexity and make decisions worth tens of billions of dollars. (Whilst you research you may wish to look at the amount of money made by the Chairman of the IPCC's family as a result of IPCC policy!!) The tides shift the seas by many many meters and we have alarmist graphs displaying rises in inches, when in the real world, there is no real evidence of the rising seas.

[RickBradford]

^^

Money and fame are big motives for the big players, but Pachauri, Gore and so on are a tiny minority of the Green movement.

The underlying theme that makes sense of all Greenie policies is hatred of people. Hatred of other people has been a Greenie theme from way back. In a report titled "The First Global Revolution" (1991, p. 104) published by the 'Club of Rome', a Greenie panic outfit, you can find the following statement:

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.... All these dangers are caused by human intervention... The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

Not much has changed in the intervening years; the policies remain adamantly anti-human. Shut off cheap fossil fuels and replace them with ruinously expensive renewables; deny the Third World its easiest route out of poverty, punish the wealth creators.

To keep doing that, you must keep the catastrophic message going, whatever the data and evidence.

Edited December 14, 2012 by RickBradford

[maidu]

It's doubtful any climate scientist discounts the role of the mighty sun. Indeed, it's the capture of sunlight in the 'greenhouse effect' which is key to the heated discussions.

but climate scientists don't think so.

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

Here's the complete sentence those words were culled from: "400 parts per million of CO2 (measured at the Arctic) may sound like an insignificant amount, but climate scientists don't think so."

Are you suggesting that every thing a poster mentions should be accompanied by reams of citations? If you want all that, do the research yourself. I'm summarizing. If I say the moon's gravity has an effect on the tides, do I need to cite every scientific article and every researcher who has studied that phenomenum? Get real.

So you call one poster a liar in one sentence and tell another one to get real and do some research in another!

You have already had it explained to you the stance of the IPCC concerning the Sun and heating of the earth. If you do not agree with that then as you put it, get real and do your own study and referencing before you diss somebody else without so much as a reason.

It is also mighty heartwarming to hear you acknowledge that the moon influences tides....and therefore sea level. Since the start of this thread you have been obsessing with the fact that GW is causing seas to rise by inches in the last century, when in truth it is impossible to determine as there is no satisfactory, constant benchmark is there. The tidal characteristics are so so complex, with direct inputs from the moon, the sun, the earth and other planets that I truly doubt that a Train Engineer is the man to grasp that complexity and make decisions worth tens of billions of dollars. (Whilst you research you may wish to look at the amount of money made by the Chairman of the IPCC's family as a result of IPCC policy!!) The tides shift the seas by many many meters and we have alarmist graphs displaying rises in inches, when in the real world, there is no real evidence of the rising seas.

The last refuge of a GW denier: It's impossible to take measurements of climate phenomena, therefore there is no evidence.....

[Thaddeus]

Nope, the last refuge of the GW protagonists is jumping to conclusions based on assumptions and inaccurate data.

[maidu]

Nope, the last refuge of the GW protagonists is jumping to conclusions based on assumptions and inaccurate data.

....which rather bolsters the trend. If the scientific data and measurements don't back up the deniers' fixed opinions re; climate change, then a denier will say the data must be inaccurate. In effect, there is no possibility of swaying a fixated denier to believe in what the concensus of researchers believe: The surface of the planet is warming, mean sea levels are rising and, to a significant degree, it's exacerbated by human activity.

[maidu]

There are now satellite measuring devices which can detect changes in sea levels to millimeters. They are so accurate, they can gauge whether and how much an on-the-ground measuring device may have shifted or subsided - to withing a fraction of a mm. If that's not accurate enough measuring for deniers, then it further proves the point that died-in-the-wool deniers refuse to accept any data that counters their fixed opinions.

[RickBradford]

The satellites are very accurate; way too accurate for the Warmists.

That's why they have relentlessly 'recalibrated' the data from the Topix, Poseidon and Envisat satellites, because if they left the data alone, it would confirm what thousands of tide gauges say: No sea-level rise of any significance..

Envisat got a major make-over in February this year:

The excuses were hilarious -- perhaps the best was that they were making a "correction" for rising land levels worldwide.

If there's one phenomenon in climate that is definitely man-made, it's the satellite sea-level data.

[Rob8891]

I am not going to state my personal beliefs.... too much hot air (sorry, pun not intended) has already been expended in this thread, with entrenched view making the thread look like a WW1 scene.

People who vehemently deny human-enhanced climate change never cease to amaze and horrify me. If there is even a ghost of a chance that climate change is going to cause major catastrophy, why would anyone want to take the risk of decrying the possibility? Are they so preoccupied with the here-and-now, their money, possessions and their level of personal comfort that they are willing to risk their children's and grand-children's future?

If everyone acts (in what may be seen as) for the benefit of the planet, then nothing has been lost. If we do not, who is to say what we might be leaving as our legacy for future generations. It seems it is a no-brainer.......

[maidu]

I am not going to state my personal beliefs.... too much hot air (sorry, pun not intended) has already been expended in this thread, with entrenched view making the thread look like a WW1 scene.

People who vehemently deny human-enhanced climate change never cease to amaze and horrify me. If there is even a ghost of a chance that climate change is going to cause major catastrophy, why would anyone want to take the risk of decrying the possibility? Are they so preoccupied with the here-and-now, their money, possessions and their level of personal comfort that they are willing to risk their children's and grand-children's future?

If everyone acts (in what may be seen as) for the benefit of the planet, then nothing has been lost. If we do not, who is to say what we might be leaving as our legacy for future generations. It seems it is a no-brainer.......

Plus, even if the vast majority of data and scientists are wrong, and there is no significant warming and/or humans aren't contributing to the trend (and that's a BIG IF), then it's still good policy to get weaned off fossil fuels and waste of resources. Can the deniers agree to that? ....or do they want to cling to the belief that pollution is managable and we can go on spewing over two heaping train car loads of carbon in to the atmosphere every hour?

[RickBradford]

"If everyone acts (in what may be seen as) for the benefit of the planet, then nothing has been lost."

An enormous amount has been lost. The legacy of today’s anti-fossil fuel doom-mongers would be measured by the number of dams not built, the number of mines, factories, farms, forests and fishing grounds closed, the number of Third World power projects blocked and the number of humans living in poverty.

Even if you believe in the 'consensus' science, are we really going to rebuild all of civilization to avoid the occasional heat wave and rising seas and some slightly stronger hurricanes? Humanity gets a lot of value from burning fossil fuels. There is as yet no viable substitute for them.

".. willing to risk their children's and grand-children's future?"

If we leave less wealth to our successors because we have wasted trillions on the non-problem of global warming, by blowing it on useless windmills, mercury-filled light-bulbs, solar panels, corrupt carbon trading schemes, and a vast array of suchlike costly, wasteful, environment-destroying fashion statements, we harm future generations immensely by denying them the full inheritance they would otherwise have received. They certainly will not thank us for that.

The idea that "there is no downside" to moving to a Green economy is one of the most pervasive, misleading and pernicious arguments made by the Green lobby. There is a huge downside.

It has been shown, time and again, that it would be far better to use our resources to adapt to future climate changes, whether natural or human-enhanced, instead of regressing to the use of industrial quantities of wind power and wood energy which were thankfully abandoned a long time ago.

... do they want to cling to the belief that pollution is managable and we can go on spewing over two heaping train car loads of carbon in to the atmosphere every hour?

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is a crucial chemical without which none of us would be alive.

[Scott]

An oversized graphic has been deleted as it distorts the formatting making it necessary to scroll sideways as well as up and down to read posts.

Please format the graphics to fit into the thread prior to posting.

Thanks.

[trompelemonde]

AGW cannot been seen as an isolated ploy.

It's part of the bigger NWO picture.

They are re-arranging everything in our world and the bogus global warming theory is just one of the convenient excuses.

By portraying humans as 'parasites' ,they open the way for the culling of 'useless eaters'.

On a side note...most enviro-loonies I have met seem to have a seething hatred of humanity.

Enviromentalism offers them a 'respectable' fig leaf.

This is straying into David Icke, paranoid, conspiracy theory type guff methinks!!!

[maidu]

There was a letter in the Nation today which tried to convey the malarky that there has been no warming of the earth's surface in past decades. Below is a recent graphic which presents temp readings for 2012. If you don't see more pink, orange and red spaces than light and regular blue, then you qualify as a true GW denier. Note: there aren't any dark blue (record cold) spaces, whereas there are dozens of red (record hot) spaces.

Edited December 18, 2012 by maidu

[maidu]

AGW cannot been seen as an isolated ploy. It's part of the bigger NWO picture. They are re-arranging everything in our world and the bogus global warming theory is just one of the convenient excuses. By portraying humans as 'parasites' ,they open the way for the culling of 'useless eaters'. On a side note...most enviro-loonies I have met seem to have a seething hatred of humanity.

Enviromentalism offers them a 'respectable' fig leaf.

What's the A in AGW stand for? What is NWO? I've never heard of 'useless eaters' before. Are they any relation to too-big-to-fail Wall Street gobblers? Enviro-loonies is also a new term for me, maybe I've been living a too sheltered life. 'Seething hatred for humanity' sounds depressing and possibly dangerous. I hope they get help. Maybe you can cheer them up. Maybe not.

[cooked]

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is a crucial chemical without which none of us would be alive.

try to do some reading before you write misinformed twaddle like this. The oceans can only absorb so much Co2 before the 'tip'. There are very few scientists that disagree that things are in a dire state. If you are saying that the planet would be better off without human beings, then I agree.

[Scott]

Thanks, Maidu, for reposting the chart.

[RickBradford]

If you are saying that the planet would be better off without human beings, then I agree.

I'm not saying that at all. Still, the mainstream Green movement agrees with you.

The oceans can only absorb so much CO2 before the 'tip'.

Perhaps you would care to explain this 'tip' by delving into the vast store of reading you have done.Obviously, I wouldn't claim to have done as much reading as you have, but in no scientific discussion of dissolved CO2 in the oceans that I have seen, including plenty from the most fervent purveyors of climate agit-prop, has there been any mention of a 'tip' of any sort.

There are very few scientists that disagree that things are in a dire state.

There are tens of thousands of scientists that disagree that things are in a dire state. In fact, over 30,000 US scientists have signed a petition to the US government stating: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Furthermore, you should actually welcome any such dire state and all manner of climate catastrophes, since you have stated that you think the planet would be better off without humanity.

Then, perhaps, from that same vast store of knowledge of yours, you could explain the mechanism by which we can live without CO2? Or what it is, exactly, that CO2 pollutes?

[teatree]

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant; it is a crucial chemical without which none of us would be alive.

try to do some reading before you write misinformed twaddle like this. The oceans can only absorb so much Co2 before the 'tip'. There are very few scientists that disagree that things are in a dire state. If you are saying that the planet would be better off without human beings, then I agree.

Maybe you yourself should do some research into the ice core data. The Earth has had CO2 levels 10 times higher than today and didn't suffer from runaway GW.

We actually live in world with realatively low levels of CO2 when going back thousands of years.

More CO2 would be a good thing for the world as it would lead to more fertile plants/crops.

[canuckamuck]

There was a letter in the Nation today which tried to convey the malarky that there has been no warming of the earth's surface in past decades. Below is a recent graphic which presents temp readings for 2012. If you don't see more pink, orange and red spaces than light and regular blue, then you qualify as a true GW denier. Note: there aren't any dark blue (record cold) spaces, whereas there are dozens of red (record hot) spaces.

It is fancy graphic, but what does it represent? One day, one year, a decade, century...?

What data did they use, raw data or enhanced data? Why are the poles greyed out?

[cooked]

Oh boy.

Well I did some translations French > English about climatology at university level and learnt quite a bit.

First of all, thousands of scientists deny this stuff. Ok.

There are millions that consider it to be a scientific fact, read this:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2012/12/11/climate_change_denial_why_don_t_they_publish_scientific_papers.html

Then read some more.

Polar ice cores show that since the advent of human beings as a viable primate, CO2 levels have, very slowly, been rising for a few hundred thousand years (Slash and burn). Until, that is, the beginning of the industrial revolution when the curve went up quite sharply. You are saying that CO2 is good, so a lot must be better, right? The oceans have been doing the job of absorbing a lot of this CO2 but they are getting to a point where they cannot absorb any more. The CO2 levels in the oceans are an important factor for the sea life, slight changes in the acidity of the water affects the organisms from top to bottom of the food chain. I am trying to express myself as simply as possible here.

The fact that CO2 levels were much higher when dinosaurs roamed the earth has nothing to do with it.

[RickBradford]

Excuse me, but you didn't answer my question.

The oceans can only absorb so much CO2 before the 'tip'.

What is this 'tip'?

It's nowhere to be found in the scientific literature or even in Green alarmist propaganda leaflets; maybe it was somewhere in the translations you carried out?

Edited December 19, 2012 by RickBradford

[cooked]

Sorry about that, this word is in fact taken from German sources (Umkippen). I struggled to find a better word. An eco-system can quite rapidly 'tip', in that there is no oxygen available to the micro organisms and the entire food chain is disrupted. (Everything dies). I haven't read any alarmist literature lately, only scientific stuff. Please take the trouble to read some also. I don't understand why people deny scientific evidence, plenty out there. Wikipedia can produce some strange stuff, but

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

gives some basic infos.

The word 'tip' can be found in a lot of literature, how much research did you do?

[RickBradford]

The word 'tip' can be found in a lot of literature, how much research did you do?

The word 'tip' can be found in articles ranging from garbage disposal to how to behave in a cocktail bar.

I restricted my reading to 'tip' relating to sea levels and the chemical composition of the sea. I say again -- there is absolutely nothing in the scientific literature about any 'tip' related to the oceans and CO2.

I haven't read any alarmist literature lately, only scientific stuff.

You call Wikipedia "scientific"? Come on.

Do us all a favour and read some real science -- not just stuff from Wikipedia, The Slate, or NGOs.

Edited December 19, 2012 by RickBradford

[Scott]

You can all do yourselves a favor and keep this thread civil.

I don't read much about climate change, but I do teach Science and I have come across the word tip and tipping point. It usually refers to the point at which something has become irreversible or where it will cause a chain reaction that cannot be easily reversed.

[RickBradford]

Scott

Thanks for the definition, which broadly aligns with my understanding of the term 'tipping point'.

As far as I am aware, nothing of the kind has ever been seriously proposed with regard to the CO2 concentration in the oceans.

[thaibeachlovers]

If you are saying that the planet would be better off without human beings, then I agree.

I'm not saying that at all. Still, the mainstream Green movement agrees with you.

The oceans can only absorb so much CO2 before the 'tip'.

Perhaps you would care to explain this 'tip' by delving into the vast store of reading you have done.Obviously, I wouldn't claim to have done as much reading as you have, but in no scientific discussion of dissolved CO2 in the oceans that I have seen, including plenty from the most fervent purveyors of climate agit-prop, has there been any mention of a 'tip' of any sort.

There are very few scientists that disagree that things are in a dire state.

There are tens of thousands of scientists that disagree that things are in a dire state. In fact, over 30,000 US scientists have signed a petition to the US government stating: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

Furthermore, you should actually welcome any such dire state and all manner of climate catastrophes, since you have stated that you think the planet would be better off without humanity.

Then, perhaps, from that same vast store of knowledge of yours, you could explain the mechanism by which we can live without CO2? Or what it is, exactly, that CO2 pollutes?

<the mainstream Green movement agrees with you.>

I doubt they want the extermination of humanity, but certainly there are too many people on the planet now for it to survive as we know it.