Seas Rising 60 Percent Faster Than Projected, Study Shows

[RickBradford]

I doubt they want the extermination of humanity

The Club of Rome published this as far back as 1991:

"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, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

I think that's fairly clear, and Green policies ever since have toed pretty much the same line -- who knows how many millions of the world's poorest died uselessly because of the Green-inspired DDT ban, and how many millions more because of Green policies to take corn and burn it as 'green' biofuels in automobiles instead of distributing it as food.

[RickBradford]

Getting back to sea levels, this is how the Green/Left does 'science'.

A minor point in an Australian government report recently suggested that sea levels in Perth, Australia were rising by over 9mm per year. This was picked up by the 'progressive' media in breathless terms, about the "disturbing" and "extraordinary" rise that was more than "three times the global average."

It was left to independent researchers to point out that Perth's land (much like Bangkok's) is sinking, because of extreme groundwater extraction (by 6 mm per year).

Then it was discovered that the alarmist trend was calculated from 1993 (when sea level was at its lowest for over 50 years) to 2010, a moderately high year, so giving an extremely high trend. If the measurement had been taken from 1999 to 2012, the sea level would have been seen to have fallen.

Some of the media grudgingly backed down, but none of them questioned why such a silly and unprofessional report had been issued in the first place, proving that if you're a 'progressive', the truth is whatever makes you feel good.

[cooked]

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.

That's because nobody knows what will happen when the oceans stop absorbing CO2.

[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.

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?

The graphic was found at this US gov't site. I believe it shows a sort-of 'snapshot' of the surface temperatures in Oct. 2012, or cumulative data garnered from the past year, because its conclusions compare the current data with previous trends. Note that most graphic evidence provided by 'deniers' is considerably older. The poles are 'gray' possibly because the satellite may not have been able to gauge that data from its positioning? Not sure why central western Sahara is gray.

As for 'tip' and/or 'tipping point.' That may apply more to methane than to CO2. Vast amounts of methane lie deep in the seas and in permafrost at the Arctic region. Methane is a more effective greenhouse gas than CO2. If significant amounts of that methane is released, then GW would likely accellerate. It's already bubbling up in seas, as a natural process, but large 'burps' (if you will) could erupt if seas continue to warm.

[maidu]

more from the US government site, regarding temperature measurements in 2012:

"The average temperature across land and ocean surfaces during October was 14.63°C (58.23°F). This is 0.63°C (1.13°F) above the 20th century average and ties with 2008 as the fifth warmest October on record. The record warmest October occurred in 2003 and the record coldest October occurred in 1912. This is the 332nd consecutive month with an above-average temperature."

"The average global temperature over land was 0.92°C (1.66°F) above average, making this the eighth warmest October on record. Several regions around the globe were much warmer than average, including northeastern and southwestern North America, most of South America, northern Africa, southeastern Europe, southwestern Asia, and far eastern Russia. A heat wave brought record warmth to large areas of Brazil and Bolivia. Record heat was also present in southern India."

maidu's note: higher temperature trends translate to melting ice (leave your fridge off for a day, to see for yourself), expanding seas, and therefore higher sea levels worldwide.

[Potosi]

I think that's fairly clear, and Green policies ever since have toed pretty much the same line -- who knows how many millions of the world's poorest died uselessly because of the Green-inspired DDT ban, and how many millions more because of Green policies to take corn and burn it as 'green' biofuels in automobiles instead of distributing it as food.

You don't give a crap about the world's poorest anyway, only the richest matter. Hoping they give you a job, and something trickles down. Wishful thinking. DDT was the start of a weapons race we cannot win. The bugs evolve immunity, we invent a stronger insecticid, against which the bugs evolve immunity, and so on. Should be easy to understand that we cannot be above the natural laws. Currently, the bees are dying out all over the world but in Australia. So far. Nobody knows what causes the carnage. The theories suggest it's the interactions of the multitude of insectizides and pesticides we introduced to the environment. The bee is such a small and insignificant insect, but losing it means half of our crops and fruits are gone for good, and a large faction of wild plants.

[Thaddeus]

The bee is such a small and insignificant insect, but losing it means half of our crops and fruits are gone for good, and a large faction of wild plants.

I would just love for you to give a source for that little snippet.

[Potosi]

Here is a BBC docu on it.

https://www.youtube....h?v=bjef4QiKWfg

The introduction of the film.

"Bees are dying in their millions. It is an ecological crisis that threatens to bring global agriculture to a standstill. Introduced by Martha Kearney, this documentary explores the reasons behind the decline of bee colonies across the globe, investigating what might be at the root of this devastation.

Honey bees are the number one insect pollinator on the planet, responsible for the production of over 90 crops.

*Edited for Fair Use*

[maidu]

I just watched a documentary on the South Pacific. Tuna getting overfished in international waters, sharks nearly gone due to Asian's fixation on sharks fin soup (still served in Bangkok's poshest restaurants?), ....the list goes depressingly on. Not sure to what extent the manifold slaughtering is affected by warming seas, but there are probably some connections. However, it's mostly due to overpopulation and unmitigated greed/callousness of one land-based species.

[thaibeachlovers]

The bee is such a small and insignificant insect, but losing it means half of our crops and fruits are gone for good, and a large faction of wild plants.

I would just love for you to give a source for that little snippet.

It has been well known for some time now that bees are dying out. Many news articles about it.

[thaibeachlovers]

I just watched a documentary on the South Pacific. Tuna getting overfished in international waters, sharks nearly gone due to Asian's fixation on sharks fin soup (still served in Bangkok's poshest restaurants?), ....the list goes depressingly on. Not sure to what extent the manifold slaughtering is affected by warming seas, but there are probably some connections. However, it's mostly due to overpopulation and unmitigated greed/callousness of one land-based species.

Congratulations on including "overpopulation".

Up till now, I seem to be the only one writing about the number one cause of planet earth's ( as we know it ) destruction.

[Mosha]

Population rise is driven by oil production. Tipping point could be mid century. Oil no longer viable, population 9 Bn. Fertilisers rely on oil. Food supply may crash, and worse case scenario is a global population crash to 2 Bn. Which is what the Earth is capable of sustaining. Today Americans food travels on average 1400 miles. Pre oil it was less than 200

[cooked]

The bee is such a small and insignificant insect, but losing it means half of our crops and fruits are gone for good, and a large faction of wild plants.

I would just love for you to give a source for that little snippet.

I can't believe that you have an opinion here and yet weren't even aware of this. I am not a tree hugger, been cutting the bu@##ers down all my life. Instead of posting what you just posted, maybe you could learn how to use google first? Or was that just a flame?

[BookMan]

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.

Indeed. I tend to listen to the vast majority of qualified scientists who agree on the matter.

[BookMan]

The bee is such a small and insignificant insect, but losing it means half of our crops and fruits are gone for good, and a large faction of wild plants.

I would just love for you to give a source for that little snippet.

Potosoi makes a good point. While it sounds hard to believe it is a reality

Here are some wiki links to get you started

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

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

[BookMan]

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 petition you refer to has been widely discredited as lacking in verification

[thaibeachlovers]

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.

Many if not most sceptics would agree that the planet is warming, just that the commonly claimed cause is bogus.

Besides, even if the cause is man made, nothing is being done that would change the outcome.

Just by using a computer in Thailand, I am probably contributing to CO2 levels because the electricity is probably generated in an oil fired power station.

So, what are YOU doing to reduce carbon levels?

BTW, the planet has been on a warming cycle since at least the mid 1970s, if not before.

[maidu]

Many if not most sceptics would agree that the planet is warming, just that the commonly claimed cause is bogus.

Besides, even if the cause is man made, nothing is being done that would change the outcome.

Just by using a computer in Thailand, I am probably contributing to CO2 levels because the electricity is probably generated in an oil fired power station.

So, what are YOU doing to reduce carbon levels?

BTW, the planet has been on a warming cycle since at least the mid 1970s, if not before.

I acknowledge that it's easy to feel powerless, in a world of 6 or 7 billion people, with dozens added every minute. Yet, it's akin to voting. If you say 'what's the use of voting, as my vote is so insignificant.....'. Then the candidate with the less cynical supporters wins - though he may not be the best of the contenders.

I'm doing some bits to reduce my 'carbon footprint.' By itself, it's insignificant, but if more people do similar things, it can make a difference. Regardless of how or to what degree it may affect GW, it will at least lessen pollution.

Some things:

Use motorbike instead of car when possible. Use bicycle or walk if motorbike not needed.

Fly on planes as little as possible.

Make a list of errands, so as to minimize zipping back and forth in town.

Keep lights (on) at a minimum, along with any other electronic devices.

Recycle. There are a plethora of ways. Example: use cut off plastic containers for waste cans or storing foods. The list is endless.

Take public transport instead of driving solo.

Switch to LPG from electric for water heating. Better than that, go solar. I do.

If you're off city water system, switch your water pump to solar powered DC from AC. After the system pays for itself in 5 years, you're pumping water for free. That's about half your electric bill, unless you have electricity-sucking appliances.

[cooked]

Forget it, it's too late, just try to enjoy life and not harm your fellow beings. Collecting bottles isn't going to change anything. We are on the way out, the planet can't stand us any more, the biosphere on the planet will be right as rain in a hundred million years or so. Without humans, hopefully.

The above advice is completely inappropriate for about 90% of the world's population, leave it out, ok?

[maidu]

Forget it, it's too late, just try to enjoy life and not harm your fellow beings. Collecting bottles isn't going to change anything. We are on the way out, the planet can't stand us any more, the biosphere on the planet will be right as rain in a hundred million years or so. Without humans, hopefully.

The above advice is completely inappropriate for about 90% of the world's population, leave it out, ok?

I'll leave it out for you old cynical flexible-as-mahogany farts. But I'll mention it to young folks. Do I get your approval to do that? No? Oh well, go back to your corner and sulk.

[cooked]

Who's sulking, *(inflammatory remark edited out)* (sorry, just returning the compliment)? I am enjoying life and would advise you to do so too. I worked very closely with nature for 40 years and I do know what is unrealistic twaddle and what the deal is. I've seen farmers refusing to use any pesticides 40 years ago followed by a generation that refused to work without them, to a new generation that has learned to do things differently. Do you really think that collecting bottles will hold up the coming ecological apocalypse for one even one second? Nothing cynical about it. While you are off cleaning the beach Thailand wants to build nuclear reactors (God help us) and Germany, having decided to pull out of nuclear is building brown coal plants. Same everywhere, river systems being destroyed, eco-systems being destroyed, animals, fish and plants disappearing at an alarming rate. It's ok, the planet can deal with it.

[maidu]

Who's sulking, fart face (sorry, just returning the compliment)? I am enjoying life and would advise you to do so too. I worked very closely with nature for 40 years and I do know what is unrealistic twaddle and what the deal is. I've seen farmers refusing to use any pesticides 40 years ago followed by a generation that refused to work without them, to a new generation that has learned to do things differently. Do you really think that collecting bottles will hold up the coming ecological apocalypse for one even one second? Nothing cynical about it. While you are off cleaning the beach Thailand wants to build nuclear reactors (God help us) and Germany, having decided to pull out of nuclear is building brown coal plants. Same everywhere, river systems being destroyed, eco-systems being destroyed, animals, fish and plants disappearing at an alarming rate. It's ok, the planet can deal with it.

Two basic things we don't agree upon: You say 'the planet can deal with it' I say it can't and isn't.

the other is your inference that 'small things or little gestures don't matter.' The Great Wall of China was a lot of small things put together. When the first crew got ready to put the first bricks up, you could have stood on a mound and chastised them saying, "what a waste of effort, how are a few little bricks going to make anything substantial?"

Currently, I estimate around twice as much electricity is used than is needed. Imagine if each person on the planet used 10% less electricity, on average. How much savings in fuel and how much less pollution would come from that? Someone else can do the math, but it would be a lot.

Alternatively, we can adopt the perspective that the world is getting screwed up in countless ways, and on such large scale, that nothing any individual or group can do to will make things better. I'll take the healing path. Others can take the cynical (powerlessness, defeatist) path if they so choose.

[Potosi]

He meant the planet will deal with it once we're gone. I agree with him, humanity won't make it because the destruction of the environment is gaining pace despite the feeble, and dishonest attempts to save it. Your allegory of the Chinese Wall doesn't work. The design existed first, and then the small things were put together. The design now is set by a multitude of corporations going after the resources, and governments doing their biding, and you are the odd man out.

[cooked]

10% saving in electricity? The world population is increasing by 1.1% a year, in 9 years we would be back where we started.

[maidu]

He meant the planet will deal with it once we're gone. I agree with him, humanity won't make it because the destruction of the environment is gaining pace despite the feeble, and dishonest attempts to save it. Your allegory of the Chinese Wall doesn't work. The design existed first, and then the small things were put together. The design now is set by a multitude of corporations going after the resources, and governments doing their biding, and you are the odd man out.

Nuclear fission waste can 60,000 years or more. The plastic waste in the 'Great Pacific Trash Vortex' will last hundreds of thousands of years. Its residue will last millions of years. That plastic (particles and ooze) is made from fossil fuels (materials and power source), and is estimated to be around 100 million tons currently, and is growing in size and density every day. Sure our species will die out in the future, and the planet will be destroyed eventurally. Yet, I'm addressing things we can do to try and make the place a bit more habitable and less toxic for ensuing generations. As John Lennon said, "Living is easy with eyes closed....." But I prefer to open my eyes and see what's going on, and try to do some improvements - or at least offer some rays of hope to kids and grandkids. They can survive on trash mountains, as kids do in Manila and other cities. Is base survival on trash heaps what you're aiming for?

10% saving in electricity? The world population is increasing by 1.1% a year, in 9 years we would be back where we started.

So, you're saying it's no use doing any sort of conservation or recycling? Sad.

[cooked]

I collect the plastic which comes fluttering down the road and give it to someone that recycles. Idem bottles, aluminium, old iron, keep pesticides down to a minimum. I also drive the car a lot and use washing powder, which more than does away with anything gained by recycling.

[thaibeachlovers]

Many if not most sceptics would agree that the planet is warming, just that the commonly claimed cause is bogus.

Besides, even if the cause is man made, nothing is being done that would change the outcome.

Just by using a computer in Thailand, I am probably contributing to CO2 levels because the electricity is probably generated in an oil fired power station.

So, what are YOU doing to reduce carbon levels?

BTW, the planet has been on a warming cycle since at least the mid 1970s, if not before.

I acknowledge that it's easy to feel powerless, in a world of 6 or 7 billion people, with dozens added every minute. Yet, it's akin to voting. If you say 'what's the use of voting, as my vote is so insignificant.....'. Then the candidate with the less cynical supporters wins - though he may not be the best of the contenders.

I'm doing some bits to reduce my 'carbon footprint.' By itself, it's insignificant, but if more people do similar things, it can make a difference. Regardless of how or to what degree it may affect GW, it will at least lessen pollution.

Some things:

Use motorbike instead of car when possible. Use bicycle or walk if motorbike not needed.

Fly on planes as little as possible.

Make a list of errands, so as to minimize zipping back and forth in town.

Keep lights (on) at a minimum, along with any other electronic devices.

Recycle. There are a plethora of ways. Example: use cut off plastic containers for waste cans or storing foods. The list is endless.

Take public transport instead of driving solo.

Switch to LPG from electric for water heating. Better than that, go solar. I do.

If you're off city water system, switch your water pump to solar powered DC from AC. After the system pays for itself in 5 years, you're pumping water for free. That's about half your electric bill, unless you have electricity-sucking appliances.

I actually agree with you that we all need to do our bit and I do all those except the last 2. I have repaired rather than bought new and recycled as much as possible for most of my life, but I have no illusions that it's going to make a jot of difference to the eventual outcome.

While you and I are walking or using public transport and not using planes much, everyone in Asia wants a car, cheap airlines mean more and more people fly, governments send thousands of lackeys by air to so called conferences on climate change when they could have done the whole thing by video conferencing, and just about everything I buy now is unrepairable.

Have you noticed how many electrically operated appliances are now for sale? So much for using gas.

Have you noticed how BIG American cars are? They haven't learned a thing about the impact of cars on the environment, and I doubt the CEO of GM cares anyway.

Sorry, but the only way to stop human climate destruction in any meaningful way is to have ZERO economic activity for about 50 years and there's fat chance of that happening.

Cooked has it right <just try to enjoy life and not harm your fellow beings.>.

[thaibeachlovers]

He meant the planet will deal with it once we're gone. I agree with him, humanity won't make it because the destruction of the environment is gaining pace despite the feeble, and dishonest attempts to save it. Your allegory of the Chinese Wall doesn't work. The design existed first, and then the small things were put together. The design now is set by a multitude of corporations going after the resources, and governments doing their biding, and you are the odd man out.

Nuclear fission waste can 60,000 years or more. The plastic waste in the 'Great Pacific Trash Vortex' will last hundreds of thousands of years. Its residue will last millions of years. That plastic (particles and ooze) is made from fossil fuels (materials and power source), and is estimated to be around 100 million tons currently, and is growing in size and density every day. Sure our species will die out in the future, and the planet will be destroyed eventurally. Yet, I'm addressing things we can do to try and make the place a bit more habitable and less toxic for ensuing generations. As John Lennon said, "Living is easy with eyes closed....." But I prefer to open my eyes and see what's going on, and try to do some improvements - or at least offer some rays of hope to kids and grandkids. They can survive on trash mountains, as kids do in Manila and other cities. Is base survival on trash heaps what you're aiming for?

10% saving in electricity? The world population is increasing by 1.1% a year, in 9 years we would be back where we started.

So, you're saying it's no use doing any sort of conservation or recycling? Sad.

Nuclear is the only realistic available technology that would make a difference to the carbon input to the atmosphere and I support it 100%. When Japan closes it's nuclear plants, carbon fuel will replace it, As said, Germany is replacing nuclear generation with carbon generation. Can't have it both ways.

I believe that the technology to reuse nuclear waste is a real possibility, or it can be stored so far beneath the earth's surface it will be safe.

Whether or not to conserve or recycle is a moral issue and is good to do, but it won't change anything re the end of the world as we know it.

[canuckamuck]

How did we get to a point where life sustaining carbon is more feared than radiation?

[thaibeachlovers]

How did we get to a point where life sustaining carbon is more feared than radiation?

Many cities are killing their inhabitants with pollution caused by burning fossil fuel.

The US navy has been using nuclear powered vessels for donkey's years without killing anyone from radiation ( that I know of ). If well built and maintained nuclear reactors were killing people on their ships, we would have heard about it by now ( Wikileaks ).