Quantcast

Global warming proceeding as fast as predicted; Global sea level rise *faster* than predicted.

Icarus 2012/12/02 10:22:23
Global warming is proceeding as fast as predicted in the IPCC reports -


global warming proceeding fast predicted ipcc reports


However, global sea level rise is above the fastest rate predicted in the IPCC reports -

reports global sea level rise fastest rate predicted ipcc reports


This is primarily due to the accelerating melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets -


rate predicted ipcc reports accelerating melting greenland antarctic ice sheets


Over 97.5% of the climate system's heat content resides in the oceans, which have been warming faster in the last decade than in the previous two.

Studies of ocean heat content in recent years (Lyman et al 2010, Levitus et al 2012) show heat accumulating in the oceans at the rate of 10^23 joules in the last decade, which is 2.7*10^19 joules or the equivalent of 430,000 Hiroshima explosions every single day -


ohc2000m

This rate of heating equates to 0.62W/m² or the same energy imbalance as would be caused by a rise of atmospheric CO₂ from 345 to 390ppm, calculated from the climate forcing formula for CO₂ of ΔF = 5.35 * ln(C/C₀). Hence we would have to reduce atmospheric CO₂ from the current 390ppm to 345ppm, merely to halt global warming where it is now (assuming we haven't already triggered off substantial positive carbon feedbacks). This proves that Dr. James Hansen was absolutely right when he advocated that the world should aim to reduce CO₂ to 350ppm as a first step to stabilising the climate and averting climate chaos.

So, to halt global warming we have to somehow sequester 350 billion tons of CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it in a stable form somewhere on Earth. Of course it's worse than that, because we're still producing another 30 billion tons every single year, so we would have to sequester that as well. Do you know of any technology and energy source that is capable of doing that? I don't.
So that's our predicament, and it doesn't look pretty. The emissions path we're on now means that we will be at 2°C above mid-20th Century global temperature by 2050, perhaps even 2040, and at least 4°C by 2100. Considering that the current 0.6°C has already caused an order of magnitude increase in extreme weather, the terminal decline of Arctic sea ice, shifting climate zones, disappearing glaciers and literally thousands of other physical and biological signs of a rapidly warming planet, this is to say the least, reckless. We need to stop pretending it isn't happening, and start figuring out what, if anything, we can do to bring global warming to a halt.
You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Pedro Doller ~Inc. 2012/12/11 06:29:22
    Pedro Doller ~Inc.
    +1
    CO2 is an end result not the cause. It rises after the fact. Fracked oil and gas wells are to used for CO2 sinks.

    That being said, you can look at any satelite photo of a coastal area and can see remnants of ancient shorelines mush higher and farther inland than todays coastlines. Also under the water are other ancient shores. So water goes up and water goes down.
  • Icarus Pedro D... 2012/12/11 07:18:13
    Icarus
    CO2 rise preceded and was responsible for the modern global warming trend. When atmospheric CO2 was higher in the geological past, the world was warmed by it, and that's what is happening again today.
  • Pedro D... Icarus 2012/12/11 16:12:16
    Pedro Doller ~Inc.
    +1
    I hear visa versa. CO2 happens after warming.
  • Icarus Pedro D... 2012/12/11 16:30:25
    Icarus
    Global warming and the rise of atmospheric CO2 act as a positive feedback loop. In the events you're thinking of, the warming occurred first. Now it's the CO2 rise occurring first. Either way the result is the same - i.e. amplified warming.
  • Pedro D... Icarus 2012/12/11 16:39:23
    Pedro Doller ~Inc.
    So what do you think about all the chem trails. So much of it going on now that it cannot be discredited as some cook stuff. Do you think it is a reasonable way to induce cooling or as some have suggested more sinister. Many of the chemicals sprayed have been collected and identified are very toxic. What's your feed back about going that route?
  • Icarus Pedro D... 2012/12/11 16:50:35
    Icarus
    I don't think there's any such thing as 'chem trails'. The only geo-engineering we should be doing is sequestering a few hundred billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere. Trouble is, there's no known practical way of doing that yet.
  • Pedro D... Icarus 2012/12/11 17:29:17
    Pedro Doller ~Inc.
    That what all the fracked wells are for. Big plans in the works for that and some are pumping CO2 down hole already.

    Chem trails are real.

    uuu
  • Icarus Pedro D... 2012/12/11 17:54:01
    Icarus
    About the CO2: Yes but that's only what they're sequestering from power station chimneys. All that will do is slow down the rate of accumulation in the atmosphere and postpone global warming, not halt it. We need to actively remove CO2 that we've *already* emitted.

    Vapour trails are real - that doesn't mean there are sinister chemicals in them.
  • goatman112003 2012/12/02 21:56:50
    goatman112003
    Whether its real or not ,no matter what you do you will see it come.
  • wamcalif 2012/12/02 20:42:19
    wamcalif
    niagra falls

    This used to be the Sonoran Desert.
  • Icarus wamcalif 2012/12/02 20:46:45
    Icarus
    It's disturbing when you find out just how volatile the Earth's climate can be, and how sensitive to small influences such as our greenhouse gas emissions.
  • wamcalif Icarus 2012/12/02 21:36:27
    wamcalif
    What's your opinion as to the psychological mindset of the naysayers? Is it some kind of deep-seated, desperate denial (head in the sand)? Political? Financial? Or a combination of factors?
  • Icarus wamcalif 2012/12/02 21:52:50
    Icarus
    +1
    For the architects of the global warming denial scam it's clearly financial - they don't want their fossil fuel industry profits threatened by any measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For the ones who've been taken in by it, I think it's more to do with aversion to change, aversion to the idea that the life most of us lead is trashing the planet. It's just easier to believe the story that means everything is OK, there's no problem.
  • wamcalif Icarus 2012/12/02 22:01:56
    wamcalif
    Some say we have already passed the point of 'No Return". That a domino effect, or cascade of disaster has already begun, and even immediate, drastic action will not mitigate what lies ahead. Hopefully that's also an extreme opinion.
  • Icarus wamcalif 2012/12/02 23:05:05
    Icarus
    From a purely physical point of view, we probably haven't passed that point yet, meaning that if we could rapidly reduce our warming influence then global warming would stop - it wouldn't run away on its own. Problem is, reducing our warming influence by that much would be a monumental task, and perhaps impossible.
  • John Hall 2012/12/02 19:48:39
    John Hall
    +3
    Don't care about global warming its a part of life you gotta deal with . Global warming maybe real but it ain't man made .
  • Icarus John Hall 2012/12/02 19:54:41
    Icarus
    +1
    The evidence of 200 years of climate science shows that it is man-made.
  • John Hall Icarus 2012/12/02 19:56:48
  • Icarus John Hall 2012/12/02 20:48:42
    Icarus
    Clearly not, since it's now been validated by several decades of real world observations.

    validated decades real world observations
    Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Hansen et al 1981
    http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/doc...
  • John Hall Icarus 2012/12/02 21:35:26
    John Hall
    +1
    How old is the earth and when did they start keeping records . What caused the ice caps to melt before records were kept .
  • Icarus John Hall 2012/12/02 21:57:08
    Icarus
    The Earth is 4.5 billion years old and we have abundant evidence that it has seen large and frequent climate changes throughout its history, triggered by natural forces much smaller than we are causing today with our greenhouse gas emissions. We're changing the climate at a rate ten thousand times faster than typical natural climate changes, and at least ten times as fast as even the fastest known warming (the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or PETM) -





    The PETM looks instantaneous in the second graph but we're changing the climate much faster even than that. Here's a meteorologist's view on the matter:

    PETM Warming vs. Current Warming

    During the PETM, around 5 billion tons of CO2 was released into the atmosphere per year. The Earth warmed around 6°C (11°F) over 20,000 years, although some estimates are that the warming was more like 9°C (16°F). Using the low end of that estimated range, the globe warmed around 0.025°C every 100 years. Today, the globe is warming at least ten times as fast, anywhere from 1 to 4°C every 100 years. In 2010, our fossil fuel burning released 35 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. By comparison, volcanoes release 0.2 billion tons of CO2 per year. How fast carbon enters the atmosphere translates to the how fast temperature increases, and the...
    The Earth is 4.5 billion years old and we have abundant evidence that it has seen large and frequent climate changes throughout its history, triggered by natural forces much smaller than we are causing today with our greenhouse gas emissions. We're changing the climate at a rate ten thousand times faster than typical natural climate changes, and at least ten times as fast as even the fastest known warming (the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum or PETM) -

    natural climate times fast fastest warming palaeocene-eocene thermal maximum petm

    natural climate times fast fastest warming palaeocene-eocene thermal maximum petm

    The PETM looks instantaneous in the second graph but we're changing the climate much faster even than that. Here's a meteorologist's view on the matter:

    PETM Warming vs. Current Warming

    During the PETM, around 5 billion tons of CO2 was released into the atmosphere per year. The Earth warmed around 6°C (11°F) over 20,000 years, although some estimates are that the warming was more like 9°C (16°F). Using the low end of that estimated range, the globe warmed around 0.025°C every 100 years. Today, the globe is warming at least ten times as fast, anywhere from 1 to 4°C every 100 years. In 2010, our fossil fuel burning released 35 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. By comparison, volcanoes release 0.2 billion tons of CO2 per year. How fast carbon enters the atmosphere translates to the how fast temperature increases, and the environmental and societal consequences of warming at such a break-neck speed could be devastating.

    http://www.wunderground.com/c...
    (more)
  • SK-pro impeachment 2012/12/02 19:41:17
  • cutter's falls 2012/12/02 19:32:13
  • Kaleokualoha 2012/12/02 19:28:30
  • Kaleoku... Kaleoku... 2012/12/02 20:09:21
    Kaleokualoha
    +2
    SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE (13 June 2012)

    The consensus of the scientific community is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. . . . the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."

    1. As a matter of FACT, "consensus" IS used regarding scientific judgment:

    [QUOTE]
    Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

    Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to o...






























































    &





    SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS REGARDING CLIMATE CHANGE (13 June 2012)

    The consensus of the scientific community is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. . . . the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability."

    1. As a matter of FACT, "consensus" IS used regarding scientific judgment:

    [QUOTE]
    Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]

    Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the publication process, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation in which those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating to outsiders that consensus has been reached can be difficult, because the 'normal' debates through which science progresses may seem to outsiders as contestation.[2]

    Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution[3][4] or the claimed linkage of MMR vaccinations and autism.[2]
    [END QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]


    2. Further, as a matter of fact, SCIENTISTS use the term "consensus" regarding climate change:

    [QUOTE]
    Scientific consensus on Climate Change

    A question that frequently arises in popular discussion of climate change is whether there is a scientific consensus on climate change.[125] Several scientific organizations have explicitly used the term "consensus" in their statements:

    American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006: "The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the Joint National Academies' statement."[32]

    US National Academy of Sciences: "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the science..."[126]

    Joint Science Academies' statement, 2005: "We recognise the international scientific consensus of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[127]

    Joint Science Academies' statement, 2001: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus."[13]

    American Meteorological Society, 2003: "The nature of science is such that there is rarely total agreement among scientists. Individual scientific statements and papers—the validity of some of which has yet to be assessed adequately—can be exploited in the policy debate and can leave the impression that the scientific community is sharply divided on issues where there is, in reality, a strong scientific consensus.... IPCC assessment reports are prepared at approximately five-year intervals by a large international group of experts who represent the broad range of expertise and perspectives relevant to the issues. The reports strive to reflect a consensus evaluation of the results of the full body of peer-reviewed research.... They provide an analysis of what is known and not known, the degree of consensus, and some indication of the degree of confidence that can be placed on the various statements and conclusions."[128] -
    [END QUOTE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...


    3. As a matter of FACT, scientific consensus is irrefutable. The list of concurring scientific organizations includes:

    American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/po...

    American Physical Society: http://www.aps.org/policy/sta...

    The Royal Society: http://royalsociety.org/polic...

    European Academy of Sciences and Arts: http://royalsociety.org/polic...

    American Association for the Advancement of Science: http://www.aaas.org/news/pres...

    American Chemical Society: http://www.aaas.org/news/pres...

    American Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/0...

    Australian Institute of Physics: http://www.aip.org.au/about.php

    American Geophysical Union: http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/po...

    American Public Health Association: http://www.apha.org/advocacy/...

    Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences: http://geoscience.ca/_ARCHIVE...

    European Science Foundation:

    American Medical Association: http://www.ama.com.au/node/4442

    World Health Organization: http://www.who.int/world-heal...

    American Statistical Association: http://www.amstat.org/news/cl...

    American Association of Petroleum Geologists: http://dpa.aapg.org/gac/state...

    American Association of State Climatologists: http://www.stateclimate.org/p...

    NASA: http://climate.nasa.gov/evide...

    National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/...

    4. As a matter of FACT, dissenting opinion is relegated to the fringe:

    [QUOTE]
    No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
    [END QUOTE - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ]
    (more)
  • ☆astac☆~PWCM 2012/12/02 19:22:46
    ☆astac☆~PWCM
    +3
    http://junkscience.com/2012/0...

    Apocalyptic movements are urgent. It’s now or never. If action is not taken quickly, it will be too late. Xhosa believers set about destroying their cattle and grain immediately. United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon (the global warming apocalypse owes more to the U.N. than to any other single institution) told the Global Environmental Forum in 2009, “We have just four months. Four months to secure the future of our planet.” More generously, Prince Charles in March 2009 gave us “100 months to alter our behavior before we risk catastrophic climate change and the unimaginable horror that this would bring.”

    However, as Landes points out, just because the apocalypse is wrong does not mean that its effects are not profound. In the case of the Xhosa, the beneficiaries of the false apocalypse were the British — the very people the Xhosa thought they were expelling through their sacrifice took over the lands the Xhosa could no longer cultivate. China, which is heavily investing in the energy we spurn, is the most probable beneficiary of our folly.

    How ironic it will be if, despite our pride in bringing down the Soviet Union without a shot, the twenty-first century, thanks to our self-destructive pursuit of an apocalyptic fantasy, belongs to a Communist dictatorship.
  • Icarus ☆astac☆... 2012/12/02 19:56:18
    Icarus
    +1
    You're behind the times. Even fossil fuel industry bosses are starting to admit that AGW is real. They just want ordinary people to pay to solve the problem, not them.
  • ☆astac☆... Icarus 2012/12/02 20:00:08
    ☆astac☆~PWCM
    Yawn
  • ☆astac☆~PWCM 2012/12/02 19:21:24
    ☆astac☆~PWCM
    +3
    http://junkscience.com/2012/0...

    Reformation In The ‘Church of Global Warming’?

    The Church of Global Warming — or is it climate change or maybe climate disruption — is currently enduring a crisis of belief somewhat akin to the time when, in 1517, Martin Luther engaged in his theological carpentry at the All Saint’s Church in Wittenberg.


    Former believers have become skeptics. NASA astronauts and scientists now doubt the whole business and the remaining true believers accuse them of joining the Flat Earth Society or becoming the equivalent of Holocaust deniers.

    Nearly 50 NASA scientists and astronauts took aim at NASA’s endorsement of global warming science. They claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world’s top space agency.

    “We feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,” they wrote. “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

    In their letter, the group said that thousands of years of data challenge modern-day claims that man-made carbon dioxide is causing climate change.

    “With hundreds ...



    http://junkscience.com/2012/0...

    Reformation In The ‘Church of Global Warming’?

    The Church of Global Warming — or is it climate change or maybe climate disruption — is currently enduring a crisis of belief somewhat akin to the time when, in 1517, Martin Luther engaged in his theological carpentry at the All Saint’s Church in Wittenberg.


    Former believers have become skeptics. NASA astronauts and scientists now doubt the whole business and the remaining true believers accuse them of joining the Flat Earth Society or becoming the equivalent of Holocaust deniers.

    Nearly 50 NASA scientists and astronauts took aim at NASA’s endorsement of global warming science. They claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world’s top space agency.

    “We feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,” they wrote. “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

    In their letter, the group said that thousands of years of data challenge modern-day claims that man-made carbon dioxide is causing climate change.

    “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from (NASA’s) Goddard Institute for Space Studies leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.” (Emphasis is theirs.)

    This is a direct slap at NASA’s James Hansen, a prominent acolyte of Al Gore and, one who is often quoted by Gore in his magic-lantern show, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Hansen is now well known as one who doctors what he then hopes passes as the underlying science in his global warming treatises to fit his desired result. Hansen was caught making up temperature records so that 2010 could be said to be another record breaking year in this ever more alarming, catastrophe-obsessed world.

    The NASA revolt comes on the heels of recantations by other prominent adherents of the global warming gospel. According to Germany’s “Der Spiegel,” Fritz Vahrenholt, a prominent socialist and former global warming doctrine apostle, wrote, “The climate catastrophe is not occurring.”
    (more)
  • Rogue_Loner 2012/12/02 18:57:17
  • Icarus Rogue_L... 2012/12/02 19:01:09
    Icarus
    +1
    I'm concerned about my future and my kids' future, not something that might happen in 50 million years' time.
  • Rogue_L... Icarus 2012/12/02 21:27:17
  • Icarus Rogue_L... 2012/12/02 21:58:25
    Icarus
    +1
    It's really not a laughing matter.
  • Kaleoku... Rogue_L... 2012/12/02 20:08:51
    Kaleokualoha
    That may be true in the long term, but the short term costs are unacceptable.
  • Rogue_L... Kaleoku... 2012/12/02 21:27:39
  • Kookieless The Sexy Nihilis... 2012/12/02 15:36:28
  • Duke----The Non Racist, Fun... 2012/12/02 14:55:50
    Duke----The Non Racist, Funny Duke !
    +3
    What the difference is this time from all the other Global warming events of the past that most of the people who are in denial about or just do not hear of is; that this warming shows no signs at all of slowing down, and if it hasn't yet, will go over the peak point of no return.

    This has been explained by scientist and easy enough for everyone to understand.

    However I've only seen it done once, and not on our mainstream news, but on channels that tell us the absolute truth about everything that is going on around the world.

    Most of the scientist that are saying that it is not going to be a problem have been bought off, government owned or oil industry owned.

    I'm glad I have seen the real logical analytic view of this event and have a good idea of what to expect for our future, though it will only slow my demise because of being more prepared than all those that will stay in denial unto the end.

    Thank you for your post
  • Icarus Duke---... 2012/12/02 15:12:37
    Icarus
    +2
    Well said Duke. Everyone will accept the reality of AGW in time but it's probably going to be too big a problem for us to fix by then. In fact, it probably is already. I hope we're good at adapting to a climate which is rapidly leaving the 'envelope' of Holocene stability.
  • Heptarch 2012/12/02 14:29:37
    Heptarch
    +3
    It doesn't matter anymore. The people who need to see this will never believe it.

    And even if they did, it's most likely too late to reverse course. We're already sliding down a hill with no brakes.
  • Icarus Heptarch 2012/12/02 14:55:15
    Icarus
    +1
    For the sake of my kids (and indeed me, I'm only 50) I wish you were wrong but fear you are right.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/08/22 15:43:24

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals