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 -
However, global sea level rise is above the fastest rate predicted in the IPCC reports -
This is primarily due to the accelerating melting of the Greenland and 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 -
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.
However, global sea level rise is above the fastest rate predicted in the IPCC reports -
This is primarily due to the accelerating melting of the Greenland and 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 -
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.
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.
Chem trails are real.
Vapour trails are real - that doesn't mean there are sinister chemicals in them.
This used to be the Sonoran Desert.
Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Hansen et al 1981
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/doc...
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 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:
http://www.wunderground.com/c...
during land mass seperation
have a guesstimate model
when the sky will fall?
we get hit by a biggy solar flare
yea then I can see the sky falling
no more cool northren lights
bummer
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...
&
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/... ]
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.
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 ...
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.”
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
And even if they did, it's most likely too late to reverse course. We're already sliding down a hill with no brakes.