Vote: for reinstating Climate Change back Onto the G-20 agenda !!!

[Gator 17,261]

Nothing to do with numbers of hurricanes... most scientists say that the numbers have not changed... the issue is that the intensity is increasing and will continue to increase (and I would have thought this is probably borne out by the fact that we have recently seen a number of extremely powerful storms, including the strongest recorded (I believe).

"We should not be worried about the frequency of hurricanes; we should be worried about the frequency of intense hurricanes," said Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

http://www.livescience.com/28489-sandy-after-six-months.html

Thanks for the link. I'll also enclose a link that states that wind estimates prior to the 1940's were problematic.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea-eos-may012007.pdf

It also shows recent intensity levels to be down in one of their graphs.

Even if one took the premise that hurricanes in volume are down but intensity levels up, I'm not sure you can draw too many conclusions re "climate change".

[hardtack 10,426]

Thanks for the link. I'll also enclose a link that states that wind estimates prior to the 1940's were problematic.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/landsea-eos-may012007.pdf

It also shows recent intensity levels to be down in one of their graphs.

Even if one took the premise that hurricanes in volume are down but intensity levels up, I'm not sure you can draw too many conclusions re "climate change".

I wouldn't be so sure about that:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/warming-increases-typhoon-intensity-19049

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/science-nature/warmer-waters-are-making-pacific-typhoons-stronger-180955443/

"Tropical cyclones in the northwestern Pacific have strengthened about 10 percent since the 1970s because of warming ocean temperatures, researchers report this week in Science Advances. According to an extensive analysis of historical cyclone data, nearly 65 percent of typhoons now reach category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson scale, compared with around 45 percent just decades ago."

Edited November 26, 2015 by hardtack

[Gator 17,261]

I wouldn't be so sure about that:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/warming-increases-typhoon-intensity-19049

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/ist/?next=/science-nature/warmer-waters-are-making-pacific-typhoons-stronger-180955443/

"Tropical cyclones in the northwestern Pacific have strengthened about 10 percent since the 1970s because of warming ocean temperatures, researchers report this week in Science Advances. According to an extensive analysis of historical cyclone data, nearly 65 percent of typhoons now reach category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson scale, compared with around 45 percent just decades ago."

Yes, I've since sourced another graph that shows intensity levels have been higher of late, but overall less frequency.

Tropical cyclones need warm water as one of a handful of environmental conditions to form, so the two go hand in hand.

They also serve an important environmental role according to the U.S official weather service:

"Therein shows the purpose of tropical cyclones. Their role is to take heat, stored in the ocean, and transfer it to the upper atmosphere where the upper level winds carry that heat to the poles. This keeps the polar regions from being as cold as they could be and helps keep the tropics from overheating."

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/tropics/tc.htm

[Gator 17,261]

The Depths of the Climateers’ Deception

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/11/depths-climateers-deception/

[Gator 17,261]

Instead of an ice-free Arctic, we just had the shortest melt season on record – followed by record sea ice growth. Arctic sea ice extent is the highest for the date since at least 2004.

Yes, it's still well below the 1981-2010 average, but 950,000 square kilometres above the record low monthly average for October that occurred in 2007. Arctic sea ice extent for October 2015 averaged 7.72 million square kilometres in spite of the fact that Al Gore predicted it would be ice-free by 2008. Only 7.72 million square kilometres to go.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

Edited December 1, 2015 by ProDee

[Gator 17,261]

Dynamic atolls give hope that Pacific Islands can defy sea rise

It is widely predicted that low-lying coral reef islands will drown as a result of sea-level rise, leaving their populations as environmental refugees. But new evidence now suggests that these small islands will be more resilient to sea-level rise than we thought.

http://theconversation.com/dynamic-atolls-give-hope-that-pacific-islands-can-defy-sea-rise-25436

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

From the same link:

On the face of it, this is potentially good news for Pacific communities. The islands they call home may be less vulnerable than is commonly thought.

But our findings also suggest that although the islands may not be swamped by rising seas, they are likely to change in size and shift their position on the surface of reefs. The rate of these changes may also increase as sea level rises.

This raises questions for their ongoing habitation. How will physical changes to the islands affect drinking water supplies, and how will communities need to adapt their farming practices? Questions about island change must be addressed urgently in order to inform decision making and secure the future of Pacific nations.

So, island change is still bad I guess?

[hardtack 10,426]

From the same link:

On the face of it, this is potentially good news for Pacific communities. The islands they call home may be less vulnerable than is commonly thought.

But our findings also suggest that although the islands may not be swamped by rising seas, they are likely to change in size and shift their position on the surface of reefs. The rate of these changes may also increase as sea level rises.

This raises questions for their ongoing habitation. How will physical changes to the islands affect drinking water supplies, and how will communities need to adapt their farming practices? Questions about island change must be addressed urgently in order to inform decision making and secure the future of Pacific nations.

So, island change is still bad I guess?

That doesn't fit in with Pro Dee's agenda. Also, it seems that the sea levels will continue to rise and surely that doesn't get ignored simply because these islands MAY no longer be in danger of being submerged. Surely the problem goes a little deeper (pardon the pun) than that?

[Gator 17,261]

From the same link:

On the face of it, this is potentially good news for Pacific communities. The islands they call home may be less vulnerable than is commonly thought.

But our findings also suggest that although the islands may not be swamped by rising seas, they are likely to change in size and shift their position on the surface of reefs. The rate of these changes may also increase as sea level rises.

This raises questions for their ongoing habitation. How will physical changes to the islands affect drinking water supplies, and how will communities need to adapt their farming practices? Questions about island change must be addressed urgently in order to inform decision making and secure the future of Pacific nations.

So, island change is still bad I guess?

The fool above me (hardtack) does himself no favours. I share information that is informative. That article was informative, hence it was shared. Did he think I stopped reading at the part you quoted ? Unlike the Left, conservatives fight for what's right, not a cause.

The climate always changes. It always has and it always will. These communities face challenges and they'll need to adapt. Countries like Australia will help and in many cases the islands' ecosystems will help too.

Edited December 1, 2015 by ProDee

[Wrecker45 3,378]

That doesn't fit in with Pro Dee's agenda. Also, it seems that the sea levels will continue to rise and surely that doesn't get ignored simply because these islands MAY no longer be in danger of being submerged. Surely the problem goes a little deeper (pardon the pun) than that?

How does Pro Dee have an agenda? Do you think the climate is static? He has pointed out the climate has changed and will always change. What agenda is that?

[Gator 17,261]

http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean.

Edited December 1, 2015 by ProDee

[hardtack 10,426]

How does Pro Dee have an agenda? Do you think the climate is static? He has pointed out the climate has changed and will always change. What agenda is that?

We all agree that weather is not static... it is just the degree and speed with which it has changed/is changing that is the point of contention. His agenda (much like yours I suppose) is that anyone who believes in climate change is an hysterical left wing nutter, while unlike the left, the conservatives fight for what is right. And then, as if to prove his reasoned calm and conservative approach, proceeds to go on a posting frenzy of seemingly random items from the 1920's and beyond, regardless of whether they hold any water or not. He claims that he shared this particular article because it was informative, yet he chose to selectively cite a very small part of it, to the effect that rising sea levels are not a bad thing as these islands will possibly be safe, while making no mention of the part that states the oceans will continue to rise (and THAT is the real issue). No agenda? Yeah, sure...

I am convinced that most denialists (and they are not restricted to the left, by the way) are more concerned about their hip-pockets and saving a few dollars, than they are about saving lives. Pro Dee always loves to take the moral high ground, and would have us believe that he is always right (and I'm sure that in his mind, he is)... so what's the point in arguing with him? I have no issue with him referring to me as a fool for not agreeing with him, because when it comes down to it, that old adage rings true... we do tend to see our own worst faults in others.

[Gator 17,261]

We all agree that weather is not static... it is just the degree and speed with which it has changed/is changing that is the point of contention. His agenda (much like yours I suppose) is that anyone who believes in climate change is an hysterical left wing nutter, while unlike the left, the conservatives fight for what is right. And then, as if to prove his reasoned calm and conservative approach, proceeds to go on a posting frenzy of seemingly random items from the 1920's and beyond, regardless of whether they hold any water or not. He claims that he shared this particular article because it was informative, yet he chose to selectively cite a very small part of it, to the effect that rising sea levels are not a bad thing as these islands will possibly be safe, while making no mention of the part that states the oceans will continue to rise (and THAT is the real issue). No agenda? Yeah, sure...

I am convinced that most denialists (and they are not restricted to the left, by the way) are more concerned about their hip-pockets and saving a few dollars, than they are about saving lives. Pro Dee always loves to take the moral high ground, and would have us believe that he is always right (and I'm sure that in his mind, he is)... so what's the point in arguing with him? I have no issue with him referring to me as a fool for not agreeing with him, because when it comes down to it, that old adage rings true... we do tend to see our own worst faults in others.

I quoted the first paragraph, which is common when siting a linked article.

I did the same in the next one above yours.

As for hip pocket ? It's bloody tax payers' money being wasted on a fraud. Mine, yours. the poor, the rich, every bloody bodies. It's the effing principle, as much as the sheer stupidity and lies.

[hardtack 10,426]

I quoted the first paragraph, which is common when siting a linked article.

I did the same in the next one above yours.

As for hip pocket ? It's bloody tax payers' money being wasted on a fraud. Mine, yours. the poor, the rich, every bloody bodies. It's the effing principle, as much as the sheer stupidity and lies.

You consider it fraud (something has not been proven)... I consider it an investment in my childrens' future... maybe you don't have kids? You seem to be concerned with the here and now and not in securing the best for future generations... well, I suppose that is a conservative approach.

[Gator 17,261]

 

You consider it fraud (something has not been proven)... I consider it an investment in my childrens' future... maybe you don't have kids?  You seem to be concerned with the here and now and not in securing the best for future generations... well, I suppose that is a conservative approach.

 

I have children.  I also recognise a hoax when I see it.

 

The world has warmed by .8 degrees in 135 years.  I get that type of difference walking downstairs in my house to another room.

 

Carbon dioxide is .04% of the atmosphere, which means 99.96% are other elements of our atmosphere.  It is infinitesimal.  

 

Out of that .04% man contributes 3% of CO2.  We're not responsible for 97%.  Of the 3%, Australia makes up about 1.5%.  Do the effing maths.  Our contribution is NOTHING.  Our billions don't do ANYTHING.  And you think you're helping your children ?  

 

Not to mention that the planet is in a relatively cool period.  And you can't even tell me what temperature you'd like it to be.

 

It beggars belief.

Edited December 2, 2015 by ProDee

[mauriesy 7,160]

You could argue with a bit more sophistication than that.

So the negative effect of an increase from 350ppm to 450ppm of carbon in the upper atmosphere 'beggars belief'?

These are all 'infinitesimal by your argument:

• 2 parts per million of chlorine in water is the difference between getting typhoid and having a sanitised, clean water supply.
• An increase from 1ppm to 5ppm of fluoride in water is the difference between preventing tooth decay and possibly causing liver damage.
• A level of 34-51 parts per million of chlorine gas in air will kill you in an hour.

(BTW, I don't think the planet really cares what the temperature difference is betwen one of your rooms and another.)

[Gator 17,261]

26 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

You could argue with a bit more sophistication than that.

So the negative effect of an increase from 350ppm to 450ppm of carbon in the upper atmosphere 'beggars belief'?

These are all 'infinitesimal by your argument:

• 2 parts per million of chlorine in water is the difference between getting typhoid and having a sanitised, clean water supply.
• An increase from 1ppm to 5ppm of fluoride in water is the difference between preventing tooth decay and possibly causing liver damage.
• A level of 34-51 parts per million of chlorine gas in air will kill you in an hour.

(BTW, I don't think the planet really cares what the temperature difference is betwen one of your rooms and another.)

You'll have to scroll back.  We've covered our present 400 ppm in previous posts - don't worry it's in the last few pages.  

Btw, my point was that Australia's contribution is insignificant as it's 1.5% of the 3% contributed by man, as opposed to the 97% that isn't contributed to by man. 

Edited December 2, 2015 by ProDee

[Gator 17,261]

Come clean, Hardtack.  Are you Betsy ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee6b_jY1YsY

 

[Gator 17,261]

On 11/23/2015, 10:37:05, ProDee said:

 

It’s amazing isn’t it ?  400 ppm or 400 parts per million.  It’s an infinitesimal amount – 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere.  But yes, it has a significant impact, as it makes all life on Earth possible.  Eliminate CO2 and plants die.  Human and animal life wouldn’t be far behind.  Little wonder CO2 is called by some the “gas of life”.  If CO2 falls to 220 ppm plants begin to get sick.  There is empirical evidence that many crops and plant foods flourish at much higher CO2 levels than 400 ppm.

 

Our planet began to emerge from the Little Ice Age around 1800 when CO2 was 280 ppm.  In that time average global temperatures have increased a whopping 0.8°Celsius.  If I walked downstairs into another room I’d experience that change in my own house.  It’s worth noting that temperatures in the past have been higher with less CO2 ppm.

 

 

The last time CO2 was similar to current levels was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures.  Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008).  In the medieval warm period 900-1250 temperatures were 2°C higher than now.  The point is that there are literally hundreds of factors that govern Earth’s climate and temperature – not just CO2.  The factors include solar activity, volcanic activity, water vapour and ocean circulation.

 

I have a question for you, Hardtack.  What’s your ideal global temperature ?  There are arguments that a warmer client would be more beneficial than what we have now.  And what’s the likelihood at any one time that the Earth, which is 4.5 billion years old, will be in a “perfect” climate zone ?

 

To make it easier for you, Maurie.

[hardtack 10,426]

Safe level of CO2 in atmosphere is 350 ppm - anything over is considered unsafe

Just exceeded 400ppm and remained above 400ppm for over one month for the first time in recorded history

The last time levels were this high was pre human existence

At the Mauna Loa Observatory, carbon dioxide levels have increased by about 24 percent since the beginning of their recording in 1958.

Quotes (http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/) - but what would they know:

Passing the 400 mark reminds me that we are on an inexorable march to 450 ppm and much higher levels. These were the targets for 'stabilization' suggested not too long ago. The world is quickening the rate of accumulation of CO2, and has shown no signs of slowing this down. It should be a psychological tripwire for everyone.
– Dr. Michael Gunson
Global Change & Energy Program Manager; Project Scientist, Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 satellite mission - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

CO2 concentrations haven't been this high in millions of years. Even more alarming is the rate of increase in the last five decades and the fact that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds or thousands of years. This milestone is a wake up call that our actions in response to climate change need to match the persistent rise in CO2. Climate change is a threat to life on Earth and we can no longer afford to be spectators.
– Dr. Erika Podest
Carbon and water cycle research scientist

We are a society that has inadvertently chosen the double-black diamond run without having learned to ski first. It will be a bumpy ride.
– Dr. Gavin Schmidt
Climatologist and climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Scary scorecard: catastrophic climate change 400, humanity zero. Listen to the scientists, vote wisely, beat carbon addiction and put humanity into the game.
– Dr. William Patzert
Research Oceanographer

In some ways, 400 ppm is just a number, another milestone that we are blasting past at a rate that is now exceeding 2 ppm per year. Over time, this number takes on greater weight. It brings home the fact that fossil fuel combustion, land use practices, and human activities have increased the CO2 concentration in Earth’s atmosphere by more the 20 percent since I was born. Wow!
– Dr. David Crisp
Principal Investigator, Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 satellite mission; works on the Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) Project, a joint effort with the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency

We've put the planet on a high-carb diet for over a century. Time to get lean and go green.
– Dr. Josh Willis
Project Scientist, JASON-3 ocean satellite mission; Ocean warming and sea level rise expert

Reaching 400pm is a stark reminder that the world is still not on a track to limit CO2 emissions and therefore climate impacts. We're still on the 'business-as-usual' path, and adding more and more CO2, which will impact the generations ahead of us. Passing this mark should motivate us to advocate for focused efforts to reduce emissions across the globe.
– Dr. Annmarie Eldering
Deputy Project Scientist, Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 satellite mission – NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Current [atmospheric] CO2 values are more than 100 ppm higher than at any time in the last one million years (and maybe higher than any time in the last 25 million years). This new record represents an increase of 85 ppm in the 55 years since David Keeling began making measurements at Mauna Loa. Even more disturbing than the magnitude of this change is the fact that the rate of CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing over the last few decades, meaning that future increases will happen faster. When averaged over 55 years, the increase has been about 1.55 ppm CO2 per year. However, the most recent data suggest that the annual increase is more than 2.75 ppm CO2 per year.
These increases in atmospheric CO2 are causing real, significant changes in the Earth system now, not in some distant future climate, and will continue to be felt for centuries to come. We can study these impacts to better understand the way the Earth will respond to future changes, but unless serious actions are taken immediately, we risk the next threshold being a point of no return in mankind's unintended global-scale geoengineering experiment.
– Dr. Charles Miller
Researcher specializing in the remote sensing of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases; Principal investigator, Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE) mission

As a college professor who lectures on climate change, I will have to find a way to look into those 70 sets of eyes that have learned all semester long to trust me and somehow explain to those students, my students – who still believe in their young minds that success mostly depends on good grades and hard work, who believe in fairness, evenhandedness and opportunity – how much we as people have altered our environment, and that they will end up facing the consequences of our inability to act.
– Laura Faye Tenenbaum
Oceanography Professor, Glendale Community College; Communications Specialist for NASA's Global Climate Change Website

Reaching the 400 ppm mark should be a reminder for us that carbon dioxide levels have been shooting up at an alarming rate in the recent past due to human activity. Levels that high have only been reached during the Pliocene era, when temperatures and sea level were higher. However, Earth's climate had never had to deal with such a drastic change as the current increase, which is, therefore, likely to have unexpected implications for our environment.
– Dr. Carmen Boening
Scientist, Climate Physics Group – NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

=================================================

BBC educational resource:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/aqa/earth/earthsatmosphererev5.shtml
“The Earth’s atmosphere today contains around 21 percent oxygen and about 0.04 percent carbon dioxide.”

“Today, the burning of fossil fuels (coal and oil) is adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere faster than it can be removed. This means that the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing, contributing to global warming. It also means that the oceans are becoming more acidic as they dissolve increasing amounts of carbon dioxide. This has an impact on the marine environment, for example making the shells of sea creatures thinner than normal.”

 

=================================================

 

http://phys.org/news/2008-11-theory-carbon-dioxide-danger-zone.html

In 2008 levels were at 385ppm… this means an increase of 15ppm per million in just 7 years (so far their prediction of levels increasing at 2ppm per year is precisely on track).  The very last sentence quoted below is probably the most important.

If climate disasters are to be averted, atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) must be reduced below the levels that already exist today, according to a study published in Open Atmospheric Science Journal by a group of 10 scientists from the United States, the United Kingdom and France.

The authors, who include two Yale scientists, assert that to maintain a planet similar to that on which civilization developed, an optimum CO2 level would be less than 350 ppm — a dramatic change from most previous studies, which suggested a danger level for CO2 is likely to be 450 ppm or higher. Atmospheric CO2 is currently 385 parts per million (ppm) and is increasing by about 2 ppm each year from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) and from the burning of forests.
“This work and other recent publications suggest that we have reached CO2 levels that compromise the stability of the polar ice sheets,” said author Mark Pagani, Yale professor of geology and geophysics. “How fast ice sheets and sea level will respond are still poorly understood, but given the potential size of the disaster, I think it’s best not to learn this lesson firsthand.”

==============================================

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZxOlCN10

 

[hardtack 10,426]

On 3/12/2015, 10:12:49, ProDee said:

Come clean, Hardtack.  Are you Betsy ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee6b_jY1YsY

 

Certainly not PD... but I would have no trouble in believing you're a Patsy.

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

15 hours ago, hardtack said:

 

Passing the 400 mark reminds me that we are on an inexorable march to 450 ppm and much higher levels. These were the targets for 'stabilization' suggested not too long ago. The world is quickening the rate of accumulation of CO2, and has shown no signs of slowing this down. It should be a psychological tripwire for everyone.
– Dr. Michael Gunson
Global Change & Energy Program Manager; Project Scientist, Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 satellite mission - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

 

I find this particularly interesting as Wrecker or ProDee (can't remember which) went out of his way to state that satellite data is more reliable than data obtained on the ground.

[daisycutter 29,343]

3 hours ago, Choke said:

I find this particularly interesting as Wrecker or ProDee (can't remember which) went out of his way to state that satellite data is more reliable than data obtained on the ground.

well no-one has ever been talking about ground level co2, it's always been atmospheric co2

[Wrecker45 3,378]

12 hours ago, Choke said:

I find this particularly interesting as Wrecker or ProDee (can't remember which) went out of his way to state that satellite data is more reliable than data obtained on the ground.

Choke - that was me and I don't believe it can be questioned that sattelites data is more reliable. The weather stations on the ground are " homogenised" the sattelite data is pure. 

[bing181 9,007]

8 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

Choke - that was me and I don't believe it can be questioned that sattelites data is more reliable. The weather stations on the ground are " homogenised" the sattelite data is pure. 

The mind boggles.