Yes, as long as people keep ignoring the problem and pumping more C02 into the atmosphere, the world will keep warming. If we stopped tomorrow, the world would still carry on warming until an equilibrium is reached, which could take more than fifty years and then it would stop at a new temperature. This is due to climate lag, basically because it takes so long for the huge mass of the oceans to warm and why people talk about limiting rise to 2 or 4 C as it's understood that the C02 in the atmosphere already will cause continuing rise.As it is this excess CO2 that is already up there in the atmosphere causing the warming and as none of the renewables or cuts remove not a single solitary molecule of the excess CO2 it is a lost cause. Until and not untill someone can come up with a way to remove the excess CO2 from the atmosphere and lock it away the earth will continue warming come what may
Global Warming/Climate Change 2
Re: Global Warming 2
-
Scotian2012
- Professional
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 2:35 pm
Re: Global Warming 2
I listened to a worrying interview today that said around 20 years ago, the ph acidity levels in oceans, through absorbtion of carbon dioxide in the air, would rise to a point by the 22nd century where it was difficult to sustain marine life.
The worrying thing is, we have almost reached that status now nevermind 22nd century. The result is shellfish and coral die off, affecting the whole eco-system. It would take a long time (centuries) to reverse even if we stopped polluting with fossil fuels, but at the current pollution rates, will increase 4-fold over the next century.
I guess that'll be an end to wind-surfing in Hua Hin.
The worrying thing is, we have almost reached that status now nevermind 22nd century. The result is shellfish and coral die off, affecting the whole eco-system. It would take a long time (centuries) to reverse even if we stopped polluting with fossil fuels, but at the current pollution rates, will increase 4-fold over the next century.
I guess that'll be an end to wind-surfing in Hua Hin.
Re: Global Warming 2
steve now please explain to me how carbon taxes are going to change the facts you have just giveni ask because it seems the GW fraternity think its a climate saver and the only game on the block
when in fact it is a blatant con
A Greatfull Guest of Thailand
Re: Global Warming 2
I don't remember mentioning carbon taxes, I was discussing changing to using more renewable energy.steve now please explain to me how carbon taxes are going to change the facts...
Re: Global Warming 2
I think i covered renewables and they wont do squat except fool people into feeling they are doing somethingAs Steve has pointed out the CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere was sequestered and locked up millions of years ago. As it is this excess CO2 that is already up there in the atmosphere causing the warming and as none of the renewables or cuts remove not a single solitary molecule of the excess CO2 it is a lost cause
a bit like playing the violin on the deck of the titanic
A Greatfull Guest of Thailand
Re: Global Warming 2
Certainly they would have done much more if we'd started looking into it in 1975 when it first became apparent that there was a serious problem!I think i covered renewables and they wont do squat....
Re: Global Warming 2
Global warming slowdown linked to cooler Pacific waters .......Climate sceptics and some scientists have argued that since 1998, there has been no significant global warming despite ever increasing amounts of carbon dioxide being emitted.
For supporters of the idea that man made emissions are driving up temperatures, the pause has become increasingly difficult to ignore.
Scientists have tried to explain it using a number of different theories but so far there is no general agreement on the cause.
"For people on the street it is very confusing as to which story is closer to the truth," lead author, Prof Shang-Ping Xie from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography told BBC News.......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23854904
For supporters of the idea that man made emissions are driving up temperatures, the pause has become increasingly difficult to ignore.
Scientists have tried to explain it using a number of different theories but so far there is no general agreement on the cause.
"For people on the street it is very confusing as to which story is closer to the truth," lead author, Prof Shang-Ping Xie from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography told BBC News.......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23854904
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Source
Re: Global Warming 2
Not just theory to argue about with this story. It's really happening to these folks, regardless of root cause. I can see where it's going to be a big issue for the US and other countries in coming years. Pete 
" As Pacific Islands Flood, A Climate-Driven Exodus Grows
Residents of Micronesia and others are relocating to Hawaii or the mainland U.S. as the atoll nations disappear........"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ven-exodus
" As Pacific Islands Flood, A Climate-Driven Exodus Grows
Residents of Micronesia and others are relocating to Hawaii or the mainland U.S. as the atoll nations disappear........"
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ven-exodus
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Source
Re: Global Warming 2
'How the oceans can clean themselves'
Fascinating and worthy idea from a student
Fascinating and worthy idea from a student
Re: Global Warming 2
This is quite a large article in the Mail. I've selected some of the main points...
'Global warming is just HALF what we said'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... wrong.html
Missed this one from last week...
THE IPCC CHANGES ITS STORY
What they say: ‘The rate of warming since 1951 [has been] 0.12C per decade.’
What this means: In their last hugely influential report in 2007, the IPCC claimed the world was warming at 0.2C per decade. Here they admit there has been a massive cut in the speed of global warming – although it’s buried in a section on the recent warming ‘pause’. The true figure, it now turns out, is not only just over half what they thought – it’s below their lowest previous estimate.
What they say: ‘Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.’
What this means: As recently as October 2012, in an earlier draft of this report, the IPCC was adamant that the world is warmer than at any time for at least 1,300 years. Their new inclusion of the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ – long before the Industrial Revolution and its associated fossil fuel burning – is a concession that its earlier statement is highly questionable.
What they say: ‘Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 – 15 years.’
What this means: The ‘models’ are computer forecasts, which the IPCC admits failed to ‘see... a reduction in the warming trend’. In fact, there has been no statistically significant warming at all for almost 17 years – as first reported by this newspaper last October, when the Met Office tried to deny this ‘pause’ existed.In its 2012 draft, the IPCC didn’t mention it either. Now it not only accepts it is real, it admits that its climate models totally failed to predict it.
What they say: ‘There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.’
What this means: The IPCC knows the pause is real, but has no idea what is causing it. It could be natural climate variability, the sun, volcanoes – and crucially, that the computers have been allowed to give too much weight to the effect carbon dioxide emissions (greenhouse gases) have on temperature change.
What they say: ‘Climate models now include more cloud and aerosol processes, but there remains low confidence in the representation and quantification of these processes in models.’
What this means: Its models don’t accurately forecast the impact of fundamental aspects of the atmosphere – clouds, smoke and dust.
What they say: ‘Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations... There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.’
What this means: The models said Antarctic ice would decrease. It’s actually increased, and the IPCC doesn’t know why.
What they say: ‘ECS is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5C... The lower limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the [2007 report], reflecting the evidence from new studies.’
What this means: ECS – ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ – is an estimate of how much the world will warm every time carbon dioxide levels double. A high value means we’re heading for disaster. Many recent studies say that previous IPCC claims, derived from the computer models, have been way too high. It looks as if they’re starting to take notice, and so are scaling down their estimate for the first time.
'Global warming is just HALF what we said'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... wrong.html
Missed this one from last week...
THE IPCC CHANGES ITS STORY
What they say: ‘The rate of warming since 1951 [has been] 0.12C per decade.’
What this means: In their last hugely influential report in 2007, the IPCC claimed the world was warming at 0.2C per decade. Here they admit there has been a massive cut in the speed of global warming – although it’s buried in a section on the recent warming ‘pause’. The true figure, it now turns out, is not only just over half what they thought – it’s below their lowest previous estimate.
What they say: ‘Surface temperature reconstructions show multi-decadal intervals during the Medieval Climate Anomaly (950-1250) that were in some regions as warm as in the late 20th Century.’
What this means: As recently as October 2012, in an earlier draft of this report, the IPCC was adamant that the world is warmer than at any time for at least 1,300 years. Their new inclusion of the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ – long before the Industrial Revolution and its associated fossil fuel burning – is a concession that its earlier statement is highly questionable.
What they say: ‘Models do not generally reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the last 10 – 15 years.’
What this means: The ‘models’ are computer forecasts, which the IPCC admits failed to ‘see... a reduction in the warming trend’. In fact, there has been no statistically significant warming at all for almost 17 years – as first reported by this newspaper last October, when the Met Office tried to deny this ‘pause’ existed.In its 2012 draft, the IPCC didn’t mention it either. Now it not only accepts it is real, it admits that its climate models totally failed to predict it.
What they say: ‘There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by unpredictable climate variability, with possible contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic, and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in some models, from too strong a response to increasing greenhouse-gas forcing.’
What this means: The IPCC knows the pause is real, but has no idea what is causing it. It could be natural climate variability, the sun, volcanoes – and crucially, that the computers have been allowed to give too much weight to the effect carbon dioxide emissions (greenhouse gases) have on temperature change.
What they say: ‘Climate models now include more cloud and aerosol processes, but there remains low confidence in the representation and quantification of these processes in models.’
What this means: Its models don’t accurately forecast the impact of fundamental aspects of the atmosphere – clouds, smoke and dust.
What they say: ‘Most models simulate a small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent, in contrast to the small increasing trend in observations... There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent.’
What this means: The models said Antarctic ice would decrease. It’s actually increased, and the IPCC doesn’t know why.
What they say: ‘ECS is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5C... The lower limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the [2007 report], reflecting the evidence from new studies.’
What this means: ECS – ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’ – is an estimate of how much the world will warm every time carbon dioxide levels double. A high value means we’re heading for disaster. Many recent studies say that previous IPCC claims, derived from the computer models, have been way too high. It looks as if they’re starting to take notice, and so are scaling down their estimate for the first time.
Re: Global Warming 2
More ice than last year is still bad news for the Arctic
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/09 ... he-arctic/
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/09 ... he-arctic/
UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Due
Every 5 or 6 years a few hundred scientists review the existing literature, then produce the UN summary climate change report. *Yawn*. Agencies, governments, interest groups, political parties, news outlets all claim to have inside info on what will be published next week. Each of such entities claims they have proof positive the soon to be released report supports their, and only their, existing position. It's a miracle!
If the UN had a sense of humor, they're release a two page report. Page 1 would say we've managed to summarize the report in a single page. The second page would be one of the standard cards from the Rorschach (inkblot) test.
If the UN had a sense of humor, they're release a two page report. Page 1 would say we've managed to summarize the report in a single page. The second page would be one of the standard cards from the Rorschach (inkblot) test.
-
Dannie Boy
- Hero
- Posts: 13913
- Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:12 pm
- Location: Closer to Cha Am than Hua Hin
Re: Global Warming 2
Report about to be issued will claim a direct link between global warming and human activity - more here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24204323
-
clinton114
- Member
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2013 7:57 am
Re: Global Warming 2
They may have lost one in the Bay of Bengal, but Pakistan just got one thanks to an earthquake: "...The 7.8 magnitude quake struck 145 miles southeast of Dalbandin in Pakistan's quake-prone province of Baluchistan, which borders Iran, on Tuesday. The earthquake was so powerful that it caused the seabed to rise and create a small, mountain-like island about 600 meters off Pakistan's Gwadar coastline in the Arabian Sea." All global warming's fault
STEVE G wrote:Disputed Bay of Bengal island disappears into sea
An island that has been at the centre of a dispute between India and Bangladesh for three decades has disappeared beneath rising seas.
Re: Global Warming 2
Recently published NASA study (map) of premature mortality rates linked to air pollution. White areas no increase in mortality due to air quality, the browner the more early deaths due to air quality, blue areas are most improved in air quality in recent years. Looks like the Americas and Australia are doing pretty well while Europe and South Asia are the biggest polluters.
My brain is like an Internet browser; 12 tabs are open and 5 of them are not responding, there's a GIF playing in an endless loop,... and where is that annoying music coming from?