How Bad Is Global Warming?

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Luther Blissett » Tue Oct 27, 2015 2:17 pm

Permafrost warming in parts of Alaska 'is accelerating'
By Matt McGrath
Environment correspondent, BBC News

One of the world's leading experts on permafrost has told BBC News that the recent rate of warming of this frozen layer of earth is "unbelievable".

Prof Vladimir Romanovsky said that he expected permafrost in parts of Alaska would start to thaw by 2070.

Researchers worry that methane frozen within the permafrost will be released, exacerbating climate change

The professor said a rise in permafrost temperatures in the past four years convinced him warming was real.

Permafrost is perennially frozen soil that has been below zero degrees C for at least two years.

It's found underneath about 25% of the northern hemisphere, mainly around the Arctic - but also in the Antarctic and Alpine regions.

It can range in depth from one metre under the ground all the way down to 1,500m.

Scientists are concerned that in a warming world, some of this permanently frozen layer will thaw out and release methane gas contained in the icy, organic material.

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and researchers estimate that the amount in permafrost equates to more than double the amount of carbon currently in the atmosphere.

Melting fast
Worries over the current state of permafrost have been reinforced by Prof Romanovsky.

A professor at the University of Alaska, he is also the head of the Global Terrestrial Network for Permafrost, the primary international monitoring program me.

He says that in the northern region of Alaska, the permafrost has been warming at about one-tenth of a degree Celsius per year since the mid 2000s.

"When we started measurements it was -8C, but now it's coming to almost -2.5 on the Arctic coast. It is unbelievable - that's the temperature we should have here in central Alaska around Fairbanks but not there," he told BBC News.

In Alaska, the warming of the permafrost has been linked to trees toppling, roads buckling and the development of sinkholes.

Prof Romanovsky says that the current evidence indicates that in parts of Alaska, around Prudhoe Bay on the North Slope, the permafrost will not just warm up but will thaw by about 2070-80.

"It was assumed it would be stable for this century but it seems that's not true any more," he told BBC News.

'Convincing' case
He says the current permafrost evidence has convinced him that global warming is real and not just a product of natural variation.

"Ten years ago, if you asked permafrost scientists around the globe I would say 98% would say: 'The thawing at Prudhoe Bay won't happen by the end of this century'," Prof Romanovsky explained.

"But now I think it is very possible, and I changed my opinion right during the last four years. I was in the 98%, but now I say it's possible.

"About 10 years ago when I looked at our records, I said that they all show that permafrost temperatures should cool down a bit on multi-decadal timescales.

"I told myself that if it would not cool down I would 100% believe in global warming, and now I believe 100% that we have this very serious trend of warming," he said.

While engineering can prevent the thawing of permafrost underneath important structures, there is little that can be done to prevent the general melting of the layer.

Scientists believe that the thawing will be gradual, with no major tipping point. There are many unknown factors about the rate of thawing and whether the impacts will be the same across all Arctic regions.

There are also concerns about the bubbling of methane from undersea permafrost in the shallow waters off the Russian Arctic, but researchers say they do not know yet how significant this might be.

There is also a worry about giant sinkholes, some of which appeared in Siberia last year. Experts say that melting permafrost may have unleashed enough methane to cause the ejection of material that formed the holes.

Indirect impacts
Another expert in the field acknowledged that while the problems in Alaska were serious, scientists were getting a better handle on the amounts of carbon that were likely to be released.

However, Prof Ted Schuur from Northern Arizona University recognised that, despite the scientific progress, the fact was that thawing would occur and methane would leach into the atmosphere.

"Even if we stopped all emissions today, the Arctic has momentum where there is going to be more warming, more permafrost degradation and some carbon coming out already - we have started the ball rolling in some senses."

"It is probably not triggering a runaway climate effect but it adds to our problem. It accelerates the problem, of climate change. To me that is worrisome because it makes the problem harder."

Prof Schuur added that indirect impacts of warming were also speeding the thaw. In Alaska in 2015, there were near-record wildfires, which he said heightens the exposure of permafrost to warmer air.

He believes that political negotiations on a new global climate deal, currently underway in Germany and set to conclude in Paris in December, are essential to the long term preservation of permafrost.

"The climate negotiators meeting in Bonn, and in Paris, won't immediately be able to change what happens with the fire season in Alaska next year, but we can slow the process down by focussing on human emissions and in my mind that's the best bet to have the most control.

"It's very hard to control these landscape global processes that are occurring in the Arctic."
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby KUAN » Sun Nov 01, 2015 9:10 pm

Witness King Tides Project

Here are a couple of links which are continually updated. The thing to remember is that it's not just the coast that will be changed, the sea will return kilometres inland to the places mankind has previously reclaimed from it. There will be some stunning wetlands with manmade structures sticking out of them.....

http://www.witnesskingtides.org/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/witnesskingtides/
KUAN
 
Posts: 889
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 5:17 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Nordic » Mon Nov 02, 2015 1:47 am

Anecdotal, sure, but things feel very very different here in so cal.

http://mynewsla.com/weather/2015/11/01/ ... 4-degrees/

Hottest SoCal October ever, by 4 degrees
POSTED BY ALEXANDER NGUYEN ON NOVEMBER 1, 2015 IN WEATHER | 307 VIEWS | LEAVE A RESPONSE

Photo via Pixabay
Photo via Pixabay
October 2015 will go down as the hottest October ever in most of Southern California, as the average high temperature was 4 degrees hotter than the previous hottest October.

A large pool of unusually-warm water off the Pacific Coast, called “the Blob” by climatologists, brought the warmest October nights to almost every nook and cranny of Southern California, a National Weather Service meteorologist said.

The warm water caused record high daytime readings along the coast. Unofficial readings of 95 degrees were recorded on two days at normally-cool Malibu.

The average high temperature last month at the official Downtown Los Angeles measuring station, at USC,was 75.6 degrees, 7 degrees warmer than the next-hottest October, back in 1983, which also was an El Nino year.

Twenty-five days last month saw highs of 80 or above at USC, which set another record. And on seven nights last month, the mercury downtown did not drop below 70, and yes, that’s another record.

At LAX, next to the Pacific Ocean, the average high was 74 degrees. That’s 8.1 degrees above the previous record October, in 1958.

Burbank was even hotter: its October average high was 76.2 degrees, 9.3 degrees above the record set in 1991.

The hot wave may be broken Monday, as a cold front brings chilly air and a chance of valley thunderstorms and mountain snow to Los Angeles County.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Luther Blissett » Mon Nov 02, 2015 9:48 am

The fires mentioned in the NY Times article on the page before this are likely the worst expression of the climate catastrophe in the 21st century so far. In the past three-or-so weeks alone there could have been thousands of species that have gone extinct, children are suffocating and becoming permanently separated from their families, and more CO2 has been released than in an entire year in Germany. This is massive.

The very least we can do right now is boycott some of these companies mentioned, while fighting environmental battles at home. I don't know what else to do.

Indonesia is burning. So why is the world looking away?
George Monbiot

A great tract of Earth is on fire and threatened species are being driven out of their habitats. This is a crime against humanity and nature

I’ve often wondered how the media would respond when eco-apocalypse struck. I pictured the news programmes producing brief, sensational reports, while failing to explain why it was happening or how it might be stopped. Then they would ask their financial correspondents how the disaster affected share prices, before turning to the sport. As you can probably tell, I don’t have an ocean of faith in the industry for which I work. What I did not expect was that they would ignore it.

A great tract of Earth is on fire. It looks as you might imagine hell to be. The air has turned ochre: visibility in some cities has been reduced to 30 metres. Children are being prepared for evacuation in warships; already some have choked to death. Species are going up in smoke at an untold rate. It is almost certainly the greatest environmental disaster of the 21st century – so far.

And the media? It’s talking about the dress the Duchess of Cambridge wore to the James Bond premiere, Donald Trump’s idiocy du jour and who got eliminated from the Halloween episode of Dancing with the Stars. The great debate of the week, dominating the news across much of the world? Sausages: are they really so bad for your health?

What I’m discussing is a barbecue on a different scale. Fire is raging across the 5,000km length of Indonesia. It is surely, on any objective assessment, more important than anything else taking place today. And it shouldn’t require a columnist, writing in the middle of a newspaper, to say so. It should be on everyone’s front page. It is hard to convey the scale of this inferno, but here’s a comparison that might help: it is currently producing more carbon dioxide than the US economy. And in three weeks the fires have released more CO2 than the annual emissions of Germany.

But that doesn’t really capture it. This catastrophe cannot be measured only in parts per million. The fires are destroying treasures as precious and irreplaceable as the archaeological remains being levelled by Isis. Orangutans, clouded leopards, sun bears, gibbons, the Sumatran rhinoceros and Sumatran tiger, these are among the threatened species being driven from much of their range by the flames. But there are thousands, perhaps millions, more.

One of the burning provinces is West Papua, a nation that has been illegally occupied by Indonesia since 1963. I spent six months there when I was 24, investigating some of the factors that have led to this disaster. At the time it was a wonderland, rich with endemic species in every swamp and valley. Who knows how many of those have vanished in the past few weeks? This week I have pored and wept over photos of places I loved that have now been reduced to ash.

Nor do the greenhouse gas emissions capture the impact on the people of these lands. After the last great conflagration, in 1997, there was a missing cohort in Indonesia of 15,000 children under the age of three, attributed to air pollution. This, it seems, is worse. The surgical masks being distributed across the nation will do almost nothing to protect those living in a sunless smog. Members of parliament in Kalimantan (Indonesian Borneo) have had to wear face masks during debates. The chamber is so foggy that they must have difficulty recognising one another.

It’s not just the trees that are burning. It is the land itself. Much of the forest sits on great domes of peat. When the fires penetrate the earth, they smoulder for weeks, sometimes months, releasing clouds of methane, carbon monoxide, ozone and exotic gases such as ammonium cyanide. The plumes extend for hundreds of miles, causing diplomatic conflicts with neighbouring countries.

Why is this happening? Indonesia’s forests have been fragmented for decades by timber and farming companies. Canals have been cut through the peat to drain and dry it. Plantation companies move in to destroy what remains of the forest to plant monocultures of pulpwood, timber and palm oil. The easiest way to clear the land is to torch it. Every year, this causes disasters. But in an extreme El Niño year like this one, we have a perfect formula for environmental catastrophe.

The president, Joko Widodo, is – or wants to be – a democrat. But he presides over a nation in which fascism and corruption flourish. As Joshua Oppenheimer’s documentary The Act of Killing shows, leaders of the death squads that helped murder a million people during Suharto’s terror in the 1960s, with the approval of the west, have since prospered through other forms of organised crime, including illegal deforestation.

They are supported by a paramilitary organisation with three million members, called Pancasila Youth. With its orange camo-print uniforms, scarlet berets, sentimental gatherings and schmaltzy music, it looks like a fascist militia as imagined by JG Ballard. There has been no truth, no reconciliation; the mass killers are still treated as heroes and feted on television. In some places, especially West Papua, the political murders continue.

Those who commit crimes against humanity don’t hesitate to commit crimes against nature. Though Joko Widodo seems to want to stop the burning, his reach is limited. His government’s policies are contradictory: among them are new subsidies for palm oil production that make further burning almost inevitable. Some plantation companies, prompted by their customers, have promised to stop destroying the rainforest. Government officials have responded angrily, arguing that such restraint impedes the country’s development. That smoke blotting out the nation, which has already cost it some $30bn? That, apparently, is development.

Our leverage is weak, but there are some things we can do. Some companies using palm oil have made visible efforts to reform their supply chains; but others seem to move more slowly and opaquely. Starbucks, PepsiCo and Kraft Heinz are examples. Don’t buy their products until you see results.

On Monday, Widodo was in Washington, meeting Barack Obama. Obama, the official communiqué recorded, “welcomed President Widodo’s recent policy actions to combat and prevent forest fires”. The eco-apocalypse taking place as they conferred, which makes a mockery of these commitments, wasn’t mentioned.

Governments ignore issues when the media ignores them. And the media ignores them because … well, there’s a question with a thousand answers, many of which involve power. But one reason is the complete failure of perspective in a de-skilled industry dominated by corporate press releases, photo ops and fashion shoots, where everyone seems to be waiting for everyone else to take a lead. The media makes a collective non-decision to treat this catastrophe as a non-issue, and we all carry on as if it’s not happening.

At the climate summit in Paris in December the media, trapped within the intergovernmental bubble of abstract diplomacy and manufactured drama, will cover the negotiations almost without reference to what is happening elsewhere. The talks will be removed to a realm with which we have no moral contact. And, when the circus moves on, the silence will resume. Is there any other industry that serves its customers so badly?

A fully linked version of this article can be found at monbiot.com
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Mon Nov 02, 2015 8:00 pm

Boycott Palm Oil !
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Nordic » Tue Nov 03, 2015 5:33 am

Quite the science experiment were embarking on here ...

It's the biggest reality show ever.

"Humans .... Will they survive? Tune in 24/7 for the latest episode of "A Planet Destroyed""

I'm basically giving up. Although if I had lots of money if be buying land in various places such as Alaska, Greenland, Patagonia, Norway ....

Although when push comes to shove nobody's going to care who holds the title to any particular plot, instead it's going to make Game of Thrones look like a badmitten match.

Maybe this is the plant world's plan to rid the planet of these horrible humans. Resetting the clock. The plants will survive as a collective whole. They were here long before we were and they'll be here after we're gone. Perhaps this is them pulling a Noah's Ark kind of apocalyptic event upon the human race because, let's admit it, we ain't no good.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby zangtang » Tue Nov 03, 2015 6:50 am

that depends on whether we can aluminium them to death first.
now where's my food?
zangtang
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Luther Blissett » Tue Nov 03, 2015 10:53 am

I was in a meeting last night and we were talking about the ethics of manipulation for ideological means (like sustainability or survival). We settled on this idea that there must be some magical wizard-like state at the crossroads of communication and performance where the message is so earnest and attractive that it creates a zeitgeist void of any manipulation. It's probably come close to existing before but probably needs to be disconnected from identity and ego. Still searching for that.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Nordic » Tue Nov 03, 2015 6:59 pm

Luther Blissett » Tue Nov 03, 2015 9:53 am wrote:I was in a meeting last night and we were talking about the ethics of manipulation for ideological means (like sustainability or survival). We settled on this idea that there must be some magical wizard-like state at the crossroads of communication and performance where the message is so earnest and attractive that it creates a zeitgeist void of any manipulation. It's probably come close to existing before but probably needs to be disconnected from identity and ego. Still searching for that.



I think what you're talking about is the clarity that comes with hitting Rock Bottom.

Trouble with waiting for that is obvious.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby coffin_dodger » Sat Nov 21, 2015 12:39 pm

http://www.isuma.tv/en/inuit-knowledge-and-climate-change/movie

Interesting documentary about climate change - from an Inuit point of view.

I found the part at 42 mins that talks about 'the shifting of the sun' to be very interesting.

"...perhaps the Earth has tilted on it's axis".

Or alternatively, maybe Hapgood's Earth Crust Displacement has caused a little slippage. :shock2:
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby stillrobertpaulsen » Tue Nov 24, 2015 5:56 pm

Global warming ‘pause’ was a myth all along, says new study
The Conversation
24 Nov 2015 at 14:45 ET

Image
This image obtained from NASA on November 14, 2012 shows a view of Sheldon Glacier with Mount Barre in the background, seen from Ryder Bay near Rothera Research Station, Adelaide Island, Antarctica (AFP Photo/)

The idea that global warming has “stopped” is a contrarian talking point that dates back to at least 2006. This framing was first created on blogs, then picked up by segments of the media – and it ultimately found entry into the scientific literature itself. There are now numerous peer-reviewed articles that address a presumed recent “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming, including the latest IPCC report.

So did global warming really pause, stop, or enter a hiatus? At least six academic studies have been published in 2015 that argue against the existence of a pause or hiatus, including three that were authored by me and colleagues James Risbey of CSIRO in Hobart, Tasmania, and Naomi Oreskes of Harvard University.

Our most recent paper has just been published in Nature’s open-access journal Scientific Reports and provides further evidence against the pause.

Pause not backed up by data

First, we analysed the research literature on global temperature variation over the recent period. This turns out to be crucial because research on the pause has addressed – and often conflated – several distinct questions: some asked whether there is a pause or hiatus in warming, others asked whether it slowed compared to the long-term trend and yet others have examined whether warming has lagged behind expectations derived from climate models.

These are all distinct questions and involve different data and different statistical hypotheses. Unnecessary confusion has resulted because they were frequently conflated under the blanket labels of pause or hiatus.

Image
New NOAA data released earlier this year confirmed there had been no pause. The author’s latest study used NASA’s GISTEMP data and obtained the same conclusions.
NOAA


To reduce the confusion, we were exclusively concerned with the first question: is there, or has there recently been, a pause or hiatus in warming? It is this question – and only this question – that we answer with a clear and unambiguous “no”.

No one can agree when the pause started

We considered 40 recent peer-reviewed articles on the so-called pause and inferred what the authors considered to be its onset year. There was a spread of about a decade (1993-2003) between the various papers. Thus, rather than being consensually defined, the pause appears to be a diffuse phenomenon whose presumed onset is anywhere during a ten-year window.

Given that the average presumed duration of the pause in the same set of articles is only 13.5 years, this is of concern: it is difficult to see how scientists could be talking about the same phenomenon when they talked about short trends that commenced up to a decade apart.

This concern was amplified in our third point: the pauses in the literature are by no means consistently extreme or unusual, when compared to all possible trends. If we take the past three decades, during which temperatures increased by 0.6℃, we would have been in a pause between 30% and 40% of the time using the definition in the literature.

In other words, academic research on the pause is typically not talking about an actual pause but, at best, about a fluctuation in warming rate that is towards the lower end of the various temperature trends over recent decades.

How the pause became a meme

If there has been no pause, why then did the recent period attract so much research attention?

One reason is a matter of semantics. Many academic studies addressed not the absence of warming but a presumed discrepancy between climate models and observations. Those articles were scientifically valuable (we even wrote one ourselves), but we do not believe that those articles should have been framed in the language of a pause: the relationship between models (what was expected to happen) and observations (what actually happened) is a completely different issue from the question about whether or not global warming has paused.

A second reason is that the incessant challenge of climate science by highly vocal contrarians and Merchants of Doubt may have amplified scientists’ natural tendency to be reticent over reporting the most dramatic risks they are concerned about.

We explored the possible underlying mechanisms for this in an article earlier this year, which suggested climate denial had seeped into the scientific community. Scientists have unwittingly been influenced by a linguistic frame that originated outside the scientific community and by accepting the word pause they have subtly reframed their own research.

Research directed towards the pause has clearly yielded interesting insights into medium-term climate variability. My colleagues and I do not fault that research at all. Except that the research was not about a (non-existent) pause – it was about a routine fluctuation in warming rate. With 2015 being virtually certain to be another hottest year on record, this routine fluctuation has likely already come to an end.

The Conversation

By Stephan Lewandowsky, Chair of Cognitive Psychology, University of Bristol
User avatar
stillrobertpaulsen
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:43 pm
Location: Gone baby gone
Blog: View Blog (37)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Luther Blissett » Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:02 pm

These climate talks are a farce. Can we please prove David Attenborough wrong?

There's been a torrent of writings on the climate crisis over the past few days, way too many to post, but I'd like to discuss the COP21. Not that I have any faith in leaders, but it's a good opportunity for people to force the issue now.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby zangtang » Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:05 pm

last opportunity?
zangtang
 
Posts: 1247
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Iamwhomiam » Mon Nov 30, 2015 8:23 pm

COPD!
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How Bad Is Global Warming?

Postby Luther Blissett » Mon Nov 30, 2015 8:32 pm

zangtang » Mon Nov 30, 2015 5:05 pm wrote:last opportunity?


Impossible to tell since that might have been ten years past. Hopefully not and that there are still more opportunities.

I don't imagine that the arbitrary dates of a summit for the powers that be hold any special significance but it would be nice to simultaneously hit on something as a people.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 168 guests