How Bad Is Global Warming?

[fruhmenschen]

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles ... d-near.htm

[fruhmenschen]

http://m.weather.com/news/weather-hurri ... a-20140523

[Iamwhomiam]

Thank you for posting the article on oceanic and ice embedded plastics, Luther.

Plastics found in all of our bodies of waters is disconcerting and its considerable mass concentrated in our oceans greatly aids their warming.

Of great concern is even smaller particles of plastics than those Ward mentioned, 220 nanometers, and even that is far beyond natural human perception.

But the third sentence below isn't really accurate.

What is the consequence of all this plastic floating around? At this point, it is hard to say. Plastic is chemically inert. But the plastic can absorb organic pollutants in high concentrations, says Mark Browne, an ecologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Browne has performed laboratory experiments with marine organisms showing not only how the microplastics can be retained in tissues, but also how pollutants might be released upon ingestion. “We’re starting to worry a bit more,” he says.

While many believe all plastics to be inert, perhaps not as many now as only a few years ago, due to the recent banning of the use of Bisphenol A, (BPA) in manufacturing plastic beverage containers. BPA was banned after it was found to be leaching into bottled water and from plastic bottles purchased for reuse.

And those who use exfoliants and sun tanning lotions should beware of the micro beads they contain; microscopically tiny balls of plastic.

You might want to read another perspective,

"Is That Plastic in Your Trash a Hazard?"

"There are medical, chemical, and environmental issues associated with some pretty common plastic products. Is it time to label these as hazardous waste?"



http://www.psmag.com/environment/could-that-plastic-in-your-trash-be-hazardous-54252/

And that "new car" smell? Outgassing of plastic's constituent chemicals.

Support a Toxics-Free Future. Add your name to this NGO/CSO Global Common Statement for a Toxics-Free Future.

http://www.cectoxic.org/ToxicChemicals.html

On edit: Sorry. My apologies. A bad link to Common Statement. working now to correct it. may take a day or two due to the holiday.

[Luther Blissett]

This Ice Sheet Will Unleash a Global Superstorm Sandy That Never Ends
Glaciologist Richard Alley explains that losing West Antarctica would produce 10 feet of sea level rise in coming centuries. That's comparable to the flooding from Sandy—but permanent.
—By Chris Mooney | Fri May 23, 2014 6:00 AM EDT

If you want to truly grasp the scale of Earth's polar ice sheets, you need some help from Isaac Newton. Newton taught us the universal law of gravitation, which states that all objects are attracted to one another in relation to their masses (and the distance between them). The ice sheets covering Antarctica and Greenland are incredibly massive—Antarctica's ice is more than two miles thick in places and 5.4 million square miles in extent. These ice sheets are so large, in fact, that gravitational attraction pulls the surrounding ocean toward them. The sea level therefore rises upward at an angle as you approach an ice sheet, and slopes downward and away as you leave its presence.

This is not good news for humanity. As the ice sheets melt due to global warming, not only do they raise the sea level directly; they also exert a weaker gravitational pull on the surrounding ocean. So water sloshes back toward the continents, where we all live. "If Antarctica shrinks and puts that water in the ocean, the ocean raises around the world, but then Antarctica is pulling the ocean towards it less strongly," explains the celebrated Penn State University glaciologist Richard Alley on the latest installment of the Inquiring Minds podcast. "And as that extra water around Antarctica spreads around the world, we will get a little more sea level rise in the US than the global average."

Alley, a self-described "registered Republican" and host of the PBS program Earth: The Operators' Manual, spoke on the occasion of truly dire news, of the sort that ice sheet experts like him have been dreading for some time. Last week, we learned from two separate research teams that the ice sheet of West Antarctica, which comprises just one relatively small part of Antarctic ice overall but contains enough frozen water to raise global sea levels by some 10 or 11 feet, has been irrevocably destabilized. Scientists have long feared that of all the planet's great ice sheets, West Antarctica would be the first to go, because much of it is marine-based—the front edge of the ice sheet is bathing in increasingly warm water, which is melting it from beneath. Here's a helpful visualization of how this process works:

The great ice sheet naturally wants to push outward and spread into the sea, Alley explains, much like water spreads out when poured onto a flat surface. But the advance is held up by the "grounding line"—the ice sheet's mooring at a particular point on the sea floor.

And here's where the problem arises: The latest research suggests that the ice is melting from below, and thus, losing its moorings. The oceanfront glaciers of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet are experiencing "rapid grounding line retreat," in scientific parlance, and this is happening "sooner than we initially expected, scientifically," says Alley. The cause seems to be a change in winds driven by global warming, which in turn is sending more warm water toward Antarctica's glaciers. And as the glaciers lose ice from below, there is less friction with the ground, and thus faster ice flow into the sea, where it can contribute to sea level rise.

"What they found," Alley continues, "is that it's likely that the fuse has already been lit."

You need to really pause, and take a deep breath, to take in what that means: A little over three meters of sea level rise is already on its way into the ocean, with nothing to stop it. Granted, the process still takes a long time—likely hundreds of years—because as Alley explains, melting an ice sheet is a lot like unsnarling a traffic jam. "There's this huge merge, that you take something that is a couple of miles thick, and a hundred miles wide, and you squeeze it way down," he says. "And it's coming out through a place that's well less than a mile thick, and not nearly that wide."

Last year, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a high-end estimate for global sea level rise of about three feet by the year 2100. Is that still valid? Given how long it takes to drain West Antarctica, maybe so. But maybe not. The latest research, Alley points out, "did not run the worst-case scenario."

Either way, three feet by 2100 is hardly any consolation to those humans, our grandchildren or great-grandchildren, who will be living in the 22nd century. If it hasn't already collapsed by then, West Antarctica will be coming for them. And what does that mean?

As of now, coastal counties are home to 39 percent of the US population and generate nearly half of our GDP, according to the National Academy of Sciences. In other words, they are absolutely fundamental to our country and economy. But the collapse of West Antarctica basically means that in the future, all of these coastal regions—and all of the coastal regions everywhere else in the world—will be subjected to ocean conditions similar to a permanent Superstorm Sandy.

"The highest storm surge from Hurricane Sandy, or Superstorm Sandy, was just under 13 feet, and a whole lot of places it was 10 feet or less," explains Alley. "And we're looking at 11 feet, or something like that, from West Antarctica. Plus a little thermal expansion [water expanding as it gets warmer] and some mountain glacier melting that are already on the table. And so you can sort of think of the storm surge of Hurricane Sandy, something vaguely in that neighborhood for most of the coastline of the world."

We remember what that looked like:


The chief difference (besides the lack of hurricanelike wind and rain) would be that the water wouldn't retreat any more. It wouldn't just be a storm surge, it would be the new state of the ocean.

And it gets even worse: West Antarctica isn't the only worry. To hear Alley tell it, it's just that West Antarctica is pretty much lost to us already. Next up is a place that we might still be able to save, but that we're currently playing an insane game of roulette with: Greenland.

It contains much more water than West Antarctica: about 23 feet of global sea level rise. That's equivalent, on a worldwide scale, to the storm surge caused by Supertyphoon Haiyan when it struck the Philippines last year.

And here again, the news isn't good. Recently published research finds that much more of the Greenland Ice Sheet than previously believed is exposed, from beneath, to the ocean. Basically, the new science amounts to a topographical remapping exercise—for terrain that is as much as three miles below a vast sheet of ice. And it turns out that the canyons beneath Greenland's glaciers are deeper than scientists previously thought, and in some cases, well below sea level. This means, in turn, that more of the ice sheet is potentially exposed to warming seas—similar to the ice sheet of West Antarctica.

"It doesn't yet say, 'Greenland is about to fall into the ocean, run for the hills,'" Alley says, "but it does make Greenland look a little bit more vulnerable than we thought."

But not yet sacrificed. Not yet gone. For Alley, then, the true upshot of the West Antarctica news is this: It makes saving Greenland absolutely essential. Ten feet of sea level rise will be incredibly painful to adapt to already, but 33 feet from the combined loss of West Antarctica and Greenland? It's simply inconceivable. There is no such thing as adapting to that.

Essentially, then, we need an all out global push to stop global warming and save Greenland—and thus, the places where we all live.

Alley puts it like this: "If we've committed to 3.3 meters from West Antarctica, we haven't committed to losing Greenland, we haven't committed to losing most of East Antarctica. Those are still out there for us. And if anything, this new news just makes our decisions more important, and more powerful."

Or, we could continue to fiddle and do nothing. If that happens, then Greenland is still just the beginning. Next up: the rest of Antarctica, of which West Antarctica comprises only a small part. Melt the whole continent, the largest mass of ice on Earth by far, and someday, it would reward you with as much as 200 feet of sea level rise. That would take a very long time to happen, and there is still plenty of time to stop it…but, we know already that it is possible, given high enough temperatures. According to Alley, Earth currently sports many so-called "raised beaches" at altitudes far above our current sea level—preserved shorelines from a time when the oceans were radically higher.

That's why, as a human civilization on Earth, pretty much the dumbest thing you could possibly do is melt your planet's ice sheets. And that's why, if the news about West Antarctica isn't enough to snap us into action on climate change, then we will only be able to thank ourselves for the disaster that is coming.

[slimmouse]

All of the above sounds very grim indeed.

Grim enough for some serious action.

The problem is convincing enough people that they are being lied to about the need for Wars, Fiat Currency and Fossil fuels.

If you can get enough people to understand that, then things might change very quickly

[Iamwhomiam]

I mean no offense, slim, but are you going to answer any of the questions I've asked you? This is my second request.

Unless you're willing to enter into a mature discussion, to engage in asking questions and answering those asked of you by others, learning cannot occur by either party. You will be less understood and your ability to understand others will be diminished, at least in relationship to this topic.

Pointing out one's mistakes, no matter who is doing the pointing, is always helpful. But unless you clarify your understanding for those who ask you questions by answering them they will never understand you or your understanding of any issue being discussed, effectively ending communication.

Beside all that, ignoring one's questions is plain ol' rude.

So, do you want to have a discussion about global warming, its impacts and its causes? If so, I'll await your answers before asking you more.

But please don't waste my time with you; I'm trying my best to share with you my understanding of the issues involved in this discussion and to better understand yours, which so far I frankly find baffling.

On edit: When's the last time you visited your footer's link?

[stillrobertpaulsen]

Sounder » Wed May 21, 2014 6:59 pm wrote:Would you have told that to George Carlin? Surly, just because George did not ‘believe’ in AGW, it does not follow that he did not recognize that we are living on the inside of a big wackadoodle contest.

stillrobertpaulson wrote...

Sounder, I'm responding to your post not because I have any interest in rehashing any of the old shit that's been dragging this thread into the pit of asshattery, but because I'm a huge George Carlin fan. Do you have a quote you could link where he actually said that he "did not ‘believe’ in AGW"? Because while I am quite familiar with his rant against "self-righteous environmentalists" on Jammin' In New York, I don't recall him saying that there or anywhere else.

I looked at that vid again and agree that he never spoke directly to the AGW issue. His sub-text there seems to be that we all talk a good game but we do little to actually change our situation. Some folk that are represented as being ‘deniers’ feel that CC is an overblown issue and that other elements impacting human viability are larger yet sublimated while using CC to front run a narrative.

George felt we all live in all kinds of denial. As far as I can tell he may have included CC in this denial package. (So a hard core denier should skip using George to bolster their case.)

I recently wrote a blog entry where I covered that Jammin' in New York bit. My understanding of that piece is that as much as he's ripping "white, bourgeois liberals" for their "narrow, unenlightened self-interest" in thinking that recycling will "save the planet", it's not because human industrial activity isn't causing global warming. It's because human industrial activity isn't going to destroy the planet - it's going to destroy us because the planet will use global warming, to quote Carlin, to "shake us off like a bad case of fleas."

I pretty much agree with your take but would feel better if 'global warming' were replaced with 'the many deleterious effects of industrial activity'.

I think you and I may be in agreement that it's a lot more than just carbon dioxide that's to blame. While some may hold the IPCC up as the standard-bearer on the CC subject, the fact that they do not take methane emissions into account with their modeling really decreases their standing in my mind. Then again, they're under a lot of pressure that has nothing to do with science.

But what else? Is this the reason? I really don't know enough about Gakona HAARP to judge one way or another. Is that one of the "deleterious effects" you're talking about?

[stillrobertpaulsen]

IPCC co-chairman says scientists being intimidated by climate change deniers
Prof Thomas Stocker says campaign to undermine IPCC’s fifth assessment report led by ‘people and organisations with vested interests’


Prof Thomas Stocker: ‘It is perfectly legitimate to ask such questions . . . But unfortunately, sceptics have not followed that scientific approach.’ Photograph: AFP Photo, Lluis Gene

Frank McDonald

Thu, May 29, 2014

Global warming deniers have been involved in a “concerted campaign to isolate individual scientists and destroy them,” according to one of the co-chairmen of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Prof Thomas Stocker, Swiss-born co-chairman of the panel’s working group on the scientific basis for climate change, said the campaign to undermine its fifth assessment report was led by “people and organisations with vested interests”.

Speaking to The Irish Times prior to giving a public lecture in Dublin, he said claims that there had been no global warming for 15 years were “quite a clever way to divert the attention of policymakers from the broader perspective of climate change”.

Prof Stocker said: “It is perfectly legitimate to ask such questions. Normally, you would expect a debate in which arguments would be considered and then we’d come to a conclusion.

“But unfortunately, sceptics have not followed that scientific approach.”

He said scientists involved in the IPCC process had done all the work, showing that warming was being observed “in all parts of the world” and this was closely related to the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, looked at over a longer timeframe than 15 years.

‘Not appreciated’
“It is unfortunate that this worldwide effort by the scientific community, which included responding to 54,677 comments, is not appreciated in the media, where they take assessment like ours and juxtapose it with the views of Mr X or Mr Y,” he said.

Prof Stocker, who has avoided using social media, agreed that several colleagues such as Phil Jones and Michael Mann had been “vilified” on Twitter and other forums, and some of them had even received death threats for daring to speak out.

He said natural variability could explain the current “hiatus”. Thus, IPCC scientists were looking at a longer “climatological period”.

Hmmm...wonder which "vested interests" are being referred to? Koch brothers? Rupert Murdoch? China?

[Luther Blissett]

I think you and I may be in agreement that it's a lot more than just carbon dioxide that's to blame. While some may hold the IPCC up as the standard-bearer on the CC subject, the fact that they do not take methane emissions into account with their modeling really decreases their standing in my mind. Then again, they're under a lot of pressure that has nothing to do with science.

There are always new greenhouse gases being discovered, including the world's worst, PFTBA.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

There are always new greenhouse gases being discovered, including the world's worst, PFTBA.

Fuuuuuuuuuuck!

Thanks for the heads up, Luther.

[slimmouse]

@ IAWIA.

My mind is pretty much decided on the AGW debate.

Heres my truth.

Humans are contributing to global warming, but the idea that we are collectively responsible is deeply alarming to me.

There are a select few who are essentially responsible, and neither myself, you, or 99.9% of the rest of us want what is happening to happen.

I have offered my own solution to this mess, and you have read it.

Youre own solutions might be a nice idea - in as simple a form as possible, please.

[Iamwhomiam]

Slim, with all the due respect I am able to muster, I've been sharing evidence that formed my opinion about AGW for more than a few years.

No one can any longer view our historical record and the tremendous quantity of warming influences, or chemicals and their emissions, all aerosolized pollutants, that trap heat that our industrial revolution brought into the very small balloon that is our life-sustaining atmosphere.

While many will argue that carbon dioxide levels have been prehistorically higher than presently, never has our anthropogenic carbon black, common soot, been higher. Regardless of its miniscule size being nanoscale, each tiny bit warms its surrounding environment more than if it would had the particle not been present.

Believe what you will, just don't ask me any more questions, as you're unwilling to answer mine.

Answering questions would help me to better understand you, tour perspective on this topic, though that might be impossible. There is no accounting for one's beliefs when they are based upon nothing more than superstition and false propaganda, especially when one ignores profound quantities peer reviewed research conducted by scientists involved in many fields of study.

[Ben D]

While many will argue that carbon dioxide levels have been prehistorically higher than presently, never has our anthropogenic carbon black, common soot, been higher.

Sure Iam...but please note that temperatures have also been prehistorically higher before....without the anthropogenic presence.

[Iamwhomiam]

While many will argue that carbon dioxide levels have been prehistorically higher than presently, never has our anthropogenic carbon black, common soot, been higher.

Sure Iam...but please note that temperatures have also been prehistorically higher before....without the anthropogenic presence.

Why were temperatures higher so many millions of years ago, Ben, than they are now?

I would appreciate everyone taking note that Ben's agreeing with me on this one point.

And shame on you Robert! I confused your posting for one of Ben's.

I think you and I may be in agreement that it's a lot more than just carbon dioxide that's to blame. While some may hold the IPCC up as the standard-bearer on the CC subject, the fact that they do not take methane emissions into account with their modeling really decreases their standing in my mind. Then again, they're under a lot of pressure that has nothing to do with science.

Seriously, I ask you, have you read any of the IPCC studies?

First, I've been here for more than a few years talking about other chemicals like sulfuryl fluoride and common soot being introduced into our environment that have far greater warming potential than CO2, which methane partially breaks down into eventually.

Carbon Black
search.php?keywords=Carbon+Black&terms=all&author=Iamwhomiam&fid[]=8&sc=1&sf=all&sr=posts&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

Sufuryl Fluoride
search.php?keywords=Sulfuryl+fluoride&terms=all&author=Iamwhomiam&fid[]=8&sc=1&sf=all&sr=posts&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search

The IPCC has not at all ignored anthropogenic methane; I have no idea why you claimed it has. Have you too, lost your rigor?

http://www.google.com/search?q=IPCC%3A+Methane+emissions&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[Iamwhomiam]

In this Aug. 3, 2011 file photo, Texas State Park police officer Thomas Bigham walks across the cracked lake bed of O.C. Fisher Lake in San Angelo, Texas. Global warming is rapidly turning America the beautiful into America the stormy, sneezy and dangerous, according to a new federal scientific report. Climate change's assorted harms "are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond," the National Climate Assessment concluded Tuesday. The report emphasizes how warming and its all-too-wild weather are changing daily lives, even using the phrase "climate disruption" as another way of saying global warming. (AP Photo/Tony Gutierrez) ORG XMIT: CER104

Bypassing Congress on clean energy
President will unveil far-reaching new rules aimed at power plants

By PETER BAKER and CORAL DAVENPORT, New York Times
Published 8:36 pm, Saturday, May 31, 2014

Washington

All but giving up on Congress, President Barack Obama has spent the year foraging for actions on various issues he could take on his own, and largely coming up with minor executive orders. But on Monday, he will unveil a plan to tackle climate change that may be his last, most sweeping effort to remake America in his remaining time in office.

The far-reaching regulations will for the first time force existing power plants in the United States to curb the carbon emissions that scientists say have been damaging the planet. By using authority already embedded in law, Obama does not need Congress — and so, in this era of gridlock, he has a chance to transform the nation's energy sector and, at the same time, his presidency.

"The shift to a cleaner energy economy won't happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way," Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address, previewing Monday's announcement. "But a low-carbon, clean-energy economy can be an engine of growth for decades to come. America will build that engine. America will build the future, a future that's cleaner, more prosperous and full of good jobs."

While the administration was still finalizing crucial elements of the plan, it was already clear that the economic stakes are enormous. The new regulation could eventually shutter hundreds of coal-fired power plants. Critics wasted little time arguing that the president's unilateral plan abuses his power in a way that will cost jobs and raise energy prices for consumers.

"The administration has set out to kill coal and its 800,000 jobs," Sen. Michael B. Enzi, R-Wyo., the nation's top coal-producing state, said in response to Obama's Saturday address. "If it succeeds in death by regulation, we'll all be paying a lot more money for electricity - if we can get it. Our pocketbook will be lighter, but our country will be darker."

Almost by default, climate change looks to be the defining domestic initiative of Obama's second term. His aspirations to enact gun control measures, pass a jobs plan, overhaul the tax code and reach a grand bargain on long-term spending all have eluded him amid Republican opposition. He may yet negotiate legislation liberalizing immigration policy, but otherwise harbors little hope for major new domestic action.

In taking on climate change, Obama is returning to one of the themes of his first campaign for president when he vowed that his election would be remembered as the moment when "our planet began to heal." His inability to live up to that lofty rhetoric has deeply frustrated many supporters, and he personally urged his Environmental Protection Agency chief, Gina McCarthy, to draft an ambitious regulation in time to ensure that it is finalized before he leaves office.

"It's the most significant executive action he can take probably in the entirety of his presidency," said Neera Tanden, president of the left-leaning Center for American Progress. "The president is a relatively young president," she added. "Not to do something would be something you wouldn't want to live with for the next few decades."

Having failed to pass climate legislation through the Senate in his first term, Obama has used his own power to advance his goals, including increased fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. In seeking to limit power plants, he is finally addressing the most significant source of carbon pollution. "It's the most important and the biggest reductions that we'll get," said John D. Podesta, the president's counselor and a prime advocate of environmental policies. "Finally tackling climate in a significant way, this is a big deal."

And yet the president seems to have chosen a low-wattage rollout of the plan. He will not unveil it in a televised East Room address or travel to some out-of-town venue for a big speech, as he has for moves of far less import. Instead, he will leave it to McCarthy to announce Monday, while he plays a supporting role by making a telephone call to the American Lung Association.

That may reflect the complicated politics of the issue. Republicans are not the only ones concerned about economic costs, or for that matter political ones. Democrats from coal-producing states are acutely nervous with midterm elections approaching.

Rep. Nick J. Rahall II, D-W.Va., for one, has already distanced himself from the plan. "I will oppose this rule as it will adversely affect coal miners and coal-mining communities throughout West Virginia and the nation," he said.

White House officials vigorously denied playing down the announcement. But they are sensitive to the politics and are trying to frame the issue as a matter of public health. To tape his Saturday address, Obama traveled to Children's National Medical Center in Washington to visit children with asthma aggravated by air pollution.

While studies show climate change may exacerbate respiratory diseases, that is hardly the most significant impact of global warming. But the White House hopes that focusing on sick children will play better politically than sweeping rhetoric. An April Gallup poll found that 1 in 4 Americans is skeptical of the science of global warming.

The new regulation, which must go through a period of public comment before being finalized, will set a national standard to cut carbon from power plants. It will offer states a menu of options to achieve those cuts, from adding wind and solar power and energy-efficient technology to joining or creating state-level emissions trading programs called cap and trade.

http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Bypassing-Congress-on-clean-energy-5519883.php