ChatterBank0 min ago
Sea Level Rise
Last year we discussed Climate Change at some considerable length and some posters pointed to the substantial fall in the sea level during 2010 as evidence that scientists had got it wrong.
Here is an update to that data released last month.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Observe how the sea level rebounded during 2011 and has once again reached the 3.1 mm per year upward trend after one of the fastest rises since the satellites were deployed.
As I posted at the time, scientists had indicated the fall in 2010 was consistent with modelling. It was due to the ENSO La Nina event putting vast quantities of water onto Australia and South East Asia. (At the peak an area the size of France and Germany was covered by water in Australia.)
The ENSO index is once again negative and the sea level has responded precisely as expected. If the index stays low then we will see a swing in the sea level go above the trend line.
Observations are increasingly indicating that the changes to our planet's climate are progressing even faster than the most pessimistic of the climate models. Research continues to find more factors that amplify the effects of the already known factors.
Texas suffered the hottest and driest growing season since records began in 1895. November 2011 was the second warmest in the UK since records began in 1659.
How much more needs to be done to convince you that Global Warming is real and needs to be addressed by working toward a low carbon economy?
Here is an update to that data released last month.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Observe how the sea level rebounded during 2011 and has once again reached the 3.1 mm per year upward trend after one of the fastest rises since the satellites were deployed.
As I posted at the time, scientists had indicated the fall in 2010 was consistent with modelling. It was due to the ENSO La Nina event putting vast quantities of water onto Australia and South East Asia. (At the peak an area the size of France and Germany was covered by water in Australia.)
The ENSO index is once again negative and the sea level has responded precisely as expected. If the index stays low then we will see a swing in the sea level go above the trend line.
Observations are increasingly indicating that the changes to our planet's climate are progressing even faster than the most pessimistic of the climate models. Research continues to find more factors that amplify the effects of the already known factors.
Texas suffered the hottest and driest growing season since records began in 1895. November 2011 was the second warmest in the UK since records began in 1659.
How much more needs to be done to convince you that Global Warming is real and needs to be addressed by working toward a low carbon economy?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by beso. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I would like people to stop pretending that it isn't happening. Governments are so terrified of public backlash at the polls they are hesitant to do anything even close to what needs to be done.
In Australia we have just introduced a Carbon Tax. Unfortunately the opposition is completely opposed to it and everything else the government does (excepting pay rises for themselves of course.)
They promise to repeal the law when they get in. They are very likely to win the next election and they get lots of mileage from climate change denialists who continue to ignore the science in favour of their lame armchair theories.
Business is happy to go with the tax or not. They just want certainty about the circumstance they need to make decisions.
This vacillation is wasting the opportunity to get on with changing our economies to lower carbon pollution and will ultimately increase the cost of the inevitable.
At least the UK has bipartisan support even though there is not quite as much support among the people as in countries like Germany and Switzerland who are taking it very seriously and reaping the economic benefits.
The time has come to stop trying to undermine the truth and just gt on with it. Countries that take action will be the world leaders in a decade while those who continue to delay will be the losers.
In Australia we have just introduced a Carbon Tax. Unfortunately the opposition is completely opposed to it and everything else the government does (excepting pay rises for themselves of course.)
They promise to repeal the law when they get in. They are very likely to win the next election and they get lots of mileage from climate change denialists who continue to ignore the science in favour of their lame armchair theories.
Business is happy to go with the tax or not. They just want certainty about the circumstance they need to make decisions.
This vacillation is wasting the opportunity to get on with changing our economies to lower carbon pollution and will ultimately increase the cost of the inevitable.
At least the UK has bipartisan support even though there is not quite as much support among the people as in countries like Germany and Switzerland who are taking it very seriously and reaping the economic benefits.
The time has come to stop trying to undermine the truth and just gt on with it. Countries that take action will be the world leaders in a decade while those who continue to delay will be the losers.
Politicians of every political colour are continually saying that 'we' must do something, but what is the ordinary citizen supposed to do? Lots of people talk, but nobody does anything, except impose so-called 'green' taxes on commodities. Give us some sensible things to do, politicians, or shut up.
Despite being a real supporter of action on climate change I am perhaps surprisingly a little cautious about sea level rise
That data shows up to 3.5mm per year - that's only 30cm over the next century.
Now there are several factors, water expanding due to greater heat, but also the air holding slightly more moisture due to that heat.
But the main risk is a catastrophic melting of the Antartic ice self and there is data on that actually growing in places.
I don't think that is sufficiently well understood yet
http://
So I think climate change is a major risk I'm yet to be convinced that sea level rise should be the number 1 priority.
That data shows up to 3.5mm per year - that's only 30cm over the next century.
Now there are several factors, water expanding due to greater heat, but also the air holding slightly more moisture due to that heat.
But the main risk is a catastrophic melting of the Antartic ice self and there is data on that actually growing in places.
I don't think that is sufficiently well understood yet
http://
So I think climate change is a major risk I'm yet to be convinced that sea level rise should be the number 1 priority.
why is taxing people always the answer? Yes there is climate change, don't think anyone disagrees, the causes are the crux. Too lay the blame on the door of carbon emissions is way too easy. I think this is part of the planets cycle that is not predictable and therefore not easy to solve. If more effort was putting into find global solutions rather than local ones more credibility would be afforded the problem. As Dave50 says if we in this country do something it will have absolutely no effect on the environment if India, China, USA and the like do not follow suit. Taxing working people is not the solution.
One can move house to higher ground ;-) But as past fools have already sanctioned building in flood plains I'm unsure the sea level rise is the priority.
It brings no pleasure to read here that climate change seems to be further supported by new evidence, but it is also not unexpected. What we can do is find ways to reduce our influence on the globe as it appears humans may be involved given the dramatic change since we started creating industry. I don't think it is going to be one large solution but probably a multitude of things being done fractionally cleaner / fewer emissions/ etc.. IMO reducing the number of us over the generations would be a good first step. The world can probably cope with what a certain number of us get up to, but it collapses under the weight of the billions of us it has at present.
It brings no pleasure to read here that climate change seems to be further supported by new evidence, but it is also not unexpected. What we can do is find ways to reduce our influence on the globe as it appears humans may be involved given the dramatic change since we started creating industry. I don't think it is going to be one large solution but probably a multitude of things being done fractionally cleaner / fewer emissions/ etc.. IMO reducing the number of us over the generations would be a good first step. The world can probably cope with what a certain number of us get up to, but it collapses under the weight of the billions of us it has at present.
Well yes of course the whole planet changes - Milankovitch cycles for example.
You don't think that all those climate scientists are unaware of that do you?
You don't think that's not accounted for?
If you take all of that into consideration, the wobbles in the Earth's orbit, the small changes in the sun's output, all of that - the models don't give you the right answers
They only start to give the right answers when you start to take into consideration human emissions.
Unfortunately this all depends on Maths and most of us don't have the time or the ability to do the Maths
And the critics have never (as far as I know) come up with a viable mathematical model that shows the Earth warming as we see it from natural effects.
In such circumstances you have to ask what the experts make of the evidence and when every single scientific body on the planet is saying the same thing, that's a pretty powerful message.
Now a lot of people don't like that message because that message is asking them to make sacrifices, to pay more for benefits we may not see for 50 years - the next 50 years of change may be well locked in.
Some people don't like it because they associate it the the ecological movement which they think is left wing.
But always ask - what do the numbers say? - without the numbers it's just politics.
People pour scorn on numbers as lying statistics
I don't think statistics lie
I do think politicians armed with statistics are the very devil for it though!
You don't think that all those climate scientists are unaware of that do you?
You don't think that's not accounted for?
If you take all of that into consideration, the wobbles in the Earth's orbit, the small changes in the sun's output, all of that - the models don't give you the right answers
They only start to give the right answers when you start to take into consideration human emissions.
Unfortunately this all depends on Maths and most of us don't have the time or the ability to do the Maths
And the critics have never (as far as I know) come up with a viable mathematical model that shows the Earth warming as we see it from natural effects.
In such circumstances you have to ask what the experts make of the evidence and when every single scientific body on the planet is saying the same thing, that's a pretty powerful message.
Now a lot of people don't like that message because that message is asking them to make sacrifices, to pay more for benefits we may not see for 50 years - the next 50 years of change may be well locked in.
Some people don't like it because they associate it the the ecological movement which they think is left wing.
But always ask - what do the numbers say? - without the numbers it's just politics.
People pour scorn on numbers as lying statistics
I don't think statistics lie
I do think politicians armed with statistics are the very devil for it though!
I agree with Jake that sea level rise is not the most serious problem caused by climate change. However it is a good indicator of temperature rise because most of that rise comes from thermal expansion of the ocean.
The point I was making is that the denialists seized upon the 2010 fall as evidence to support their assertions. I just wanted to remind them that science is correct but they no longer want to talk about sea level since it now conflicts with their prejudice.
Regarding the expansion of the Antarctic ice. The claim that it is expanding is incorrect. While there is an expansion in the winter ice in some places there continues to be a reduction in the total ice in the Antarctic. However the Antarctic climate is somewhat insulated from the rest of the planet by the currents and winds that circulate around it. We are not likely to see the much change there in the short term. Just as well since melting the antarctic would raise sea levels by over sixty metres.
However in the Arctic we are seeing vast areas of ice melting as temperatures have already risen by up to five degrees. This shift has reduced the thermal gradient between the equator and north pole, slowing the jet stream and wreaking havoc with the weather. Vast eddies cause weather patterns to sit in one place for weeks at a time. They bring cold weather much further south and hot weather much further north than previous typical patterns.
Moreover the melting of the Greenland ice sheet would raise the sea level by over six metres which would definitely cause some big problems.
The point I was making is that the denialists seized upon the 2010 fall as evidence to support their assertions. I just wanted to remind them that science is correct but they no longer want to talk about sea level since it now conflicts with their prejudice.
Regarding the expansion of the Antarctic ice. The claim that it is expanding is incorrect. While there is an expansion in the winter ice in some places there continues to be a reduction in the total ice in the Antarctic. However the Antarctic climate is somewhat insulated from the rest of the planet by the currents and winds that circulate around it. We are not likely to see the much change there in the short term. Just as well since melting the antarctic would raise sea levels by over sixty metres.
However in the Arctic we are seeing vast areas of ice melting as temperatures have already risen by up to five degrees. This shift has reduced the thermal gradient between the equator and north pole, slowing the jet stream and wreaking havoc with the weather. Vast eddies cause weather patterns to sit in one place for weeks at a time. They bring cold weather much further south and hot weather much further north than previous typical patterns.
Moreover the melting of the Greenland ice sheet would raise the sea level by over six metres which would definitely cause some big problems.
Indeed the Milanlovich cycles are included in the models. Without them the cycle of ice ages cannot be explained. In fact the planet had already commenced its descent into the next ice age. The temperature had been steadily falling for nearly two thousand years.
This trend went into reverse at the beginning of the industrial revolution and continues to swing sharply upwards.
It is one of the ironies of the denialist position when they claim that scientists had predicted another ice age and were wrong about that so why believe them about warming.
In fact it is further evidence that the rise is certainly not due to natural cycles because the natural cycle should be downwards.
This trend went into reverse at the beginning of the industrial revolution and continues to swing sharply upwards.
It is one of the ironies of the denialist position when they claim that scientists had predicted another ice age and were wrong about that so why believe them about warming.
In fact it is further evidence that the rise is certainly not due to natural cycles because the natural cycle should be downwards.
Some popular myths about climate change action need to be addressed.
"Going it alone". In fact many countries are taking action. No country would be going it alone. China has a huge program of change.
"Moving from reliance on fossil fuels would destroy our economies". This is put forward by people who don't understand economics. The technologies to implement the change already exist. They need further investment to allow them to be fully developed but most of the economics of anything is about demand.
With demand the investment will be forthcoming. Last year the price of photovoltaic panels halved most driven by investment in production by China. In sunny locations PV electricity is already successfully competing against the retail cost of electricity.
Moreover, Germany is one of the most successful economies in Europe. They have their lowest unemployment in two decades. Germany is where they have taken the for change very seriously and it is not destroying their economy at all. Quite the opposite.
This is what introducing carbon taxes and trading schemes is aimed to achieve. It is to encourage business to change their investment strategies. It immediately encourages them to invest in reducing waste which is the low hanging fruit in this whole scheme.
The only economies that could be hurt are those of companies that steadfastly continue to invest in fossil fuels. These are the companies that pay "scientists" to deny AGW in a vain attempt to protect their investments.
More progressive energy companies are investing in a low carbon future.
"Going it alone". In fact many countries are taking action. No country would be going it alone. China has a huge program of change.
"Moving from reliance on fossil fuels would destroy our economies". This is put forward by people who don't understand economics. The technologies to implement the change already exist. They need further investment to allow them to be fully developed but most of the economics of anything is about demand.
With demand the investment will be forthcoming. Last year the price of photovoltaic panels halved most driven by investment in production by China. In sunny locations PV electricity is already successfully competing against the retail cost of electricity.
Moreover, Germany is one of the most successful economies in Europe. They have their lowest unemployment in two decades. Germany is where they have taken the for change very seriously and it is not destroying their economy at all. Quite the opposite.
This is what introducing carbon taxes and trading schemes is aimed to achieve. It is to encourage business to change their investment strategies. It immediately encourages them to invest in reducing waste which is the low hanging fruit in this whole scheme.
The only economies that could be hurt are those of companies that steadfastly continue to invest in fossil fuels. These are the companies that pay "scientists" to deny AGW in a vain attempt to protect their investments.
More progressive energy companies are investing in a low carbon future.
Businesses are not opposed to carbon tax because they just pass the increase on to their clients/customers.
If anyone doubts that the seas are rising should visit Kiribati
http://
If anyone doubts that the seas are rising should visit Kiribati
http://
Certainly businesses pass on their costs. That is how businesses work.However consumers have been compensated with direct payments and taxation reductions that covers those costs. If they want they can continue on as they are.
However the tax on carbon provides an incentive to move business investment towards technologies that do not emit as much carbon. Previously the economies were such that it was cheaper to just keep polluting.
Business that undertake these changes become more competitive. Ultimately costs are actually lowered because we stop wasting so much of our resources, everyone benefits along with the environment.
The tax also applies to methane emitted by the decay of organic matter in rubbish tips. Some councils cried unfair.
Instead our local council processes green waste to compost and the methane produced by other rotting materials is collected to fuel a micro power generation station. They don't have to pay tax on the methane, they save money on electricity and they sell the compost. Meanwhile these investments helped the company that supplied the technologies to continue developing.
It isn't rocket science to see how changing the cost dynamics provides real benefit and the stimulus for long term change in our energy technologies.
It just gets up the nose of rich and powerful fossil fuel companies.
However the tax on carbon provides an incentive to move business investment towards technologies that do not emit as much carbon. Previously the economies were such that it was cheaper to just keep polluting.
Business that undertake these changes become more competitive. Ultimately costs are actually lowered because we stop wasting so much of our resources, everyone benefits along with the environment.
The tax also applies to methane emitted by the decay of organic matter in rubbish tips. Some councils cried unfair.
Instead our local council processes green waste to compost and the methane produced by other rotting materials is collected to fuel a micro power generation station. They don't have to pay tax on the methane, they save money on electricity and they sell the compost. Meanwhile these investments helped the company that supplied the technologies to continue developing.
It isn't rocket science to see how changing the cost dynamics provides real benefit and the stimulus for long term change in our energy technologies.
It just gets up the nose of rich and powerful fossil fuel companies.
It is common knowledge that matter cannot be created or destroyed. In other words the same quantity of water exists from one year to the next. If there are rising tides in one part of the world this will be at the expense of lower tides somewhere else. This cannot be put down to melting ice as the polar regions are restoring their levels.
Global warming and cooling has always happened.
Explain to me why it was an est 4C warmer in England in 1215, (Magna Carta), and we were growing red grapes as far north as Luton and white ones up to Edinburgh? And then we had the mini-ice-age in late Tudor/early Stuart times that saw mini-glaciers in Scotland, Snowdonia known as the Welsh Alps and the alcohol base of the UK moving to grains away from grapes.
For the record, I do not condone resource wastage or the needless emission of gases but I do think we should put this global warming in context......I am an ex geologist/glaciologist and we tend to take a better time-line perspective to these arguments.
Explain to me why it was an est 4C warmer in England in 1215, (Magna Carta), and we were growing red grapes as far north as Luton and white ones up to Edinburgh? And then we had the mini-ice-age in late Tudor/early Stuart times that saw mini-glaciers in Scotland, Snowdonia known as the Welsh Alps and the alcohol base of the UK moving to grains away from grapes.
For the record, I do not condone resource wastage or the needless emission of gases but I do think we should put this global warming in context......I am an ex geologist/glaciologist and we tend to take a better time-line perspective to these arguments.
Latest Posts
How Do You Know If A Site Is Uk
ChatterBank3 mins ago
One Of Life's Unanswered Puzzles.
Internet5 mins ago
Home & Garden5 mins ago
News6 mins ago
