Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

It was only a matter of time before subsidence and none climate change related sea level rise was blamed on AGW.

To reiterate:
... the mid-Atlantic coast, from North Carolina to Massachusetts has one of the fastest rates of sea level rise in the world, independent of vertical land movement (rising or sinking). The USGS study found that oceans are rising on the mid-Atlantic coast at three to four times the global rate of sea level rise.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by GordMay

To reiterate:
... the mid-Atlantic coast, from North Carolina to Massachusetts has one of the fastest rates of sea level rise in the world, independent of vertical land movement (rising or sinking). The USGS study found that oceans are rising on the mid-Atlantic coast at three to four times the global rate of sea level rise.

Not clear whether human-caused global warming is to blame, experts say

http://news.nationalgeographic.com.a...limate-change/

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[SailOar]

Broadcast meteorologists increasingly convinced manmade climate change is happening | Washington Post

TV weathercasters are more convinced than ever climate change is happening and that human activities are a major contributor suggest the results of a new report.

More than 90 percent of 464 broadcast meteorologists who responded to a 2015 survey agree climate change is happening and, of those, 74 percent believe human activity is at least half responsible, states “A National Survey of Broadcast Meteorologists About Climate Change: Initial Findings”, from the George Mason University (GMU) Center for Climate Change Communication.

These numbers represent about a 10 percent increase from survey results published by GMU in 2011 when 82 percent of respondents agreed global warming was happening and, of those, about 65 percent felt human activity was at least half to blame.

“The current findings do suggest a higher level of engagement in climate change among members of the broadcast meteorology community,” said Ed Maibach, lead author of the report.

Changes in survey wording, however, make it impossible to say how significant the changes in views are. “We don’t know if the community has changed, or if we are now merely asking better questions,” Maibach said....

But broadcast meteorologists views about the human role in climate change still lag those expressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international group of climate scientists, which in 2013 concluded “it is extremely likely [greater than 95 percent chance] that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”...


Within the community of television weathercasters, there has long been a contingent unconvinced human activities are substantially contributing to climate change. As recently as 2010, a quarter of broadcast meteorologists agreed with the statement “global warming is a scam” according to a previous GMU survey. At the time, the New York Times wrote about the “divide” between broadcast meteorologists and the climate science community:

“In a sense the question is who owns the atmosphere: the people who predict it every day or the people who predict it for the next 50 years?” said Bob Henson, a science writer for the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, who trained as a meteorologist and has followed the divide between the two groups.

Perhaps this divide has shrunk as groups like Climate Central and the Yale Forum on Climate Change and The Media have worked to educate broadcast meteorologists about climate science and the tools used to monitor and predict climate change....

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Not clear whether human-caused global warming is to blame, experts say

Sea Levels Rising Fast on U.S. East Coast

From same article:

Sea levels worldwide are expected to rise as global warming melts ice and causes water to expand. Those levels, though, are expected to vary from place to place, due to factors such as ocean currents, differences in seawater temperature and saltiness, and the Earth's shape.

...

"If you talk with residents of this hot spot area in their 70s or 80s who've lived there all their lives, they'll tell you water is coming higher now in winter storms than it ever did before," said study co-author Peter Howd, an oceanographer contracted with the USGS.

...

At New York City, the team extrapolated, sea levels could rise by 7.8 to 11.4 inches (20 to 29 centimeters) by 2100—in addition to the roughly 3 feet (1 meter) of average sea level rise expected worldwide by then. (Related: "New York Seas to Rise Twice as Much as Rest of U.S.")

...

"It's really shortsighted to assume that the next hundred years of sea level rise are going to be like the last hundred years," [NASA climate scientist Josh Willis] added. "We're already seeing glaciers and ice sheets melt more quickly, and the ocean absorbing more heat and expanding—things that drive sea level rise."

(3 ft + 1 ft = ... ?)

They seem pretty clear on the 3 ft part, anyway.

[LakeSuperior]

Some sensible thoughts we might all agree on.

Dr. Judith Curry’s Testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology Hearing on the President’s UN Climate Pledge

Here is the content of Dr. Curry’s verbal testimony:
The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent (and future) warming is caused by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions versus natural climate variability that are caused by variations from the sun, volcanic eruptions, and large-scale ocean circulations.
Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change. This includes

• The slow down in global warming since 1998
• Reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide
• Climate models that are predicting much more warming than has been observed so far in the 21st century

While there are substantial uncertainties in our understanding of climate change, it is clear that humans are influencing climate in the direction of warming. However this simple truth is essentially meaningless in itself in terms of alarm, and does not mandate a particular policy response.
We have made some questionable choices in defining the problem of climate change and its solution:

• The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century
• Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence.
• Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution
• It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100.

The inadequacies of current policies based on emissions reduction are leaving the real societal consequences of climate change and extreme weather events largely unadressed, whether caused by humans or natural variability.
The wickedness of the climate change problem provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. Effectively responding to the possible threats from a warmer climate is made very difficult by the deep uncertainties surrounding the risks both from the problem and the proposed solutions.
The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options.
We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change.

• We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change.
• As an example of alternative options, pragmatic solutions have been proposed based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction Each of these measures has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation.
• Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not human caused climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century climate.

This concludes my testimony.
Her testimony can also be downloaded here [House science testimony apr 15 final].

Dr. Judith Curry’s Testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology Hearing on the President’s UN Climate Pledge | Watts Up With That?

[conachair]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Some sensible thoughts we might all agree on.

So we are agreeing that humans have a hand in the recent warming of the planet and should do something about it?

Can't disagree with that.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Some sensible thoughts we might all agree on.

Dr. Judith Curry’s Testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology Hearing on the President’s UN Climate Pledge

...

• We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change.
• As an example of alternative options, pragmatic solutions have been proposed based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction Each of these measures has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation.
• Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not human caused climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century climate.

That's a great link. I find nothing to disagree with, especially the recommendations, repeated above. Why are so many here against such actions, using BS excuses like "climate scientists are wrong", "conspiracy", Climategate and "soshulist agenda" as their reasons?

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

That's a great link. I find nothing to disagree with, especially the recommendations, repeated above. Why are so many here against such actions, using BS excuses like "climate scientists are wrong", "conspiracy", Climategate and "soshulist agenda" as their reasons?

IMHO it is because of the needle pegging forecasts of doom, radical economy destroying proposed fixes, and the religious cult like behavior of some climate scientists and their environmentalist sycophants all under the shadow of significant uncertainties regarding the science.

[Neo]

Although the models are far from perfect and the magnitude of change and mitigating factors are not understood, in my estimation the scientific research supporting the case for greenhouse gases as a significant contributor to climate change are valid.

What puzzles me is the irrationality and almost religious like fervor of those advocating drastic measures to mitigate warming and/or those that denying that it would take drastic steps to mitigate warming. I have yet to read a credible scientific journal or market analysis that states otherwise. In fact, the same scientists that this group likes to quote stated 10 years ago that it was already too late, and I for one believe them.

So, what are your goals? Who are you trying to save?

1. Are you trying to save the planet?

a. I haven’t read anywhere that climate change is a serious threat to the nonhuman world. Some ecosystems will be destroyed and others will be created, and life will adapt. It’s overpopulation, over development, overfishing, Dow chemical, loss of rain forests, loss of top soil, etc. that are the real threats to the planets ecosystems.

2. Are you trying to save lives?

a. From the IPCC: “in order to keep warming under the 2°C (3.6°F) threshold agreed on by the world’s governments at a 2009 meeting in Copenhagen, greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 will have to be 40 to 70 percent lower than what they were in 2010. By the end of the century, they will need to be at zero.”

b. Can anyone say with a straight face that this would not come with a monumental reduction in the standard of living for everyone on this planet?

c. It is a reasonable assumption that there would be more death and suffering following the IPCC measures than if we focus on adapting to climate change instead of trying to change the climate back.

d. Just a 15% drop in worldwide GDP accompanied the great depression from 1929 to 1932. I believe that a 70% reduction in greenhouse gas by 2050 would lower worldwide GDP by more than 15%.

e. The great depression was probably a contributing factor to the start of WWII.

3. Are you just trying to keep the world as it is; at great expense to the next 5 generations?

a. Well then you are overreaching and doomed to fail. The economy will collapse and humans will turn to burning cheap coal and nothing will change.

4. In the United States the mass media, academics, the entire Democratic Party and the President support action to reduce global warming; and US voters are twice as likely to vote for candidates that support action.
a. If saving the planet is really what this huge block of humanity wants, then why don’t they support nukes, the only way to get to zero emissions in the US in next 50 years without creating an economic meltdown.
b. As far as I know, the wildlife around Chernobyl is thriving since humans left the area.

What amuses me is that those that hold up science as there guiding light are just as emotional and irrational as the climate change deniers.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

IMHO it is because of the needle pegging forecasts of doom, radical economy destroying proposed fixes, and the religious cult like behavior of some climate scientists and their environmentalist sycophants all under the shadow of significant uncertainties regarding the science.

If you actually go past the media and read the science reports, you wouldn't have seen much "needle pegging forecasts of doom, radical economy destroying proposed fixes, and the religious cult like behavior of some climate scientists and their environmentalist sycophants" in the scientific findings. Most of that noise are distortions and fabrications from those who don't want you to authorize the government to do ANYTHING.

Put politics to one side, and just read the science.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

If you actually go past the media and read the science reports, you wouldn't have seen much "needle pegging forecasts of doom, radical economy destroying proposed fixes, and the religious cult like behavior of some climate scientists and their environmentalist sycophants" in the scientific findings. Most of that noise are distortions and fabrications from those who don't want you to authorize the government to do ANYTHING.

Put politics to one side, and just read the science.

You're joking I hope!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Neo

Although the models are far from perfect and the magnitude of change and mitigating factors are not understood, in my estimation the scientific research supporting the case for greenhouse gases as a significant contributor to climate change are valid.

...

[Neo's list of reasons for not doing anything]

...

What amuses me is that those that hold up science as there guiding light are just as emotional and irrational as the climate change deniers.

... with one exception - putting some trust in the science and the people who do the science would seem to be a more rational position than denying it because they don't like the conclusion, or the implications.

Eyes open vs eyes closed.

I think that renewables and even the grail of fusion - these are the great market opportunities for the future, and the deniers are successfully deterring the US from leading in this area. The Chinese are developing and deploying new technology, including pollution reduction, at a far faster pace than the US. They're eating your lunch in this area.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

You're joking I hope!

Sorry. About which part?

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... with one exception - putting some trust in the science and the people who do the science would seem to be a more rational position than denying it because they don't like the conclusion, or the implications.

Eyes open vs eyes closed.

I think that renewables and even the grail of fusion - these are the great market opportunities for the future, and the deniers are successfully deterring the US from leading in this area. The Chinese are developing and deploying new technology, including pollution reduction, at a far faster pace than the US. They're eating your lunch in this area.

Give it a rest! Below is the first google link.


China has been praised recently for its investments in renewable energy. And the credit is well deserved as China's commitment to renewables dwarfs that of the U.S. and other industrialized countries. From 2010 to 2012 alone, China’s renewable electricity growth was double that of the U.S., and it is continuing to grow.
But all the accolades are distracting us from the reality that fossil fuels dominate China’s energy landscape, as they do in virtually every other country. Today, fossil fuels account for 87 percent of all energy used in China. And the focus on renewables also hides the fact that China’s reliance upon coal is predicted to keep growing.
Click image to enlarge
Coal, the most carbon-intensive of the fossil fuels, accounts for 70 percent of energy used in China today and is responsible for about three quarters of electricity generation.

• In just 5 years, from 2005 through 2009, China added the equivalent of the entire U.S. fleet of coal-fired power plants, or 510 new 600-megawatt coal plants.
• From 2010 through 2013, it added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. again.
• At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal plants a week, for 7 straight years.
• And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years.
  
  China's Growing Coal Use Is World's Growing Problem | Climate Central

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Give it a rest! Below is the first google link.

China has been praised recently for its investments in renewable energy. And the credit is well deserved as China's commitment to renewables dwarfs that of the U.S. and other industrialized countries. From 2010 to 2012 alone, China’s renewable electricity growth was double that of the U.S., and it is continuing to grow.

But all the accolades are distracting us from the reality that fossil fuels dominate China’s energy landscape, as they do in virtually every other country. Today, fossil fuels account for 87 percent of all energy used in China. And the focus on renewables also hides the fact that China’s reliance upon coal is predicted to keep growing.

...

China's Growing Coal Use Is World's Growing Problem | Climate Central

I seem to recall some heat from you for AGW alarmist 'needle pegging forecasts of doom'. Yet you're making one now.

I don't think forecasting China's long-term energy strategy is more certain than climate forecasting. Their love affair with the car is already paling, for example.

And coal use is much more within our control than the whole spectrum of climate change. Except if we're gonna just throw up our hands and say, "well, China!".

from the article:

Helping China cut its coal emissions should be a top priority for all nations, including improving energy efficiencies further, using even more renewable energy, and deploying CO2 capture and storage technologies. The U.S. could go a long way to encouraging this by pursuing more aggressive CO2 reduction efforts at home.

Lead, follow, or get outta the way.