Last month was the hottest September for globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces since record-keeping began in 1880, the US government says.
It also marked the 38th consecutive September with a global temperature above the 20th-century average, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-21/planet-marks-hottest-spetember-since-1880/5828628
There has been a shift in the orthodox view of how the rate of global warming has changed in the 21st century. There is an acknowledgement that the rate of warming has slowed, despite the continued high rate of carbon dioxide production by the human species.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/FyfeEtAlNatureClimate16.pdf
Greg C
Member
So? Do you expect the rate of warming to be linear. If so you don't live in the world. The major reason people continue to claim warming has slowed is they only view the data from 1998 on. 1998 was a very warm year, the end of a major El Ninio event. Take a much wider view as you should and warming is continuing as we do very little worldwide, in Australia virtually nothing
Bushwalker
Member
Oh no, not 1998 again!
Yes, the warming rate is not linear. This is why real climate scientists look at longer periods to even out the dips and peaks. If we believed the 1998 skeptics, they would be screaming about massive climate change right now, but they aren't, are they?
johnmath
Member
Of the excess heat accumulating as a consequence of CO2 emissions, only a few % is in the lower atmosphere, and as everyone knows, the lower atmospheric temperature is subject to weather variations. Around 93% of the radiative heat from the sun is absorbed in the first instance by the oceans.
There never was any hiatus in global warming - there has not been any slowdown in the accumulation of heat on Earth as a result of the radiative imbalance caused by CO2 emissions.
If there was a slowdown in lower atmospheric temperature rise, then watch out, the surface temperature will catch up soon and that is going to be rather nasty. This is not theory, or speculation, or modelling; it is basic fundamental physics.
Bushwalker
Member
James Hanson has released a new video to go along with a new paper:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP-cRqCQRc8
"Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate
modeling, and modern observations that 2C global warming is highly dangerous"
"J. Hansen, M. Sato, P. Hearty, R. Ruedy,M. Kelley, V. Masson-Delmotte, G. Russell, G. Tselioudis, J. Cao, E. Rignot, I. Velicogna, E. Kandiano, K. von Schuckmann, P. Kharecha, A. N. Legrande, M. Bauer, and K.-W. Lo."
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf (121 pages)
Bushwalker
Member
Yes. I also noticed that the model predictions are all looking a bit conservative. If these guys are right then we are truly in for a scary time.
Greg C
Member
Good Ted talk on how models work. "They work, they are always wrong but they are skilful"
https://www.ted.com/talks/gavin_schmidt_the_emergent_patterns_of_climate_change
Maybe this reporter knows more than we think. Climate change is in there.
http://videosift.com/video/British-Reporter-Loses-His-Shit-And-Reports-The-NEWS
We are already living scary times, hockey sticks and pingos.
It is amazing the ignorant attention to 1.5C and 2.0C when the Arctic, the climate change powerhouse, way exceeded those limits a long time ago. The rest is academic.
2015 was a watershed year that has stormed into 2016. Is April too early to declare 2016 a certainty for yet another record global warming year?
dbindoff
Member
If you keep the NASA altimeter site on your radar
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
and see
106.44 in 2020 then we are on track for 20 metres by 2056 ( 40 years from now)
unless radical and successful intervention is undertaken or we end up with massive ice sheet development on currently unburdened land ( quite unlikely)
dax
Member
You may find sea level rise will not rise steadily as it is, but in leaps and the next 2 years may see them rise many metres as ice shelfs begin to collapse rapidly.
There's no chance of intervention, anything that would work, would require the entire human race to stop using fossil fuels, land clearing and major mining instantly. Then reduce human population by at least 80%, otherwise nothing will or can change. The chances of that are minus zero, which can be seen in the insane decision by governments to approve the massive coal mines in Queensland. All this will do is increase the rate of decline, along wit 99.9% of humans doing nothing but maintaining the status quo of consumerism and environmental destruction.
If you haven't prepared for the unbelievable changes we will see in the next 5 years, then you have missed the boat by decades and will become a victim of your own making. Governments will do nothing, but cling to power desperately, ignore what's happening as they are now and cling to their ideological insanities and primitively deluded beliefs. Still we keep voting for them, so deserve our societies and probably the human race and most life, becomes extinct and struggles to survie.
Bushwalker
Member
Check this massive CSIRO stuff up out:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-04/csiro-should-shed-120-climate-scientists-email-say/7297042
" In essence I think we should aim for - 120 staff... because it would allow a clean out in terms of eliminating all capability associated with "public good/ Government funded climate research".
If we aim for less we will inevitably face the problem of keeping some of the climate scientists (who will no longer be aligned with the news CSIRO strategy).
If we go for more, we will lose important non-climate related capability"
Senior research scientist Richard Matear said it showed management had been lying to staff about the prospective cuts.
Executive Alex Wonhas, who oversees the Oceans and Atmosphere Division, met staff at the Hobart offices this morning.
Stand by for rockets! lol. CSIRO Management deserve it.
dax
Member
dbindoff said:
Hi Dax, I know how I arrived at my calculations.(Velicogna, IPCC, NASA,adjusting acceleration to account )
How do you calculate 'many metres' in next 2 years
Mate all those you quote have always got it terribly wrong and will continue so because there is no way we can understand the speed of what is happening. I use a process called reality, not hope or deluded hope. What they predicted to happen at the end of this century, will most probably happen this year and that is an ice free arctic.
At our end of the world, the Lars B ice shelf is already on the move and every glacier and ice shelf is the same. It's the rapidity of melt which gives us the true signs and when you take into account the relatively new phenomena of ice shelfs and glaciers melting on top and then the water is running down under the ice and lifting it, increasing it's speed to the sea.
They calculations revolve around melt running off, not under the ice as is happening at an increasing rate. Personally, hope I'm wrong, but the evolving facts say the opposite and only time will bring the true reality to us. But I'm not waiting, already prepared and above the supposed highest sea rise of 80m. Once one ice shelf or glacier slips into the sea, the other will follow quickly. Saw a documentary awhile ago about a glacier in Iceland which back in 2000, was moving at 1m a day, now it is moving at hundreds of metres a day and the comparison video was astonishing to watch. Before the turn of the century, they used to camp on the glacier to take measurements, now they can't go anywhere near it as the speed of its collapse is so fast, it looks like an escalator.
The official World yearly average sea level rise is 3.42mm and increasing but the now more relevant average sea level rise over the last 5 years is 7.2mm per year.
After a recent hiatus, the World has entered a rapid warming phase and this won't stop any time soon because the climate is now experiencing numerous positive feed backs.
dax said:
It's the rapidity of melt which gives us the true signs and when you take into account the relatively new phenomena of ice shelfs and glaciers melting on top and then the water is running down under the ice and lifting it, increasing it's speed to the sea.
Recent drilling through the Greenland ice sheet has found that the bottom is sludge and not the rock base most expected. The hydraulic capacity of water is astonishing and massive amounts of water continues to pour down.
Bushwalker
Member
dax said:
Mate all those you quote have always got it terribly wrong and will continue so because there is no way we can understand the speed of what is happening. I use a process called reality, not hope or deluded hope. What they predicted to happen at the end of this century, will most probably happen this year and that is an ice free arctic.
I still can't see how an ice free arctic and various known accelerating ice shelves and glaciers etc is going to result in metres of sea level rise in the next year or so.
The deniers always come out with some guff claiming the climate scientists don't know what they are talking about but they never support their claims with actual science. Unfortunately, that also applies to most extreme alarmists. Don't jump on their bandwagon, it won't get you anywhere.
So I think what you are saying is that you don't have any science, you just have an opinion. That's fine, but be aware that an opinion will never hold more weight than actual science.
dax
Member
The science is determined by observation, so far the science has been badly wrong, mine and others opinions based on observational facts have been more accurate. When Lars B collapses, it will rise sea level by about 8 metres. The science predicts that will more than likely happen by 2020 now, just 4 years away. Yet just 5 years ago the science predicted that would happen in the later half of this century, yet it is beginning to happening now, just 15 years into this century.
Bushwalker
Member
Interesting ideas you have there dax.
Science predictions are based on the science and the known facts. There is no problem with science predicting something will happen in the latter half of the century and 5 years later improving the prediction based on changes and improved observations.
Where do you get the idea that a collapse of Lars B will raise the planets oceans by 8 metres? The area of the worlds oceans is about 360 million km² I'm sure a large ice shelf will have an effect, but a rise of 8 metres x 360 million km² would be about 2,880 million cubic km. What is the volume of Lars B again?
dax
Member
Lars B raising sea levels by about 8m, is what the science predicts because of its massive volume. I have no idea of the technical facts, just what I've read and accept their predicted outcomes, but the timing is outside any scientific estimation, as they have n idea of how it all works and the southern oscillation, is something they are just beginning to discover works very differently to what they thought. Because the southern ocean is the one ocean that doesn't come up against any land, so creates an uninterrupted control of world currents and the planets weather.
I'm no techie, just a retired builder, but have been watching this climate change since the 1980's and could see way back then that the predictions were way out of whack compared to the reality. Down here In Tas, at port Arthur there is a high and low tide mark carved into the rocks back in the early 1880's. The high water mark has been totally submerged for the last 10 years and the low water mark is higher then the original high water mark by many centimeters. They built a new wharf not far away from Port Arthur a few years ago and at high tide it was a metre above the high water mark, now it laps under the decking and during spring tides, they have to move any boats because the new wharf goes under water.
I'm sure my assumptions are wrong, just as the science is wrong and only the coming reality will show the true effects. I my humble opinion, being prepared for a worse case scenario happening much sooner than later, is a positive move, much better then relying on official claims which are always so far out, they should be taken as guide line, rather than fact.
Even if the sea's only rise 1-2m, that will create havoc across the planet because the vast majority of humans live on the coast and between 1-4m above last century sea levels. Not hard to work out the outcomes of that and when you take into account, rivers will also rise that amount, it increases flooding even further inland.
Bushwalker
Member
Lars B raising sea levels by about 8m, is what the science predicts because of its massive volume.
Nope, can't find a reference for that. Can you post a link please?
Bushwalker
Member
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/Larsen-Ice-Shelf.html
While calving or disintegrating ice shelves don’t raise ocean level themselves, the resulting glacier acceleration does, and it poses a direct threat to coastal communities. More than 100 million people currently live within 1 metre of sea level. Greenland contains enough ice to raise sea levels by 7 metres (23 feet), and Antarctica holds enough ice to raise sea levels by about 57 metres (187 feet). At their seaward edge, ice shelves periodically calve icebergs, some the size of a small U.S. state or European country.
So it certainly seems from a quick bit of Larsen B ice shelf googling, that the collapse of an ice shelf like Larsen B is not going to immediately raise sea levels by any significance, especially not 8 metres.
IAEA
Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg_B-15
This is Iceberg B-15. I have been following its story for quite awhile now (years). Posting FYI, as I find it and associated articles fascinating.
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/14000/14361/B-15A_ASAR_2005105_lrg.jpg ..... You can see how it impacted the Drygalski ice tongue and snapped the tip.
http://earth.eo.esa.int/ewarchive/special_events/iceberg-b15_antartic/_images/icebergB15_10Jan05_name_bg.jpg .... Before the impact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg#Recent_large_icebergs
Any comments will be welcomed.
IAEA
dax
Member
Bushwalker said:
Nope, can't find a reference for that. Can you post a link please?
Saw it on catalyst a couple of years ago, the only link I could find is this one and it seems by a denialist site, where they claim it will be 1000 years before it collapses and will only raise sea levels 4m.
It's like all things revolving around climate change and the realities of life, you get many different claims and really no one knows how fast or slow nature will adapt, to stop us destroying it and making the planet like Mars.
To my mind, it's the reports that appear from reputable science, then disappear just as quickly, as the powers that be censor as much of the truth as they can. This is to stop panic and the collapse of their profit making system. This censorship and denial approach can be seen throughout the ages and especially in the last century, where fantasy and hope have replaced reality and observable fact.
Considering how far out the science is in it's predictions, I tend to look at the worst case scenario and work back from that. The majority look at the best case scenario and blindly stick with that, history shows us who gets it right and in the majority of case, the worst case followers come out on top. Whilst the deniers, end up as the cannon fodder. You just have to look at wars to see the reality and this is a war between idiotic ideological humanity and reality.
Bushwalker
Member
If the ice is to cause sea level rise, it has to move from land into the sea.
If its an ice shelf, it is already floating on water. When it breaks off, there is no change to sea level.
Even if Larsen B (whats left of it) was all on land and it moved into the sea, it is simply not large enough to cause your claimed 8 metre SLR.
You might not like the predictions from science, but it is the best we have, and they are not cast in stone. As the observations and inquiry continues the predictions become more accurate.
dax
Member
It's not the actual ice shelf that causes sea level rise, they act as barriers for the massive glaciers behind them and that's what causes the rise. Once the ice shelf has fully collapsed, it allows a rapid flow to the sea of glacial ice, which does increase sea levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larsen_Ice_Shelf
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/larsenb.php
https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/warming-ocean-water-undercuts-antarctic-ice-shelves
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/05/16/us/antarctica-larsen-b-ice-shelf-to-disappear/
These articles show how unaware science was when the shelfs began to collapse, especially lars B and it is always the same. Humans are always reluctant to accept what is actually happening compared to what they want to believe and the propaganda they are fed. This is because it is deluded ideologies which control humanity and not reality.
It's not only antarctic glaciers which will rapidly run into the sea now the ice shelf barriers are fast collapsing, but worldwide glaciers. The arctic is warming much faster than the antarctic, so no one knows when and what will happen and parts of the antarctic are warming faster than others.
However the difference between The predictions and the reality, are never known until the events occur. So we can speculate as much as we want, but the facts will only be clear, when it happens and as we have increased our warming emissions by more than 25% since the turn of the century, we have no idea of what will happen in the next 5 years.
If we've increased emissions 25% in 15 years over an already fast warming environment, whilst population and consumption are still growing rapidly. How can science claim to know what and when the effects get out of control and over run us. There is no sign anyone is doing anything but continuing down the same fatalistic consumption and population growth path, which throws the science out the window, along with life.
