Climate Scientist Warns Sea Levels Are Rising Faster Than We Thought

[ScienceRocks]

So a wisp of CO2 is:

• causing the seas to rise,
• making them hotter and
• lower the pH down to gastric juice level

The greatest extinction in our planets history was caused by a extreme release of green house gasses. The Permian was a period of SUPER Hot climate!

Convince me you're totally committed and never post here again.

Oregon is nearly 70% renewable energy.... My posting doesn't harm anything. Your coal state hurts it a lot more.

What about all the damage to the environment those dams cause?

How about all the damage to the environment our roads, your house and our trash causes??? For there to be civilization on this planet there needs to be acceptable "damage" that we do to the environment but we always should attempt to minimize it.

The dams are a good source of energy and don't do much harm to the environment. Forming lakes behind natural dams in nature happens all the time and more then enough fish make it through to reproduce.

 

[Liminal]

Climate Scientist Warns Sea Levels Are Rising Faster Than We Thought
by Samantha Page Jul 20, 2015 4:47pm

Climate Scientist Warns Sea Levels Are Rising Faster Than We Thought ThinkProgress

Limiting climate change to 2°C is not going to protect us from devastating sea level rise, a new report has found.

According to the research, freshwater from land-based ice sheets melting into the oceans is inducing feedback that is accelerating the melting of ice shelves — a loop that indicates sea level rise will continue and could be devastating at much lower temperature changes than previously thought.

The study, authored by well-known climate scientist James Hansen and 16 other researchers, will be published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics this week. The research explains that there is an “amplifying feedback” as polar ice melts, because as more freshwater enters the ocean, it traps warmer sea water, which melts more ice. The effect is not included in the current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) modeling but “extensive data indicate [it] is already occurring,” according to the report.

“We are underestimating the speed at which these things are beginning to happen,” Hansen, head of the Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, said Monday on a call with reporters.

This feedback loop is separate from other accepted science, such as the ice-albedo feedback loop, in which dark-colored water and exposed ground absorb more heat than the white, reflective ice and snow they have replaced.

Imagine 21 feet of sea level change! Entire cities near the coast would be gone....Time to take this very seriously.,

When the water is up to their ears the deniers will still deny.

 

[Stephanie]

Go bitch at Obama. he was suppose to stop that ya know

gawd you can see the insane in him from this video. creepy

 

[Liminal]

Go bitch at Obama. he was suppose to stop that ya know

gawd you can see the insane in him from this video. creepy

Actually I'm picking up a lot more creepy insanity from you right now.

 

[jc456]

So a wisp of CO2 is:

• causing the seas to rise,
• making them hotter and
• lower the pH down to gastric juice level

The greatest extinction in our planets history was caused by a extreme release of green house gasses. The Permian was a period of SUPER Hot climate!

Convince me you're totally committed and never post here again.

Oregon is nearly 70% renewable energy.... My posting doesn't harm anything. Your coal state hurts it a lot more.

BS

 

[jc456]

Climate Scientist Warns Sea Levels Are Rising Faster Than We Thought
by Samantha Page Jul 20, 2015 4:47pm

Climate Scientist Warns Sea Levels Are Rising Faster Than We Thought ThinkProgress

Limiting climate change to 2°C is not going to protect us from devastating sea level rise, a new report has found.

According to the research, freshwater from land-based ice sheets melting into the oceans is inducing feedback that is accelerating the melting of ice shelves — a loop that indicates sea level rise will continue and could be devastating at much lower temperature changes than previously thought.

The study, authored by well-known climate scientist James Hansen and 16 other researchers, will be published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics this week. The research explains that there is an “amplifying feedback” as polar ice melts, because as more freshwater enters the ocean, it traps warmer sea water, which melts more ice. The effect is not included in the current Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) modeling but “extensive data indicate [it] is already occurring,” according to the report.

“We are underestimating the speed at which these things are beginning to happen,” Hansen, head of the Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, said Monday on a call with reporters.

This feedback loop is separate from other accepted science, such as the ice-albedo feedback loop, in which dark-colored water and exposed ground absorb more heat than the white, reflective ice and snow they have replaced.

Imagine 21 feet of sea level change! Entire cities near the coast would be gone....Time to take this very seriously.,

When the water is up to their ears the deniers will still deny.

Where does that happen?

 

[jc456]

Go bitch at Obama. he was suppose to stop that ya know

gawd you can see the insane in him from this video. creepy

Actually I'm picking up a lot more creepy insanity from you right now.

Nowhere near your president and yourself!

 

[imawhosure]

Matthew = degrowther!!!!!!!!! Typical socialist manifesto, read it and know what these people want. Pay particular attention to number 8!

Degrowth Manifesto
From P2P Foundation

Jump to: navigation, search
Context
David Bollier:

"In April 2008, more than 140 researchers in economics, the environmental sciences and social sciences from 30 countries converged on Paris for the first conference on “Economic Degrowth for Ecological Sustainability and Social Equity.” Now the proceedings from that epochal event are available online as a pdf file. The 322-page document is probably one of the best single collections of timely, authoritative writings on “steady state” or “no-growth economics.”

The formal declaration that was ratified by conference participants:" (http://www.onthecommons.org/stirrings-degrowth-movement)



Text
"We, participants in the Economic De-Growth For Ecological Sustainability And Social Equity Conference held in Paris on April 18-19, 2008 make the following declaration:

1. Economic growth (as indicated by increasing real GDP or GNP) represents an increase in production, consumption and investment in the pursuit of economic surplus, inevitably leading to increased use of materials, energy and land.

2. Despite improvements in the ecological efficiency of the production and consumption of goods and services, global economic growth has resulted in increased extraction of natural resources and increased waste and emissions.

3. Global economic growth has not succeeded in reducing poverty substantially, due to unequal exchange in trade and financial markets, which has increased inequality between countries.

4. As the established principles of physics and ecology demonstrate, there is an eventual limit to the scale of global production and consumption, and to the scale national economies can attain without imposing environmental and social costs on others elsewhere or future generations.

5. The best available scientific evidence indicates that the global economy has grown beyond ecologically sustainable limits, as have many national economies, especially those of the wealthiest countries (primarily industrialised countries in the global North).

6. There is also mounting evidence that global growth in production and consumption is socially unsustainable and uneconomic (in the sense that its costs outweigh its benefits).

7. By using more than their legitimate share of global environmental resources, the wealthiest nations are effectively reducing the environmental space available to poorer nations, and imposing adverse environmental impacts on them.

8. If we do not respond to this situation by bringing global economic activity into line with the capacity of our ecosystems, and redistributing wealth and income globally so that they meet our societal needs, the result will be a process of involuntary and uncontrolled economic decline or collapse, with potentially serious social impacts, especially for the most disadvantaged.

We therefore call for a paradigm shift from the general and unlimited pursuit of economic growth to a concept of “right-sizing” the global and national economies.

1. At the global level, “right-sizing” means reducing the global ecological footprint (including the carbon footprint) to a sustainable level.

2. In countries where the per capita footprint is greater than the sustainable global level, rightsizing implies a reduction to this level within a reasonable timeframe.

3. In countries where severe poverty remains, right-sizing implies increasing consumption by those in poverty as quickly as possible, in a sustainable way, to a level adequate for a decent life, following locally determined poverty-reduction paths rather than externally imposed development policies.

4. This will require increasing economic activity in some cases; but redistribution of income and wealth both within and between countries is a more essential part of this process.

The paradigm shift involves degrowth in wealthy parts of the world.

1. The process by which right-sizing may be achieved in the wealthiest countries, and in the global economy as a whole, is “degrowth”.

2. We define degrowth as a voluntary transition towards a just, participatory, and ecologically sustainable society.

3. The objectives of degrowth are to meet basic human needs and ensure a high quality of life, while reducing the ecological impact of the global economy to a sustainable level, equitably distributed between nations. This will not be achieved by involuntary economic contraction.

4. Degrowth requires a transformation of the global economic system and of the policies promoted and pursued at the national level, to allow the reduction and ultimate eradication of absolute poverty to proceed as the global economy and unsustainable national economies degrow.

5. Once right-sizing has been achieved through the process of degrowth, the aim should be to maintain a “steady state economy” with a relatively stable, mildly fluctuating level of consumption.

6. In general, the process of degrowth is characterised by:

— an emphasis on quality of life rather than quantity of consumption;

— the fulfilment of basic human needs for all;

— societal change based on a range of diverse individual and collective actions and policies;

— substantially reduced dependence on economic activity, and an increase in free time, unremunerated activity, conviviality, sense of community, and individual and collective health;

— encouragement of self-reflection, balance, creativity, flexibility, diversity, good citizenship, generosity, and non-materialism;

— observation of the principles of equity, participatory democracy, respect for human rights, and respect for cultural differences.

7. Progress towards degrowth requires immediate steps towards efforts to mainstream the concept of degrowth into parliamentary and public debate and economic institutions; the development of policies and tools for the practical implementation of degrowth; and development of new, non-monetary indicators (including subjective indicators) to identify, measure and compare the benefits and costs of economic activity, in order to assess whether changes in economic activity contribute to or undermine the fulfillment of social and environmental objectives." (http://www.onthecommons.org/stirrings-degrowth-movement)

Yes folks, it all sounds good when listening to Matthew doesn't it! But when you know exactly what is wanted, you realize instantly it is SOCIALISM!!!!!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

When faced with irrefutable evidence that their nonsense has nothing to do with science, our 'Conservatives' immediately resort to calling anyone that points out their disconnect with reality communists, socialists, or fascists, whatever the flavor of the day is.

 

[jc456]

When faced with irrefutable evidence that their nonsense has nothing to do with science, our 'Conservatives' immediately resort to calling anyone that points out their disconnect with reality communists, socialists, or fascists, whatever the flavor of the day is.

No, what we're telling you is that without evidence to prove your statement, it's all smoke and mirrors. We don't need to call anyone names, like 'denier'. You simply believe something that has no proof to support it, and when challenged to present said evidence you fail to post it. the funny thing is, you all keep posting the same BS over and over and why discussions never move along. simply show the energy of CO2 as Frank has asked for in the oceans and let's rehash those figures.

 

[Old Rocks]

Rehash what? The fact and degree to which the GHGs absorb outgoing energy has long been settled. The heat transfer between the atmosphere and ocean happens, and there is simply more research needed to understand the factors influencing the transfer, one to the other. That fools like you try to deny the science on the basis of politics and other peoples economic interests is also a fact, and a sad reflection on your intellect and ethics.

Last year and this year, and probably next year as well, have demonstrated the fallacy of your arguements. Unless we get a major impact or caldera eruption, 2015 will break all records. Records for heat, records for weather events and extremes. And you fools will do all you can to deny the reality of that.

 

[jc456]

Rehash what? The fact and degree to which the GHGs absorb outgoing energy has long been settled. The heat transfer between the atmosphere and ocean happens, and there is simply more research needed to understand the factors influencing the transfer, one to the other. That fools like you try to deny the science on the basis of politics and other peoples economic interests is also a fact, and a sad reflection on your intellect and ethics.

Last year and this year, and probably next year as well, have demonstrated the fallacy of your arguements. Unless we get a major impact or caldera eruption, 2015 will break all records. Records for heat, records for weather events and extremes. And you fools will do all you can to deny the reality of that.

How CO2 heats the oceans. Those figures on how 120 PPM of CO2 makes the oceans hotter.

 

[mamooth]

We already told you how CO2 heats the oceans.

The sun heats the oceans.

The oceans heat the air.

That heat eventually escapes to space.

CO2 slows down the rate of heat flow out into space, so the air warms.

If the air warms, the rate of heat transfer from oceans to air slows down, so more heat stays in the ocean, and the oceans warm.

Like we keep saying, learn the basics.

 

[Stephanie]

If these warmers could kill off a few BILLION people, I believe they would in a heartbeat. people better wake up. Hitler used the Environment for his AGENDAS TOO

 

[jc456]

We already told you how CO2 heats the oceans.

The sun heats the oceans.

The oceans heat the air.

That heat eventually escapes to space.

CO2 slows down the rate of heat flow out into space, so the air warms.

If the air warms, the rate of heat transfer from oceans to air slows down, so more heat stays in the ocean, and the oceans warm.

Like we keep saying, learn the basics.

so explain how CO2 slows the process once it is saturated? Again going back to the 120 PPM subject which through today, still no evidence. So you fail on another day. hmmmmmmm.

Oh that's the dude Herr Koch 1901 that proved that you're nuts.

 

[mamooth]

Reviews of the paper from other scientists

The world s most famous climate scientist just outlined an alarming scenario for our planet s future - The Washington Post
---
Michael Mann, a climate researcher at Penn State University who reviewed the paper at the Post’s request, commented by email that “their case is most compelling when it comes to the matter of West Antarctic ice sheet collapse and the substantial sea level rise that would result, potentially on a timescale as short as a century or two.” But Mann was more skeptical of other aspects of the work.

“Their climate model scenario wherein Greenland and Antarctic meltwater caused by warming poles, leads to a near total shutdown of ocean heat transport to higher latitudes, cooling most of the globe (particularly the extratropics), seems rather far-fetched to me,” Mann said. Nonetheless, Mann said, “Whether or not all of the specifics of the study prove to be correct, the authors have initiated an absolutely critical discussion.”

Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, an expert on sea level rise and the oceans’ overturning circulation, commented by email that “I agree that 2 C warming is dangerous and will very likely commit our home planet to meters of sea-level rise.” Rahmstorf had not yet had time to review the full Hansen paper Monday, so his comment was strictly about the danger of major sea level rise, not the other scenarios outlined in the study.

Rahmstorf has previously suggested that among past periods featuring higher seas, the Eemian may not be the best analogy for where the planet is headed, given that changes at that time were driven by planetary orbital cycles, rather than carbon dioxide emissions.

Kevin Trenberth, an influential climate researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, was critical of the paper, calling it “provocative and intriguing but rife with speculation and ‘what if’ scenarios.” Trenberth objected in particular to the climate modeling scenarios used to study freshwater injection as ice sheets melt. “These experiments introduce a lot of very cold fresh water in various places, and then they see what happens,” he wrote by email. “The question is how relevant these are to the real world and what is happening as global warming progresses? They do not seem at all realistic to me.”

“There are way too many assumptions and extrapolations for anything here to be taken seriously other than to promote further studies,” Trenberth wrote.
---

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/C5209/2015/acpd-15-C5209-2015.pdf
David Archer
---
This is another Hansen masterwork of scholarly synthesis, modeling virtuosity, and insight, with profound implications.
---

Hansen et al. Open Mind
---
Definitely, there’s much about this paper that’s speculative. But it’s far from impossible. I believe that when it comes to the speculative but possible, it’s crucial for us to be aware of the worst-case scenarios and what they mean for the near future — the rest of this century. Hansen et al. have raised one possibility, and despite all the arguments of its implausibility there’s just as much evidence of its plausibility. The severity of it’s consequences, however, is not really in doubt. Which makes for a clear and frightening illustration of the principle that “uncertainty is not your friend.”
---

And remember, the topic is the paper, so discuss the paper. No spamming or trolling allowed. Here's the pre-link to the paper. To get the full paper, click the pdf icon on that page.

ACPD - Interactive Discussion - Ice melt sea level rise and superstorms evidence from paleoclimate data climate modeling and modern observations that 2 C global warming is highly dangerous

 

[jc456]

Reviews of the paper from other scientists

The world s most famous climate scientist just outlined an alarming scenario for our planet s future - The Washington Post
---
Michael Mann, a climate researcher at Penn State University who reviewed the paper at the Post’s request, commented by email that “their case is most compelling when it comes to the matter of West Antarctic ice sheet collapse and the substantial sea level rise that would result, potentially on a timescale as short as a century or two.” But Mann was more skeptical of other aspects of the work.

“Their climate model scenario wherein Greenland and Antarctic meltwater caused by warming poles, leads to a near total shutdown of ocean heat transport to higher latitudes, cooling most of the globe (particularly the extratropics), seems rather far-fetched to me,” Mann said. Nonetheless, Mann said, “Whether or not all of the specifics of the study prove to be correct, the authors have initiated an absolutely critical discussion.”

Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, an expert on sea level rise and the oceans’ overturning circulation, commented by email that “I agree that 2 C warming is dangerous and will very likely commit our home planet to meters of sea-level rise.” Rahmstorf had not yet had time to review the full Hansen paper Monday, so his comment was strictly about the danger of major sea level rise, not the other scenarios outlined in the study.

Rahmstorf has previously suggested that among past periods featuring higher seas, the Eemian may not be the best analogy for where the planet is headed, given that changes at that time were driven by planetary orbital cycles, rather than carbon dioxide emissions.

Kevin Trenberth, an influential climate researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, was critical of the paper, calling it “provocative and intriguing but rife with speculation and ‘what if’ scenarios.” Trenberth objected in particular to the climate modeling scenarios used to study freshwater injection as ice sheets melt. “These experiments introduce a lot of very cold fresh water in various places, and then they see what happens,” he wrote by email. “The question is how relevant these are to the real world and what is happening as global warming progresses? They do not seem at all realistic to me.”

“There are way too many assumptions and extrapolations for anything here to be taken seriously other than to promote further studies,” Trenberth wrote.
---

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/C5209/2015/acpd-15-C5209-2015.pdf
David Archer
---
This is another Hansen masterwork of scholarly synthesis, modeling virtuosity, and insight, with profound implications.
---

Hansen et al. Open Mind
---
Definitely, there’s much about this paper that’s speculative. But it’s far from impossible. I believe that when it comes to the speculative but possible, it’s crucial for us to be aware of the worst-case scenarios and what they mean for the near future — the rest of this century. Hansen et al. have raised one possibility, and despite all the arguments of its implausibility there’s just as much evidence of its plausibility. The severity of it’s consequences, however, is not really in doubt. Which makes for a clear and frightening illustration of the principle that “uncertainty is not your friend.”
---

And remember, the topic is the paper, so discuss the paper. No spamming or trolling allowed. Here's the pre-link to the paper. To get the full paper, click the pdf icon on that page.

ACPD - Interactive Discussion - Ice melt sea level rise and superstorms evidence from paleoclimate data climate modeling and modern observations that 2 C global warming is highly dangerous

All of what you just posted is no different than me making this statement......The moon will come out of earth's orbit in the future!

It may happen, it may not happen. hmmmmmmmm what's the threat level or risk? No one knows. same as every scientist you just posted. No one knows. Good for them, they want to write, feel free.

Just know we know it is all garbage and unreliable.

We have history on our side.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When faced with irrefutable evidence that their nonsense has nothing to do with science, our 'Conservatives' immediately resort to calling anyone that points out their disconnect with reality communists, socialists, or fascists, whatever the flavor of the day is.

How did the AGWCult determine that 90% was the correct number for estimating the amount of imaginary "warming" absorbed by the ocean

 

[Crick]

That number is used in a number of references and, I assume, it was calculated by climate science physicists from first principles.

 

[Crick]

Here is the first paragraph in section 3.1 of WGI (The Physical Science Basis) of the IPCC's AR5:
Chapter 3 - Observations: Ocean
3.1 Introduction
The ocean influences climate by storing and transporting large amounts of heat, freshwater, and carbon, and by exchanging these properties with the atmosphere. About 93% of the excess heat energy stored by the Earth over the last 50 years is found in the ocean (Church et al., 2011; Levitus et al., 2012). The ability of the ocean to store vast amounts of heat reflects the large mass and heat capacity of seawater relative to air and the fact that ocean circulation connects the surface and interior ocean. More than three quarters of the total exchange of water between the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface through evaporation and precipitation takes place over the oceans (Schmitt, 2008). The ocean contains 50 times more carbon than the atmosphere (Sabine et al., 2004) and is at present acting to slow the rate of climate change by absorbing about 30% of human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from fossil fuel burning, cement production, deforestation and other land use change (Mikaloff-Fletcher et al., 2006; Le Quéré et al., 2010). Changes in the ocean may result in climate feedbacks that either increase or reduce the rate of climate change. Climate variability and change on time scales from seasons to millennia is therefore closely linked to the ocean and its interactions with the atmosphere and cryosphere. The large inertia of the oceans means that they naturally integrate over short-term variability and often provide a clearer signal of longer-term change than other components of the climate system. Observations of ocean change therefore provide a means to track the evolution of climate change, and a relevant benchmark for climate models