Is the warming in the 20th century extraordinary?

[RollingThunder]

people on the small percentage of land that is susceptible to ocean rise will either have to move farther inland or build dikes. in the unlikely scenario that rising sea levels increase according to the doomsayers. over decades and centuries. kinda like 'The Mummy', he only gets you if you stop still and scream like an idiot. even then I think sooner or later you would get tired of wet socks and move away.

Oh, if only it was that simple.....but of course you only think it is because you're so very clueless, ignorant and, frankly, rather stupid.

A large percentage of the world's population lives within 50 miles of a coastline. Example: 85 per cent of Australia's population lives within an hour's drive of the coast. Tens of millions of people living in the low-level coastal areas of southern Asia will be severely affected by rising sea levels. These include the coastlines of Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Burma. Bangladesh, one the world's poorest countries, will be one of the hardest hit by rising sea levels and will probably produce the largest initial group of climate refugees and a very explosive situation as tens of millions of Bangladeshi Muslims try to flee to India. Potential impact of sea-level rise on Bangladesh. Many of the world's major cities are situated on the coast at about current sea level. There are literally trillions of dollars of the world's infrastructure on the coasts at sea level. As sea levels rise, sea water will invade and poison the freshwater aquifers that provide drinkable water for millions of people and irrigation water for enormous agriculture areas.

why dont you just compose a general all purpose insult for the skeptics and put it in your signature? it would save you from excess typing and the rest of us from having to scan through to where you actually have a comment.

Good idea. But don't worry, I'm sure I'll still find time to insult you specifically and personally for being such a clueless, ignorant moron and for stooging for the fossil fuel industry.

you dont seem to understand how delta areas are deposited. it is a function of height above sea level, which is yet another negative feedback that are so common in nature while positive feedbacks are as rare as hen's teeth.

I do understand that your comment here has nothing to do with the points that I just raised. I was talking about the massive impacts of sea level rise that you were trying to minimize by claiming that everyone could just move. I pointed out that you're ignoring the enormous numbers of people living on or near the coastlines of the world and the trillions of dollars of essential infrastructure that is built along the coasts. What does the way "delta areas are deposited" have to do with that, numbnuts?

brackish fresh water is associated with overuse of the aquafers(sic) not a few inches of sea level rise.

And you imagine that your unsupported claim means anything? LOL. You've already and repeatedly demonstrated a profound ignorance about almost everything so why would you think anyone is going to believe your unsupported word now.

Potential impacts of sea-level rise and climate change on coastal aquifers
The impacts of climate change and sea level rise have the potential to affect both the yield and quality of important strategic water resources provided by coastal aquifer systems.
University of New South Wales
(excerpts)

Sea level rise contributing to saline intrusion or inundation of coastal freshwater resources is probably the most direct impact of climate change, particularly for shallow sandy aquifers along low-lying coasts. The natural groundwater equilibrium is also susceptible to changes in recharge and discharge associated with climate change.

Fresh water contaminated by seawater at the level of only 5% renders it unsuitable for many important uses including drinking water supplies; irrigation of crops, parks and gardens and sustaining groundwater dependent ecosystems.

Sea-level rise and climate change can potentially impact groundwater resources in the following ways:

1. Seawater intrusion (progressive encroachment through the subsurface) and inland migration of the fresh-saline interface.
2. Seawater inundation (surface flow into low-lying areas) and flooding of unconfined aquifers by seawater.
3. Contamination of bores by storm surges and flooding of surface fittings.
4. Changing recharge due to variable rainfall and evapotranspiration resulting in an altered distribution of freshwater in the aquifer.
5. Changing discharge patterns that can generate waterlogged conditions and may impact on aquatic and wetland ecosystems.
6. High water table impact on infrastructure including leakage to septic tanks, sewer systems, and basements and causing instability of swimming pools, tanks and other subsurface structures that are not anchored.

one of the things that the alarmists fail to publicize is how draconian the energy cuts would have to be to make any realistic change. hobbling the developed nations while allowing the rest of the world to continue producing CO2 is the surest way to delay the advacement(sic) of new technologies that are the only long term solution other than catastrophic population reduction and a return to bare sustenence(sic) survival.

Another idiotic denier cult myth. Switching to renewable energy sources doesn't involve going back to living in caves or even "draconian energy cuts", it just means getting our energy needs from sources other than fossil fuels and it is doable.

Study claims 100 percent renewable energy possible by 2030
PhysOrg.com
January 19, 2011
(excerpts)

New research has shown that it is possible and affordable for the world to achieve 100 percent renewable energy by 2030, if there is the political will to strive for this goal. Mark Delucchi, one of the authors of the report, which was published in the journal Energy Policy, said the researchers had aimed to show enough renewable energy is available and could be harnessed to meet demand indefinitely by 2030.


A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables
Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. Here's how
Scientific American
October 26, 2009
(excerpts)

...an even larger challenge: to determine how 100 percent of the world’s energy, for all purposes, could be supplied by wind, water and solar resources, by as early as 2030. ...Most recently, a 2009 Stanford University study ranked energy systems according to their impacts on global warming, pollution, water supply, land use, wildlife and other concerns. The very best options were wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and hydroelectric power—all of which are driven by wind, water or sunlight (referred to as WWS). Nuclear power, coal with carbon capture, and ethanol were all poorer options, as were oil and natural gas. The study also found that battery-electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles recharged by WWS options would largely eliminate pollution from the transportation sector.

One of the things that the head-in-the-sand deniers fail to realize is just how extremely draconian the changes to our world will be as a result of a business-as-usual policy towards carbon emissions.

State of the Science: Beyond the Worst Case Climate Change Scenario
The IPCC has declared man-made climate change "unequivocal." The hard part: trying to stop it
By David Biello
Scientific American
November 26, 2007
(excerpts)

...The IPCC's fourth and final assessment of the climate change problem—known as the Synthesis Report—combines all of these reports and adds that "warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change." Although countries continue to debate the best way to address this finding, 130 nations, including the U.S., China, Australia, Canada and even Saudi Arabia, have concurred with it.

"The governments now require, in fact, that the authors report on risks that are high and 'key' because of their potentially very high consequence," says economist Gary Yohe, a lead author on the IPCC Synthesis Report. "They have, perhaps, given the planet a chance to save itself."

Among those risks:

Warming Temperatures—Continued global warming is virtually certain (or more than 99 percent likely to occur) at this point, leading to both good and bad impacts. On the positive side, fewer people will die from freezing temperatures and agricultural yield will increase in colder areas. The negatives include reduced crop production in the tropics and subtropics, increased insect outbreaks, diminished water supply caused by dwindling snowpack, and increasingly poor air quality in cities.

Heat Waves—Scientists are more than 90 percent certain that episodes of extreme heat will increase worldwide, leading to increased danger of wildfires, human deaths and water quality issues such as algal blooms.

Heavy Rains—Scientific estimates suggest that extreme precipitation events—from downpours to whiteouts—are more than 90 percent likely to become more common, resulting in diminished water quality and increased flooding, crop damage, soil erosion and disease risk.

Drought—Scientists estimate that there is a more than 66 percent chance that droughts will become more frequent and widespread, making water scarcer, upping the risk of starvation through failed crops and further increasing the risk of wildfires.

Stronger Storms—Warming ocean waters will likely increase the power of tropical cyclones (variously known as hurricanes and typhoons), raising the risk of human death, injury and disease as well as destroying coral reefs and property.

Biodiversity—As many as a third of the species known to science may be at risk of extinction if average temperatures rise by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Sea Level Rise—The level of the world's oceans will rise, likely inundating low-lying land, turning freshwater brackish and potentially triggering widespread migration of human populations from affected areas.

"As temperatures rise, thermal expansion will lead to sea-level rise, independent of melting ice," says chemical engineer Lenny Bernstein, another lead author of the recent IPCC report. "The indications are that this factor alone could cause serious problems [and] ice-sheet melting would greatly accelerate [it]."

Such ice-sheet melting, which the IPCC explicitly did not include in its predictions of sea-level rise, has already been observed and may be speeding up, according to recent research that determined that the melting of Greenland's ice cap has accelerated to six times the average flow of the Colorado River. Research has also shown that the world has consistently emitted greenhouse gases at the highest projected levels examined and sea-level rise has also outpaced projections from the IPCC's last assessment in 2001.

"We are above the high scenario now," says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, an IPCC lead author. "This is not a safe world."

Other recent findings include:

Carbon Intensity Increasing—The amount of carbon dioxide per car built, burger served or widget sold had been consistently declining until the turn of the century. But since 2000, CO2 emissions have grown by more than 3 percent annually. This is largely due to the economic booms in China and India, which rely on polluting coal to power production. But emissions in the developed world have started to rise as well, increasing by 2.6 percent since 2000, according to reports made by those countries to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also recently argued that U.S. emissions may continue to increase as a result of growing energy demand.

Carbon Sinks Slowing—The world's oceans and forests are absorbing less of the CO2 released by human activity, resulting in a faster rise in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. All told, humanity released 9.9 billion metric tons (2.18 X 1013 pounds) of carbon in 2006 at the same time that the ability of the North Atlantic to take in such emissions, for example, dropped by 50 percent.

Impacts Accelerating—Warming temperatures have prompted earlier springs in the far north and have caused plant species to spread farther into formerly icy terrain. Meanwhile, sea ice in the Arctic reached a record low this year, covering just 1.59 million square miles and thus shattering the previous 2005 minimum of 2.05 million square miles.

"The observed rate of loss is faster than anything predicted," says senior research scientist Mark Serreze of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. "We're already set up for another big loss next year. We've got so much open water in the Arctic now that has absorbed so much energy over the summer that the ocean has warmed. The ice that grows back this autumn will be thin."

The negative consequences of such reinforcing, positive feedbacks (white ice is replaced by dark water, which absorbs more energy and prevents the formation of more white ice) remain even when they seemingly work in our favor.

© 2011 Scientific American, a Division of Nature America, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

[IanC]

from Hide the decline - Latest News (hidethedecline)

Conclusion
Nature has provided us with data telling a simple story: For periods on earth comparable with today, we see many examples of temperature increases in the magnitude of 1 K for all kinds of natural reasons. Very rarely does any temperature rise (via supposed positive feedbacks) reach 3 K within 100 years.

It is thus surprising that IPCC and others with big confidence can claim large temperature rises of up to 3 – 6 K as most likely result from just a minor temperature increase, for example induced by CO2 warming.

More, it appears (fig 4.) that the temperature rise of 0,7K from 1900 to 2010 is as normal as can be when comparing with other temperature rises during other warm periods.

interesting article on temperature spikes in the last 1/2 million years via the Volstok Ice Core Data. it seems as if our present temp spike is pretty average.

on a different topic, the two factions fighting it out on this forum are acting like idiots by pretending that only their side has real evidence and that the other side is driven by distorted reasons such as politics, pseudo-religion or stupidity. there is a lot of evidence, some falling distinctly on one side or the other but most of it is equivical. exaggerations seem to rule the day, more on the CAGW side but that is only because they have more studies and more access to the media, many of the skeptics would be just as bad if given the chance.

now for a look at the other end of the globe-

Greenland ice core record

Holocene temperature spikes

Here I’ve plotted the 400 years following each minimum in the record that leads to a sustained sharp rise. There were 10 of them; the first five are plotted in cyan and the more recent 5 in blue. You can see that in the latter part of the Holocene the traces settle down from the wilder swings of the earlier period. Even so, every curve, even the early ones, seems to have an inflection — at least a change in slope — somewhere between 200 and 250 years after the minimum.

The hatched black line is the average of the 5 recent (blue) spikes. The red dots are the uptick at the end of GISP2 and HadSST, spliced at 1850. Note that ALL the minima dates are from GISP2.

What’s Up Next? | Watts Up With That?

will there be warming or cooling in the next 50 years? who knows, but i bet the 7+ billion humans would prefer one over the other, given a choice.

 

[skookerasbil]

Yo Thunder...........pulled this from one of the quotes in your post above..........

New research has shown that it is possible and affordable for the world to achieve 100 percent renewable energy by 2030, if there is the political will to strive for this goal.


Translation?

Open your wallets wide s0ns!!!!!!!!




As Ive said many times in the past in these pages...........the liberal mind is never concerned with having to answer the questions, "At what cost?" and "As compared to what?".

Fortunately, a majority of the population actually factor shit like this into the equation. Its called having the ability to think on the margin.


This is serious Disney stuff, taken seriously only by the k00ks.

Again to reiterate.................

 

[midcan5]

Pollution is pollution is pollution, denying that reality and its potential consequences is irresponsible and kinda stupid. U.S.: Climate Change May Pose Biggest Security Threat - IPS ipsnews.net

 

[Si modo]

Pollution is pollution is pollution, denying that reality and its potential consequences is irresponsible and kinda stupid. U.S.: Climate Change May Pose Biggest Security Threat - IPS ipsnews.net

One would have to demonstrate that the climate change is man made. The science has not.

So, your post has zero meaning.

 

[IanC]

I have no great faith in proxy temperature reconstructions. and you shouldnt either.

while looking around for the chart that shows the large overlap of the same proxies in all the spaghetti charts that supposedly support Mann and his Hockey Stick, I chanced upon a transcript of a college presentation that Steve McIntyre gave in 2008. How Do We

anyone who looks at the proxy data pretty much can figure out that the most we can get out of them is a hint about what may have happened. when you factor in Mann and Jones' hide the decline, the Briffa bodge, secret and suspect methodologies.......voodoo science.

 

[code1211]

The glacial periods, and interglacial responded to the Milankovic Cycles. The response varied the CO2 in the atmosphere from 180 ppm to 300 ppm. At no time in the last 15 million years was the CO2 at 390 ppm, and the CH4 ran around 700 ppb for most of this period. Now the CH4 is at 1800 ppb.

The response to the present level of GHGs lags about 30 to 50 years, so what we are seeing right now is the response from the level between 1960 and 1980. Even if we ceased all output of GHGs right now, there would still be rapid warming for the next 30 to 50 years.

That warming is not including what may be the real player in this game, the feedbacks from the Arctic Ocean clathrates and permofrost in Siberia and North America.

Yes, there have been prior periods of rapid warmning or cooling. The Younger Dryas, for one. And the planet survived just fine. The problem is not the planet, today, the problem is the 7 billion humans that inhabit the planet. An increasing dicey weather pattern and a huge population that is dependent on that weather pattern for the growth of the agriculture needed to feed those people is a recipe for disaster.

When I was a child in Minnesota, the saying regarding corn was that it needed to be Knee High by the Fouth of July. I just drove by a corn field in Indiana and the corn was, well, you know hat it was. Fouth of July is tomorrow.

 

[code1211]

people on the small percentage of land that is susceptible to ocean rise will either have to move farther inland or build dikes. in the unlikely scenario that rising sea levels increase according to the doomsayers. over decades and centuries. kinda like 'The Mummy', he only gets you if you stop still and scream like an idiot. even then I think sooner or later you would get tired of wet socks and move away.

Oh, if only it was that simple.....but of course you only think it is because you're so very clueless, ignorant and, frankly, rather stupid.

A large percentage of the world's population lives within 50 miles of a coastline. Example: 85 per cent of Australia's population lives within an hour's drive of the coast. Tens of millions of people living in the low-level coastal areas of southern Asia will be severely affected by rising sea levels. These include the coastlines of Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Burma. Bangldesh, one the world's poorest countries, will be one of the hardest hit by rising sea levels and will probably produce the largest initial group of climate refugees and a very explosive situation as tens of millions of Bangladeshi Muslims try to flee to India. Potential impact of sea-level rise on Bangladesh. Many of the world's major cities are situated on the coast at about current sea level. There are literally trillions of dollars of the world's infrastructure on the coasts at sea level. As sea levels rise, sea water will invade and poison the freshwater aquifers that provide drinkable water for millions of people and irrigation water for enormous agriculture areas.

Are there any cities or towns worldwide that have been on the coast since Biblical times that have fallen to rising seas? I know that some have literally sunk as did Alexandria, but htat was due to the land falling, not the sea rising. Same thing seems to be slowly occurring in Venice.

Can you list the cities being claimed by the rising sea?

 

[edthecynic]

people on the small percentage of land that is susceptible to ocean rise will either have to move farther inland or build dikes. in the unlikely scenario that rising sea levels increase according to the doomsayers. over decades and centuries. kinda like 'The Mummy', he only gets you if you stop still and scream like an idiot. even then I think sooner or later you would get tired of wet socks and move away.

Oh, if only it was that simple.....but of course you only think it is because you're so very clueless, ignorant and, frankly, rather stupid.

A large percentage of the world's population lives within 50 miles of a coastline. Example: 85 per cent of Australia's population lives within an hour's drive of the coast. Tens of millions of people living in the low-level coastal areas of southern Asia will be severely affected by rising sea levels. These include the coastlines of Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Burma. Bangldesh, one the world's poorest countries, will be one of the hardest hit by rising sea levels and will probably produce the largest initial group of climate refugees and a very explosive situation as tens of millions of Bangladeshi Muslims try to flee to India. Potential impact of sea-level rise on Bangladesh. Many of the world's major cities are situated on the coast at about current sea level. There are literally trillions of dollars of the world's infrastructure on the coasts at sea level. As sea levels rise, sea water will invade and poison the freshwater aquifers that provide drinkable water for millions of people and irrigation water for enormous agriculture areas.

Are there any cities or towns worldwide that have been on the coast since Biblical times that have fallen to rising seas? I know that some have literally sunk as did Alexandria, but htat was due to the land falling, not the sea rising. Same thing seems to be slowly occurring in Venice.

Can you list the cities being claimed by the rising sea?

Some Pacific Islands have already disappeared under water and others are threatened. They are the Canary in the coal mine. But you don't care because you don't live there and have no heritage there.

Vanishing islands

[FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]The world seems increasingly intoxicated with the promises of the new millennium. But as we are bombarded with more and more information about the millennium celebrations, I find myself asking: what is there for us to celebrate?

What is there to celebrate if the Northern Group islands of the Cook Islands, or the many islands of Kiribati, Tokelau, Tuvalu, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands are to disappear beneath the ocean?

The Pacific’s 22 countries and territories are strung out across 29 million square kilometres of ocean. They contain some of the most diverse ecosystems on Earth, and are inhabited by cultures that have lived harmoniously in an often difficult and fragile environment for millennia – longer than Germanic or Slavic peoples have lived in Europe, or Anglo-Saxons in Britain.

Pacific island countries have contributed just 0.06 per cent to global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet now, changing climate and sea levels, linked to global warming, are affecting their water supply, food production, fisheries and coastlines.

At least two motu, or small islets, have already disappeared in Kiribati. The country’s oral history, which goes back thousands of years, says that one of them, Tebua Tarawa, was the first motu to be formed in the Tarawa lagoon. Until a decade ago, fishermen used it as a resting-place; a place where they could beach their boats and harvest coconuts to slake their thirst. Then the coconut trees disappeared, then the sand banks, and now the fishing boats skim over it as it lies beneath the waves. Abanuea, known locally as ‘the long-lasting beach’, has also disappeared beneath the rising seas.

In Tuvalu, the oceans are similarly reclaiming the motu of Tepuka Savilivili. Its once extensive sand banks have also disappeared, its coconut trees have gone, and the ocean is slowly moving up its remaining rock.

Over the past five years, the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) and the National Tidal Facility at Flinders University in Australia have established sea-level monitoring stations across the Pacific. Preliminary results show a sea-level rise of up to 25 millimetres per year – well above the global estimate of a 2-millimetre annual rise made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Satellite data have validated these findings, and shown a 20 to 30-millimetre per year sea-level rise in a region stretching from Papua New Guinea southeast to Fiji.[/FONT]

 

[IanC]

if you check the altimetry measured sea level map you see an area of large change around P-NG. but is the rise because of global warming or because of seismic activity and underground volcanoes? water doesnt gather and stay in one area without a reason, like gravity effects from changing sea floors.

 

[code1211]

Oh, if only it was that simple.....but of course you only think it is because you're so very clueless, ignorant and, frankly, rather stupid.

A large percentage of the world's population lives within 50 miles of a coastline. Example: 85 per cent of Australia's population lives within an hour's drive of the coast. Tens of millions of people living in the low-level coastal areas of southern Asia will be severely affected by rising sea levels. These include the coastlines of Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Burma. Bangladesh, one the world's poorest countries, will be one of the hardest hit by rising sea levels and will probably produce the largest initial group of climate refugees and a very explosive situation as tens of millions of Bangladeshi Muslims try to flee to India. Potential impact of sea-level rise on Bangladesh. Many of the world's major cities are situated on the coast at about current sea level. There are literally trillions of dollars of the world's infrastructure on the coasts at sea level. As sea levels rise, sea water will invade and poison the freshwater aquifers that provide drinkable water for millions of people and irrigation water for enormous agriculture areas.

why dont you just compose a general all purpose insult for the skeptics and put it in your signature? it would save you from excess typing and the rest of us from having to scan through to where you actually have a comment.

Good idea. But don't worry, I'm sure I'll still find time to insult you specifically and personally for being such a clueless, ignorant moron and for stooging for the fossil fuel industry.



I do understand that your comment here has nothing to do with the points that I just raised. I was talking about the massive impacts of sea level rise that you were trying to minimize by claiming that everyone could just move. I pointed out that you're ignoring the enormous numbers of people living on or near the coastlines of the world and the trillions of dollars of essential infrastructure that is built along the coasts. What does the way "delta areas are deposited" have to do with that, numbnuts?

brackish fresh water is associated with overuse of the aquafers(sic) not a few inches of sea level rise.

And you imagine that your unsupported claim means anything? LOL. You've already and repeatedly demonstrated a profound ignorance about almost everything so why would you think anyone is going to believe your unsupported word now.

Potential impacts of sea-level rise and climate change on coastal aquifers
The impacts of climate change and sea level rise have the potential to affect both the yield and quality of important strategic water resources provided by coastal aquifer systems.
University of New South Wales
(excerpts)

Sea level rise contributing to saline intrusion or inundation of coastal freshwater resources is probably the most direct impact of climate change, particularly for shallow sandy aquifers along low-lying coasts. The natural groundwater equilibrium is also susceptible to changes in recharge and discharge associated with climate change.

Fresh water contaminated by seawater at the level of only 5% renders it unsuitable for many important uses including drinking water supplies; irrigation of crops, parks and gardens and sustaining groundwater dependent ecosystems.

Sea-level rise and climate change can potentially impact groundwater resources in the following ways:

1. Seawater intrusion (progressive encroachment through the subsurface) and inland migration of the fresh-saline interface.
2. Seawater inundation (surface flow into low-lying areas) and flooding of unconfined aquifers by seawater.
3. Contamination of bores by storm surges and flooding of surface fittings.
4. Changing recharge due to variable rainfall and evapotranspiration resulting in an altered distribution of freshwater in the aquifer.
5. Changing discharge patterns that can generate waterlogged conditions and may impact on aquatic and wetland ecosystems.
6. High water table impact on infrastructure including leakage to septic tanks, sewer systems, and basements and causing instability of swimming pools, tanks and other subsurface structures that are not anchored.

one of the things that the alarmists fail to publicize is how draconian the energy cuts would have to be to make any realistic change. hobbling the developed nations while allowing the rest of the world to continue producing CO2 is the surest way to delay the advacement(sic) of new technologies that are the only long term solution other than catastrophic population reduction and a return to bare sustenence(sic) survival.

Another idiotic denier cult myth. Switching to renewable energy sources doesn't involve going back to living in caves or even "draconian energy cuts", it just means getting our energy needs from sources other than fossil fuels and it is doable.

Study claims 100 percent renewable energy possible by 2030
PhysOrg.com
January 19, 2011
(excerpts)

New research has shown that it is possible and affordable for the world to achieve 100 percent renewable energy by 2030, if there is the political will to strive for this goal. Mark Delucchi, one of the authors of the report, which was published in the journal Energy Policy, said the researchers had aimed to show enough renewable energy is available and could be harnessed to meet demand indefinitely by 2030.


A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables
Wind, water and solar technologies can provide 100 percent of the world's energy, eliminating all fossil fuels. Here's how
Scientific American
October 26, 2009
(excerpts)

...an even larger challenge: to determine how 100 percent of the world’s energy, for all purposes, could be supplied by wind, water and solar resources, by as early as 2030. ...Most recently, a 2009 Stanford University study ranked energy systems according to their impacts on global warming, pollution, water supply, land use, wildlife and other concerns. The very best options were wind, solar, geothermal, tidal and hydroelectric power—all of which are driven by wind, water or sunlight (referred to as WWS). Nuclear power, coal with carbon capture, and ethanol were all poorer options, as were oil and natural gas. The study also found that battery-electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles recharged by WWS options would largely eliminate pollution from the transportation sector.

One of the things that the head-in-the-sand deniers fail to realize is just how extremely draconian the changes to our world will be as a result of a business-as-usual policy towards carbon emissions.

State of the Science: Beyond the Worst Case Climate Change Scenario
The IPCC has declared man-made climate change "unequivocal." The hard part: trying to stop it
By David Biello
Scientific American
November 26, 2007
(excerpts)

...The IPCC's fourth and final assessment of the climate change problem—known as the Synthesis Report—combines all of these reports and adds that "warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change." Although countries continue to debate the best way to address this finding, 130 nations, including the U.S., China, Australia, Canada and even Saudi Arabia, have concurred with it.

"The governments now require, in fact, that the authors report on risks that are high and 'key' because of their potentially very high consequence," says economist Gary Yohe, a lead author on the IPCC Synthesis Report. "They have, perhaps, given the planet a chance to save itself."

Among those risks:

Warming Temperatures—Continued global warming is virtually certain (or more than 99 percent likely to occur) at this point, leading to both good and bad impacts. On the positive side, fewer people will die from freezing temperatures and agricultural yield will increase in colder areas. The negatives include reduced crop production in the tropics and subtropics, increased insect outbreaks, diminished water supply caused by dwindling snowpack, and increasingly poor air quality in cities.

Heat Waves—Scientists are more than 90 percent certain that episodes of extreme heat will increase worldwide, leading to increased danger of wildfires, human deaths and water quality issues such as algal blooms.

Heavy Rains—Scientific estimates suggest that extreme precipitation events—from downpours to whiteouts—are more than 90 percent likely to become more common, resulting in diminished water quality and increased flooding, crop damage, soil erosion and disease risk.

Drought—Scientists estimate that there is a more than 66 percent chance that droughts will become more frequent and widespread, making water scarcer, upping the risk of starvation through failed crops and further increasing the risk of wildfires.

Stronger Storms—Warming ocean waters will likely increase the power of tropical cyclones (variously known as hurricanes and typhoons), raising the risk of human death, injury and disease as well as destroying coral reefs and property.

Biodiversity—As many as a third of the species known to science may be at risk of extinction if average temperatures rise by more than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Sea Level Rise—The level of the world's oceans will rise, likely inundating low-lying land, turning freshwater brackish and potentially triggering widespread migration of human populations from affected areas.

"As temperatures rise, thermal expansion will lead to sea-level rise, independent of melting ice," says chemical engineer Lenny Bernstein, another lead author of the recent IPCC report. "The indications are that this factor alone could cause serious problems [and] ice-sheet melting would greatly accelerate [it]."

Such ice-sheet melting, which the IPCC explicitly did not include in its predictions of sea-level rise, has already been observed and may be speeding up, according to recent research that determined that the melting of Greenland's ice cap has accelerated to six times the average flow of the Colorado River. Research has also shown that the world has consistently emitted greenhouse gases at the highest projected levels examined and sea-level rise has also outpaced projections from the IPCC's last assessment in 2001.

"We are above the high scenario now," says climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, an IPCC lead author. "This is not a safe world."

Other recent findings include:

Carbon Intensity Increasing—The amount of carbon dioxide per car built, burger served or widget sold had been consistently declining until the turn of the century. But since 2000, CO2 emissions have grown by more than 3 percent annually. This is largely due to the economic booms in China and India, which rely on polluting coal to power production. But emissions in the developed world have started to rise as well, increasing by 2.6 percent since 2000, according to reports made by those countries to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology also recently argued that U.S. emissions may continue to increase as a result of growing energy demand.

Carbon Sinks Slowing—The world's oceans and forests are absorbing less of the CO2 released by human activity, resulting in a faster rise in atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. All told, humanity released 9.9 billion metric tons (2.18 X 1013 pounds) of carbon in 2006 at the same time that the ability of the North Atlantic to take in such emissions, for example, dropped by 50 percent.

Impacts Accelerating—Warming temperatures have prompted earlier springs in the far north and have caused plant species to spread farther into formerly icy terrain. Meanwhile, sea ice in the Arctic reached a record low this year, covering just 1.59 million square miles and thus shattering the previous 2005 minimum of 2.05 million square miles.

"The observed rate of loss is faster than anything predicted," says senior research scientist Mark Serreze of the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. "We're already set up for another big loss next year. We've got so much open water in the Arctic now that has absorbed so much energy over the summer that the ocean has warmed. The ice that grows back this autumn will be thin."

The negative consequences of such reinforcing, positive feedbacks (white ice is replaced by dark water, which absorbs more energy and prevents the formation of more white ice) remain even when they seemingly work in our favor.

© 2011 Scientific American, a Division of Nature America, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

Not to put to fine a point on this, but are you aware that you are exhorting us to panic and change our lives and the world in which we live based on your predictions and your models.

Is there any chance that you might at some point produce some real world actual occurnaces to support your conclusions?

 

[bripat9643]

Pacific island countries have contributed just 0.06 per cent to global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet now, changing climate and sea levels, linked to global warming, are affecting their water supply, food production, fisheries and coastlines.

At least two motu, or small islets, have already disappeared in Kiribati. The country’s oral history, which goes back thousands of years, says that one of them, Tebua Tarawa, was the first motu to be formed in the Tarawa lagoon. Until a decade ago, fishermen used it as a resting-place; a place where they could beach their boats and harvest coconuts to slake their thirst. Then the coconut trees disappeared, then the sand banks, and now the fishing boats skim over it as it lies beneath the waves. Abanuea, known locally as ‘the long-lasting beach’, has also disappeared beneath the rising seas.

In Tuvalu, the oceans are similarly reclaiming the motu of Tepuka Savilivili. Its once extensive sand banks have also disappeared, its coconut trees have gone, and the ocean is slowly moving up its remaining rock.

Horseshit.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ing-not-shrinking-due-to-climate-change.html]

“Scientists have been surprised by the findings, which show that some islands have grown by almost one-third over the past 60 years. Among the island chains to have increased in land area are Tuvalu and neighbouring Kiribati … In Kiribati, the three of the most densely populated islands, Betio, Bairiki and Nanikai, also grew by between 12.5 and 30 per cent. … "Eighty per cent of the islands we've looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, got larger.” "We've now got evidence the physical foundations of these islands will still be there in 100 years," he told New Scientist magazine. “It has long been thought that as the sea level goes up, islands will sit there and drown. But they won't," Professor Kench said.”

NPR has links to several other articles on Kiribati – none of which mention the studies showing that coral atolls actually grow as the sea rises, but all of them repeat the global warming mantra.

 

[westwall]

Are these the same ice samples that showed a CO2 increase on average 800 years AFTER the Warming?

yes. but I havent heard of any convincing explanations as to why there should be a long lag time like that. the oceans equilibrate faster than that for warming/CO2 release or cooling/CO2 dissolving.

Yes Ian, it is all interesting. There was also a study that olfraud posted a long while back that showed a temp spike then 400 or so years afterwoards a CO2 increase, then over a period of 100 years two up temp periods interspersed with two cold temp periods and all the while the CO2 levels remained elevated.

I can't describe the reasons for the hundreds of years between warming and CO2 increase.
Perhaps the methane calthrate theory has some merit as regards that particular effect, however, the temp rise that is posited never seems to occur in the ice core records. The warming occurs, hundreds of years later the CO2 levels increase, but no runaway temperature spike occurs. The temps remain fairly constant till finally the temps drop and then after multiple hundreds of thousands of years the CO2 level eventually drops again.

And the cycle repeats.

 

[edthecynic]

Pacific island countries have contributed just 0.06 per cent to global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet now, changing climate and sea levels, linked to global warming, are affecting their water supply, food production, fisheries and coastlines.

At least two motu, or small islets, have already disappeared in Kiribati. The country’s oral history, which goes back thousands of years, says that one of them, Tebua Tarawa, was the first motu to be formed in the Tarawa lagoon. Until a decade ago, fishermen used it as a resting-place; a place where they could beach their boats and harvest coconuts to slake their thirst. Then the coconut trees disappeared, then the sand banks, and now the fishing boats skim over it as it lies beneath the waves. Abanuea, known locally as ‘the long-lasting beach’, has also disappeared beneath the rising seas.

In Tuvalu, the oceans are similarly reclaiming the motu of Tepuka Savilivili. Its once extensive sand banks have also disappeared, its coconut trees have gone, and the ocean is slowly moving up its remaining rock.

Horseshit.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ing-not-shrinking-due-to-climate-change.html]

“Scientists have been surprised by the findings, which show that some islands have grown by almost one-third over the past 60 years. Among the island chains to have increased in land area are Tuvalu and neighbouring Kiribati … In Kiribati, the three of the most densely populated islands, Betio, Bairiki and Nanikai, also grew by between 12.5 and 30 per cent. … "Eighty per cent of the islands we've looked at have either remained about the same or, in fact, got larger.” "We've now got evidence the physical foundations of these islands will still be there in 100 years," he told New Scientist magazine. “It has long been thought that as the sea level goes up, islands will sit there and drown. But they won't," Professor Kench said.”

NPR has links to several other articles on Kiribati – none of which mention the studies showing that coral atolls actually grow as the sea rises, but all of them repeat the global warming mantra.

First of all, that was very selective editing, but even your blurb admits that 20% of the islands are shrinking.

Here are some tidbits you left out:

Only four islands, mostly uninhabited, had decreased in area despite local sea level rises of almost five inches in that time, while 23 stayed the same or grew.

Land reclamation and deposition of other sediment also contribute to the process.
"These islands are so low lying that in extreme events waves crash straight over the top of them," Professor Kench said.
"In doing that they transport sediment from the beach or adjacent reef platform and they throw it on to the top of the island."
But the two scientists warn that people living on the islands still face serious challenges from climate change, particularly if the pace of sea level rises were to overtake that of sediment build-up.
The fresh groundwater that sustains villagers and their crops could be destroyed.
"The land may be there but will they still be able to support human habitation?" he said.
Naomi Thirobaux, a student from Kiribati who has studied the islands for a PhD, said no one should be lulled into thinking erosion and inundation were not taking their toll on the islands.
"In a populated place, people can't move back or inland because there's hardly any place to move into, so that's quite dramatic," she said.

.at15t_email { display: none ! important; }ul li.email span.at300bs { display: none ! important; }

 

[westwall]

Pacific island countries have contributed just 0.06 per cent to global greenhouse gas emissions. Yet now, changing climate and sea levels, linked to global warming, are affecting their water supply, food production, fisheries and coastlines.

At least two motu, or small islets, have already disappeared in Kiribati. The country’s oral history, which goes back thousands of years, says that one of them, Tebua Tarawa, was the first motu to be formed in the Tarawa lagoon. Until a decade ago, fishermen used it as a resting-place; a place where they could beach their boats and harvest coconuts to slake their thirst. Then the coconut trees disappeared, then the sand banks, and now the fishing boats skim over it as it lies beneath the waves. Abanuea, known locally as ‘the long-lasting beach’, has also disappeared beneath the rising seas.

In Tuvalu, the oceans are similarly reclaiming the motu of Tepuka Savilivili. Its once extensive sand banks have also disappeared, its coconut trees have gone, and the ocean is slowly moving up its remaining rock.

Horseshit.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ing-not-shrinking-due-to-climate-change.html]

First of all, that was very selective editing, but even your blurb admits that 20% of the islands are shrinking.

Here are some tidbits you left out:

Only four islands, mostly uninhabited, had decreased in area despite local sea level rises of almost five inches in that time, while 23 stayed the same or grew.

Land reclamation and deposition of other sediment also contribute to the process.
"These islands are so low lying that in extreme events waves crash straight over the top of them," Professor Kench said.
"In doing that they transport sediment from the beach or adjacent reef platform and they throw it on to the top of the island."
But the two scientists warn that people living on the islands still face serious challenges from climate change, particularly if the pace of sea level rises were to overtake that of sediment build-up.
The fresh groundwater that sustains villagers and their crops could be destroyed.
"The land may be there but will they still be able to support human habitation?" he said.
Naomi Thirobaux, a student from Kiribati who has studied the islands for a PhD, said no one should be lulled into thinking erosion and inundation were not taking their toll on the islands.
"In a populated place, people can't move back or inland because there's hardly any place to move into, so that's quite dramatic," she said.

.at15t_email { display: none ! important; }ul li.email span.at300bs { display: none ! important; }

From your quote 4 islands have decreased in size. 23 have INCREASED in size. There is a claim of a five inch rise in sea level that is not supported by tide gauges. More importantly the quote

"no one should be lulled into thinking erosion and inundation were not taking their toll on the islands."


is the true money quote. Erosion is constant. As erosion continues its ever present destruction of land (where do you think beach sand and mud come from?) it lowers the overall height of an island to where inundation occurs. Another way of looking at it is take a look at an underwater map of the Pacific Ocean. Look at Hawaii. See those little underwater mountains that tail away from Hawaii? They used to be islands. Erosion and inundation have completely destroyed them, that is what happens to volcanic islands when the volcano stops.

That is what is happening here. Mankind is just so narrow minded that he thinks that because he is now on the planet and semi aware the natural processes stop. Guess what Joe, it just aint so.

 

[edthecynic]

Horseshit.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ing-not-shrinking-due-to-climate-change.html]

First of all, that was very selective editing, but even your blurb admits that 20% of the islands are shrinking.

Here are some tidbits you left out:

Land reclamation and deposition of other sediment also contribute to the process.
"These islands are so low lying that in extreme events waves crash straight over the top of them," Professor Kench said.
"In doing that they transport sediment from the beach or adjacent reef platform and they throw it on to the top of the island."
But the two scientists warn that people living on the islands still face serious challenges from climate change, particularly if the pace of sea level rises were to overtake that of sediment build-up.
The fresh groundwater that sustains villagers and their crops could be destroyed.
"The land may be there but will they still be able to support human habitation?" he said.
Naomi Thirobaux, a student from Kiribati who has studied the islands for a PhD, said no one should be lulled into thinking erosion and inundation were not taking their toll on the islands.
"In a populated place, people can't move back or inland because there's hardly any place to move into, so that's quite dramatic," she said.

.at15t_email { display: none ! important; }ul li.email span.at300bs { display: none ! important; }

From your quote 4 islands have decreased in size. 23 have INCREASED in size. There is a claim of a five inch rise in sea level that is not supported by tide gauges. More importantly the quote

"no one should be lulled into thinking erosion and inundation were not taking their toll on the islands."


is the true money quote. Erosion is constant. As erosion continues its ever present destruction of land (where do you think beach sand and mud come from?) it lowers the overall height of an island to where inundation occurs. Another way of looking at it is take a look at an underwater map of the Pacific Ocean. Look at Hawaii. See those little underwater mountains that tail away from Hawaii? They used to be islands. Erosion and inundation have completely destroyed them, that is what happens to volcanic islands when the volcano stops.

That is what is happening here. Mankind is just so narrow minded that he thinks that because he is now on the planet and semi aware the natural processes stop. Guess what Joe, it just aint so.

So the article's numbers are correct where you agree with them but incorrect where you don't. Why am I not surprised?

 

[westwall]

First of all, that was very selective editing, but even your blurb admits that 20% of the islands are shrinking.

Here are some tidbits you left out:

From your quote 4 islands have decreased in size. 23 have INCREASED in size. There is a claim of a five inch rise in sea level that is not supported by tide gauges. More importantly the quote

"no one should be lulled into thinking erosion and inundation were not taking their toll on the islands."


is the true money quote. Erosion is constant. As erosion continues its ever present destruction of land (where do you think beach sand and mud come from?) it lowers the overall height of an island to where inundation occurs. Another way of looking at it is take a look at an underwater map of the Pacific Ocean. Look at Hawaii. See those little underwater mountains that tail away from Hawaii? They used to be islands. Erosion and inundation have completely destroyed them, that is what happens to volcanic islands when the volcano stops.

That is what is happening here. Mankind is just so narrow minded that he thinks that because he is now on the planet and semi aware the natural processes stop. Guess what Joe, it just aint so.

So the article's numbers are correct where you agree with them but incorrect where you don't. Why am I not surprised?

No, dear boy. If the statistics are factual that is all I care about. However, as usual you confuse cause and effect. You claim that global warming is the cause of the islands disappearance, however, the evidence says that whatever sea level increase there is is minimal. The islands are low lying and disappearing because there is nothing to halt the completely natural results of erosion. Your world view is so narrow that you can't even wrap your head around well known geologic factors and that is sad.

 

[edthecynic]

From your quote 4 islands have decreased in size. 23 have INCREASED in size. There is a claim of a five inch rise in sea level that is not supported by tide gauges. More importantly the quote

"no one should be lulled into thinking erosion and inundation were not taking their toll on the islands."


is the true money quote. Erosion is constant. As erosion continues its ever present destruction of land (where do you think beach sand and mud come from?) it lowers the overall height of an island to where inundation occurs. Another way of looking at it is take a look at an underwater map of the Pacific Ocean. Look at Hawaii. See those little underwater mountains that tail away from Hawaii? They used to be islands. Erosion and inundation have completely destroyed them, that is what happens to volcanic islands when the volcano stops.

That is what is happening here. Mankind is just so narrow minded that he thinks that because he is now on the planet and semi aware the natural processes stop. Guess what Joe, it just aint so.

So the article's numbers are correct where you agree with them but incorrect where you don't. Why am I not surprised?

No, dear boy. If the statistics are factual that is all I care about. However, as usual you confuse cause and effect. You claim that global warming is the cause of the islands disappearance, however, the evidence says that whatever sea level increase there is is minimal. The islands are low lying and disappearing because there is nothing to halt the completely natural results of erosion. Your world view is so narrow that you can't even wrap your head around well known geologic factors and that is sad.

So, dear girl, a 5 inch rise in sea level has absolutely no effect on erosion.

 

[westwall]

So the article's numbers are correct where you agree with them but incorrect where you don't. Why am I not surprised?

No, dear boy. If the statistics are factual that is all I care about. However, as usual you confuse cause and effect. You claim that global warming is the cause of the islands disappearance, however, the evidence says that whatever sea level increase there is is minimal. The islands are low lying and disappearing because there is nothing to halt the completely natural results of erosion. Your world view is so narrow that you can't even wrap your head around well known geologic factors and that is sad.

So, dear girl, a 5 inch rise in sea level has absolutely no effect on erosion.

No, dear boy it would....if it existed. So far there is no evidence for a five inch rise in ocean level since the alarmists began their bleating. In fact all evidence shows that the ocean levels have remained fairly constant for the last one hundred years or so. A millimeter up here, a milimeter down there. In other words, so small a swing that you can't even see it.

Do you expect people to get worked up over that?

Hardly.

 

[edthecynic]

No, dear boy. If the statistics are factual that is all I care about. However, as usual you confuse cause and effect. You claim that global warming is the cause of the islands disappearance, however, the evidence says that whatever sea level increase there is is minimal. The islands are low lying and disappearing because there is nothing to halt the completely natural results of erosion. Your world view is so narrow that you can't even wrap your head around well known geologic factors and that is sad.

So, dear girl, a 5 inch rise in sea level has absolutely no effect on erosion.

No, dear boy it would....if it existed. So far there is no evidence for a five inch rise in ocean level since the alarmists began their bleating. In fact all evidence shows that the ocean levels have remained fairly constant for the last one hundred years or so. A millimeter up here, a milimeter down there. In other words, so small a swing that you can't even see it.

Do you expect people to get worked up over that?

Hardly.

So, dear girl, the study that you agree with that claims that 80% of the islands are the same size or bigger in spite of a 5 inch rise in ocean level is off by a factor of about 25.