GLG
Well-Known Member
LOL... you are using the wrong plot there OBD... typical...
Why is that? Got something to hide?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands
- Thread starter Foxsea
- Start date
- Status
LOL... you are using the wrong plot there OBD... typical...
Why is that? Got something to hide?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Ocean 'calamities' oversold, say researchers
Kampee Patisena/Getty
The global risk posed by jellyfish blooms and other afflictions of the oceans is often overplayed, a team of researchers claims.
The state of the world's seas is often painted as verging on catastrophe. But although some challenges are very real, others have been vastly overstated, researchers claim in a review paper. The team writes that scientists, journals and the media have fallen into a mode of groupthink that can damage the credibility of the ocean sciences. The controversial study exposes fault lines in the marine-science community.
Carlos Duarte, a marine biologist at the University of Western Australia in Perth, and his colleagues say that gloomy media reports about ocean issues such as invasive species and coral die-offs are not always based on actual observations. It is not just journalists who are to blame, they maintain: the marine research community “may not have remained sufficiently sceptical” on the topic.
“There are a lot of conversations around meetings about the excess doom and gloom in our reporting of ocean health, but perhaps this is the first paper to bring these concerns out of the privacy of peer conversations,” says Duarte. “This is a silent movement, as there is a lot of peer pressure against voicing those concerns openly, so my co-authors and I expect significant heat upon us to be derived from our paper.”
In their review, published on 31 December in BioScience, Duarte and his colleagues look at purported catastrophes, including overfishing, jellyfish blooms, invasive species and the impact of ocean acidification on organisms such as corals. In some cases, they say, there is strong evidence for global-scale problems bringing severe disruption — overfishing is a prime example. But for other topics that have excited scientific and media attention, the evidence is equivocal or weak. In these categories, Duarte places global blooms of jellyfish and the problems caused by invasive species.
Headline hype
Duarte's team reviews a number of news reports and scientific papers. It contrasts these with other papers that would seem to undermine the catastrophe narrative.
Among the "excessive media headlines" cited are the CNN's 'Overfished and under-protected: Oceans on the brink of catastrophic collapse'. Duarte also told Nature that its own news story 'Coastal havoc boosts jellies' fell into the 'doom and gloom' trap.
Another example is the decline of species that build calciferous shells, attributed to ocean acidification caused by carbon dioxide dissolving in the seas. In 2013, The Seattle Times said that this issue "is helping push the seas toward a great unraveling that threatens to scramble marine life on a scale almost too big to fathom".
But the authors of the BioScience paper say that there are significant uncertainties in this. Many experiments are based on “worst-case scenarios”, they say, and claims that calciferous organisms are already declining may relate not to carbon emissions, but to other oceanic processes.
And although it is sometimes claimed that jellyfish blooms are increasing around the world, Duarte's paper says there were no global attempts to quantify the increase until 2012, so such claims are extrapolated from a small number of cases.
Overselling such claims is dangerous, says the group, because the public may become inured to them and give up trying to save an ocean that it believes is already beyond redemption.
Duarte is now looking to bring together a group of like-minded researchers to ‘audit’ claims of ocean disasters by critically assessing the evidence. This would weed out claims based on poor evidence, he says, and bring society some hope that the oceans can be saved.
As well as pointing the finger at scientists and journalists, Duarte’s group places some of the blame for the hype at the door of some journals, including Nature. “The appetite of the media for particular headlines can influence the contents of top scientific journals,” they write. (Note: Nature’s news and comment team is editorially independent of its research editorial team.)
Philip Campbell, Nature's editor-in-chief, disagrees. “We select research for publication in Nature on the basis of scientific significance,” he says. “That in turn may lead to citation impact and media coverage, but Nature editors aren't driven by those considerations, and couldn’t predict them even if they wished to do so.”
Saving our seas?
“There are major problems facing the planet, and that can’t be overstated,” says Benjamin Halpern, a marine researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “What can be overstated is what’s going to happen in the short term in a particular place. Their broad point that some of this stuff is overstated is accurate — to a point,” he says, noting that he has presented more-positive messages, including in Nature.
Other researchers are even less sympathetic to Duarte's thesis. One is atmospheric physicist Ralph Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, whose work is criticized in the paper. In 2010, Keeling and his co-authors suggested that in the future the problem of low oxygen levels in water, now seen in 'dead zones' off many coasts, could spread on a global scale. Duarte and his team do not present evidence to the contrary, but they suggest that it is wrong to call this a 'calamity'.
But Keeling, who leads programmes on atmospheric carbon dioxide and oxygen, says that his paper did not use the term calamity. Instead, it called the issue “a potentially serious consequence of global warming”.
Duarte's paper “is kind of committing the same sin it’s railing against in the casting of this as a series of calamities”, says Keeling. “The literature doesn’t call it calamites. That’s their own hyperbolic language.”
Kampee Patisena/Getty
The global risk posed by jellyfish blooms and other afflictions of the oceans is often overplayed, a team of researchers claims.
The state of the world's seas is often painted as verging on catastrophe. But although some challenges are very real, others have been vastly overstated, researchers claim in a review paper. The team writes that scientists, journals and the media have fallen into a mode of groupthink that can damage the credibility of the ocean sciences. The controversial study exposes fault lines in the marine-science community.
Carlos Duarte, a marine biologist at the University of Western Australia in Perth, and his colleagues say that gloomy media reports about ocean issues such as invasive species and coral die-offs are not always based on actual observations. It is not just journalists who are to blame, they maintain: the marine research community “may not have remained sufficiently sceptical” on the topic.
“There are a lot of conversations around meetings about the excess doom and gloom in our reporting of ocean health, but perhaps this is the first paper to bring these concerns out of the privacy of peer conversations,” says Duarte. “This is a silent movement, as there is a lot of peer pressure against voicing those concerns openly, so my co-authors and I expect significant heat upon us to be derived from our paper.”
In their review, published on 31 December in BioScience, Duarte and his colleagues look at purported catastrophes, including overfishing, jellyfish blooms, invasive species and the impact of ocean acidification on organisms such as corals. In some cases, they say, there is strong evidence for global-scale problems bringing severe disruption — overfishing is a prime example. But for other topics that have excited scientific and media attention, the evidence is equivocal or weak. In these categories, Duarte places global blooms of jellyfish and the problems caused by invasive species.
Headline hype
Duarte's team reviews a number of news reports and scientific papers. It contrasts these with other papers that would seem to undermine the catastrophe narrative.
Among the "excessive media headlines" cited are the CNN's 'Overfished and under-protected: Oceans on the brink of catastrophic collapse'. Duarte also told Nature that its own news story 'Coastal havoc boosts jellies' fell into the 'doom and gloom' trap.
Another example is the decline of species that build calciferous shells, attributed to ocean acidification caused by carbon dioxide dissolving in the seas. In 2013, The Seattle Times said that this issue "is helping push the seas toward a great unraveling that threatens to scramble marine life on a scale almost too big to fathom".
But the authors of the BioScience paper say that there are significant uncertainties in this. Many experiments are based on “worst-case scenarios”, they say, and claims that calciferous organisms are already declining may relate not to carbon emissions, but to other oceanic processes.
And although it is sometimes claimed that jellyfish blooms are increasing around the world, Duarte's paper says there were no global attempts to quantify the increase until 2012, so such claims are extrapolated from a small number of cases.
Overselling such claims is dangerous, says the group, because the public may become inured to them and give up trying to save an ocean that it believes is already beyond redemption.
Duarte is now looking to bring together a group of like-minded researchers to ‘audit’ claims of ocean disasters by critically assessing the evidence. This would weed out claims based on poor evidence, he says, and bring society some hope that the oceans can be saved.
As well as pointing the finger at scientists and journalists, Duarte’s group places some of the blame for the hype at the door of some journals, including Nature. “The appetite of the media for particular headlines can influence the contents of top scientific journals,” they write. (Note: Nature’s news and comment team is editorially independent of its research editorial team.)
Philip Campbell, Nature's editor-in-chief, disagrees. “We select research for publication in Nature on the basis of scientific significance,” he says. “That in turn may lead to citation impact and media coverage, but Nature editors aren't driven by those considerations, and couldn’t predict them even if they wished to do so.”
Saving our seas?
“There are major problems facing the planet, and that can’t be overstated,” says Benjamin Halpern, a marine researcher at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “What can be overstated is what’s going to happen in the short term in a particular place. Their broad point that some of this stuff is overstated is accurate — to a point,” he says, noting that he has presented more-positive messages, including in Nature.
Other researchers are even less sympathetic to Duarte's thesis. One is atmospheric physicist Ralph Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, whose work is criticized in the paper. In 2010, Keeling and his co-authors suggested that in the future the problem of low oxygen levels in water, now seen in 'dead zones' off many coasts, could spread on a global scale. Duarte and his team do not present evidence to the contrary, but they suggest that it is wrong to call this a 'calamity'.
But Keeling, who leads programmes on atmospheric carbon dioxide and oxygen, says that his paper did not use the term calamity. Instead, it called the issue “a potentially serious consequence of global warming”.
Duarte's paper “is kind of committing the same sin it’s railing against in the casting of this as a series of calamities”, says Keeling. “The literature doesn’t call it calamites. That’s their own hyperbolic language.”
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Attachments
GLG
Well-Known Member
[0K9IGCt0LAE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K9IGCt0LAE
Published on Jan 12, 2015
DeSmogCAST 7 "Obama's Keystone Veto, U.S. Oil Exports and the World's Unburnable Carbon"
In this January 8th, 2015 episode of DeSmogCAST host Farron Cousins joins DeSmog cast Brendan DeMelle, Justin Mikulka and Carol Linnitt to discuss Obama's decision to veto Congress' pro-Keystone XL pipeline legislation. Taking a closer look at the Obama Administration, Justin Mikulka explains some hidden changes to language concerning U.S. crude oil exports that might significantly alter the flow of domestic oil supplies.
Carol Linnitt walks through some of the implications of a new study that takes an integrated look at the world's carbon reserves and what fossil fuels must remain in the ground if we are to stay within a 2 degrees Celsius global warming limit.
See below for articles mentioned in this episode:
White House Confirms Obama Will Veto TransCanada's Keystone XL Pipeline
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/01/06/...
New Senate Majority Puts Keystone XL At The Top Of To-Do List
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/01/09/...
Obama Admin's Year-End Gift to the Oil Industry Quietly Allows Light Oil Exports
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/01/09/...
Development of Oilsands Incompatible with 2C Global Warming Limit: New Study
http://www.desmog.ca/2015/01/07/devel...
--
DeSmogCAST is a weekly online show that features DeSmog writers, experts and guests covering breaking news and in-depth analysis on politics, energy and environment issues in the U.S., Canada and around the world.
For more visit DeSmogBlog.com, DeSmog.ca, and DeSmog.uk.
DeSmogCAST is a joint project of DeSmogBlog, DeSmog Canada and DeSmogUK.
Published on Jan 12, 2015
DeSmogCAST 7 "Obama's Keystone Veto, U.S. Oil Exports and the World's Unburnable Carbon"
In this January 8th, 2015 episode of DeSmogCAST host Farron Cousins joins DeSmog cast Brendan DeMelle, Justin Mikulka and Carol Linnitt to discuss Obama's decision to veto Congress' pro-Keystone XL pipeline legislation. Taking a closer look at the Obama Administration, Justin Mikulka explains some hidden changes to language concerning U.S. crude oil exports that might significantly alter the flow of domestic oil supplies.
Carol Linnitt walks through some of the implications of a new study that takes an integrated look at the world's carbon reserves and what fossil fuels must remain in the ground if we are to stay within a 2 degrees Celsius global warming limit.
See below for articles mentioned in this episode:
White House Confirms Obama Will Veto TransCanada's Keystone XL Pipeline
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/01/06/...
New Senate Majority Puts Keystone XL At The Top Of To-Do List
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/01/09/...
Obama Admin's Year-End Gift to the Oil Industry Quietly Allows Light Oil Exports
http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/01/09/...
Development of Oilsands Incompatible with 2C Global Warming Limit: New Study
http://www.desmog.ca/2015/01/07/devel...
--
DeSmogCAST is a weekly online show that features DeSmog writers, experts and guests covering breaking news and in-depth analysis on politics, energy and environment issues in the U.S., Canada and around the world.
For more visit DeSmogBlog.com, DeSmog.ca, and DeSmog.uk.
DeSmogCAST is a joint project of DeSmogBlog, DeSmog Canada and DeSmogUK.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Multi-year sea ice in the Arctic, how is that working out for us?
Here’s one reason why the fossil fuel lobby wants to stifle science in US government agencies. Truth is rarely welcome in the halls of power, and this year less than most. In particular, inconvenient truths about the long term effects of adding carbon to the atmosphere – such as the loss of arctic sea ice, one of the most telling and potentially catastrophic effects of climate change.
[ApaM_wJ_nE8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApaM_wJ_nE8
Published on Jan 15, 2015
The most visible change in the Arctic region in recent years has been the rapid decline of the perennial ice cover. The perennial ice is the portion of the sea ice floating on the surface of the ocean that survives the summer. This ice that spans multiple years represents the thickest component of the sea ice cover.
This visualization shows the perennial Arctic sea ice from 1979 to 2014. A graph overlay shows the area's size measured in million square kilometers for each year.
Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/deta...
Here’s one reason why the fossil fuel lobby wants to stifle science in US government agencies. Truth is rarely welcome in the halls of power, and this year less than most. In particular, inconvenient truths about the long term effects of adding carbon to the atmosphere – such as the loss of arctic sea ice, one of the most telling and potentially catastrophic effects of climate change.
[ApaM_wJ_nE8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApaM_wJ_nE8
Published on Jan 15, 2015
The most visible change in the Arctic region in recent years has been the rapid decline of the perennial ice cover. The perennial ice is the portion of the sea ice floating on the surface of the ocean that survives the summer. This ice that spans multiple years represents the thickest component of the sea ice cover.
This visualization shows the perennial Arctic sea ice from 1979 to 2014. A graph overlay shows the area's size measured in million square kilometers for each year.
Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Scientific Visualization Studio
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/deta...
GLG
Well-Known Member
From NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-4
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-4
- During 2014, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all 135 years in the 1880–2014 record, surpassing the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.07°F (0.04°C).
- Record warmth was spread around the world, including Far East Russia into western Alaska, the western United States, parts of interior South America, most of Europe stretching into northern Africa, parts of eastern and western coastal Australia, much of the northeastern Pacific around the Gulf of Alaska, the central to western equatorial Pacific, large swaths of northwestern and southeastern Atlantic, most of the Norwegian Sea, and parts of the central to southern Indian Ocean.
- During 2014, the globally-averaged land surface temperature was 1.80°F (1.00°C) above the 20th century average. This was the fourth highest among all years in the 1880–2014 record.
- During 2014, the globally-averaged sea surface temperature was 1.03°F (0.57°C) above the 20th century average. This was the highest among all years in the 1880–2014 record, surpassing the previous records of 1998 and 2003 by 0.09°F (0.05°C).
Last edited by a moderator:
GLG
Well-Known Member
And one for OBD with his thought bubble....
How is that "Paws" working out for You?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/13/supplemental/page-4
GLG
Well-Known Member
OBD... starting to see a trend yet?
Temperatures measured on land and at sea for more than a century show that Earth's globally averaged surface temperature is experiencing a long-term warming trend.
The concept of an average temperature for the entire globe may seem odd. After all, at this very moment, the highest and lowest temperatures on Earth are likely more than 100°F (55°C) apart. Temperatures vary from night to day and between seasonal extremes in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. This means that some parts of Earth are quite cold while other parts are downright hot. To speak of the "average" temperature then may seem like nonsense. However, the concept of a global average temperature is convenient for detecting and tracking changes in Earth's condition over time.
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
Temperatures measured on land and at sea for more than a century show that Earth's globally averaged surface temperature is experiencing a long-term warming trend.
The concept of an average temperature for the entire globe may seem odd. After all, at this very moment, the highest and lowest temperatures on Earth are likely more than 100°F (55°C) apart. Temperatures vary from night to day and between seasonal extremes in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. This means that some parts of Earth are quite cold while other parts are downright hot. To speak of the "average" temperature then may seem like nonsense. However, the concept of a global average temperature is convenient for detecting and tracking changes in Earth's condition over time.
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature
http://www.dangersoffracking.com/
What goes in and out of HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
What goes in and out of HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
2014 Is The Hottest Year On Record, Breaking 2005 And 2010 Highs
BY JOE ROMM POSTED ON JANUARY 16, 2015 AT 11:14 AM UPDATED: JANUARY 16, 2015 AT 12:45 PM
Global Temperature Anomalies since 1880, with Decadal Averages
(decades are defined as the years xxx0-xxx9). Click to enlarge.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) officially declared 2014 the hottest year in 134 years of record keeping.
NOAA reported that this was the hottest December on record and that 2014 as a whole was 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average: “This was the highest among all years in the 1880-2014 record, surpassing the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.07°F (0.04°C).”
As the NOAA data makes clear, human-caused global warming has seen no “hiatus.” In fact, as the top figure shows, the decade of the 2010s is on track to be the hottest decade on record. The 1980s were the hottest decade on record at the time. Then they were beat by 1990s, which in turn were beat by the 2000s for the title of hottest decade. Each decade this century is likely to be the hottest on record — unless we slash carbon pollution ASAP.
“This is the latest in a series of warm years, in a series of warm decades,” said Dr. Gavin Schmidt director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, which tracks global temps. “While the ranking of individual years can be affected by chaotic weather patterns, the long-term trends are attributable to drivers of climate change that right now are dominated by human emissions of greenhouse gases.”
“The globe is warmer now than it has been in the last 100 years and more likely in at least 5,000 years,” said Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis. “Any wisps of doubt that human activities are at fault are now gone with the wind.”
NASA posted this background video on “2014: Warmest Year On Record”:
<iframe width="553" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-ilg75uJZZU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The Japan Meteorological Agency had previously announced 2014 was the hottest year in more than 120 years of record-keeping — by far. The World Meteorological Organization WMO had said a month ago that 2014 was on track to be hottest year on record (different climate-tracking groups around the world use slightly different data sets).
The United States saw the second-warmest December on record, the 34th warmest year on record, and helped create its “most severe drought in the last 1200 years.
It’s doubly impressive 2014 set the record for hottest year since we’re still waiting for the start of El Niño.
Global temperature records are usually set when the long-term warming trend combines with the regional El Niño warming pattern. But human-caused carbon pollution has pushed atmospheric CO2 to levels not seen for millions of years, when the Earth was considerably hotter and sea levels up to 100 feet higher.
“The record temperatures underscore the undeniable fact that we are witnessing, before our eyes, the effects of human-caused climate change,” said leading climatologist Michael Mann. “It is exceptionally unlikely that we would be seeing a record year, during a record warm decade, during a multidecadal period of warmth that appears to be unrivaled over at least the past millennium, were it not for the rising levels of planet-warming gases produced by fossil fuel burning.”
Dr. Marshall Shepherd, who was President of the American Meteorological Society in 2013, said of this NOAA-NASA Report:
“If you are younger than 29 years old, you haven’t lived in a month that was cooler than the 20th century average. That’s a new normal that is a result of human activities on top of the natural varying climate that has global temperature trends moving very quickly towards a 1-2 C increase. While that may sound insignificant, it’s best to think of it as the difference between a low-grade fever and one just a few degrees higher that can have an impact on the body.
And, of course, if we don’t act quickly to cut carbon pollution, then we’ll ultimately get a 4°C to 5°C (7F to 9F) warming or higher over the next century, a fever that would ravage modern human civilization as we know it today.
While blasts of cold temperature in parts of the United States received considerable attention this fall and winter, the “second warmest December [on record] boosted 2014 to 34th warmest year for contiguous U.S.” in 120 years of record-keeping, as NOAA reported.
That means in the United States, “the temperature exceeded the 20th Century average for the 18th consecutive year.” While the Midwest was cooler than normal, California, Arizona, Nevada, and Alaska all experienced their hottest year on record. In fact, the Golden State shattered its old record by a remarkable of 2.3°F.
CA-US-annual temps
When the earth sets a record for the hottest year, large parts of it also blow out previous records. NOAA reports:
Record warmth was spread around the world, including Far East Russia into western Alaska, the western United States, parts of interior South America most of Europe stretching into northern Africa, parts of eastern and western coastal Australia, much of the northeastern Pacific around the Gulf of Alaska, the central to western equatorial Pacific, large swaths of northwestern and southeastern Atlantic, most of the Norwegian Sea, and parts of the central to southern Indian Ocean.
Europe was the hottest it’s been in 500 years. One new analysis concluded “global warming has made a temperature anomaly like the one observed in 2014 in Europe at least 80 times more likely.” Australia broke heat records across the continent (for the second year running). Back in January, “temperatures soared higher than 120°F (49°C).”
Much of Siberia “defrosted in spring and early summer under temperatures more than 9°F (5°C) above its 1981 to 2010 average.” This is the region’s second blazingly hot summer in a row. Scientists now think the huge crater discovered this year in the area “was probably caused by thawing permafrost.” If such hot Siberian summers continue, permafrost will thaw and release its vast amount of heat-trapping carbon even sooner than expected.
BY JOE ROMM POSTED ON JANUARY 16, 2015 AT 11:14 AM UPDATED: JANUARY 16, 2015 AT 12:45 PM
Global Temperature Anomalies since 1880, with Decadal Averages
(decades are defined as the years xxx0-xxx9). Click to enlarge.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) officially declared 2014 the hottest year in 134 years of record keeping.
NOAA reported that this was the hottest December on record and that 2014 as a whole was 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average: “This was the highest among all years in the 1880-2014 record, surpassing the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.07°F (0.04°C).”
As the NOAA data makes clear, human-caused global warming has seen no “hiatus.” In fact, as the top figure shows, the decade of the 2010s is on track to be the hottest decade on record. The 1980s were the hottest decade on record at the time. Then they were beat by 1990s, which in turn were beat by the 2000s for the title of hottest decade. Each decade this century is likely to be the hottest on record — unless we slash carbon pollution ASAP.
“This is the latest in a series of warm years, in a series of warm decades,” said Dr. Gavin Schmidt director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, which tracks global temps. “While the ranking of individual years can be affected by chaotic weather patterns, the long-term trends are attributable to drivers of climate change that right now are dominated by human emissions of greenhouse gases.”
“The globe is warmer now than it has been in the last 100 years and more likely in at least 5,000 years,” said Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis. “Any wisps of doubt that human activities are at fault are now gone with the wind.”
NASA posted this background video on “2014: Warmest Year On Record”:
<iframe width="553" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-ilg75uJZZU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The Japan Meteorological Agency had previously announced 2014 was the hottest year in more than 120 years of record-keeping — by far. The World Meteorological Organization WMO had said a month ago that 2014 was on track to be hottest year on record (different climate-tracking groups around the world use slightly different data sets).
The United States saw the second-warmest December on record, the 34th warmest year on record, and helped create its “most severe drought in the last 1200 years.
It’s doubly impressive 2014 set the record for hottest year since we’re still waiting for the start of El Niño.
Global temperature records are usually set when the long-term warming trend combines with the regional El Niño warming pattern. But human-caused carbon pollution has pushed atmospheric CO2 to levels not seen for millions of years, when the Earth was considerably hotter and sea levels up to 100 feet higher.
“The record temperatures underscore the undeniable fact that we are witnessing, before our eyes, the effects of human-caused climate change,” said leading climatologist Michael Mann. “It is exceptionally unlikely that we would be seeing a record year, during a record warm decade, during a multidecadal period of warmth that appears to be unrivaled over at least the past millennium, were it not for the rising levels of planet-warming gases produced by fossil fuel burning.”
Dr. Marshall Shepherd, who was President of the American Meteorological Society in 2013, said of this NOAA-NASA Report:
“If you are younger than 29 years old, you haven’t lived in a month that was cooler than the 20th century average. That’s a new normal that is a result of human activities on top of the natural varying climate that has global temperature trends moving very quickly towards a 1-2 C increase. While that may sound insignificant, it’s best to think of it as the difference between a low-grade fever and one just a few degrees higher that can have an impact on the body.
And, of course, if we don’t act quickly to cut carbon pollution, then we’ll ultimately get a 4°C to 5°C (7F to 9F) warming or higher over the next century, a fever that would ravage modern human civilization as we know it today.
While blasts of cold temperature in parts of the United States received considerable attention this fall and winter, the “second warmest December [on record] boosted 2014 to 34th warmest year for contiguous U.S.” in 120 years of record-keeping, as NOAA reported.
That means in the United States, “the temperature exceeded the 20th Century average for the 18th consecutive year.” While the Midwest was cooler than normal, California, Arizona, Nevada, and Alaska all experienced their hottest year on record. In fact, the Golden State shattered its old record by a remarkable of 2.3°F.
CA-US-annual temps
When the earth sets a record for the hottest year, large parts of it also blow out previous records. NOAA reports:
Record warmth was spread around the world, including Far East Russia into western Alaska, the western United States, parts of interior South America most of Europe stretching into northern Africa, parts of eastern and western coastal Australia, much of the northeastern Pacific around the Gulf of Alaska, the central to western equatorial Pacific, large swaths of northwestern and southeastern Atlantic, most of the Norwegian Sea, and parts of the central to southern Indian Ocean.
Europe was the hottest it’s been in 500 years. One new analysis concluded “global warming has made a temperature anomaly like the one observed in 2014 in Europe at least 80 times more likely.” Australia broke heat records across the continent (for the second year running). Back in January, “temperatures soared higher than 120°F (49°C).”
Much of Siberia “defrosted in spring and early summer under temperatures more than 9°F (5°C) above its 1981 to 2010 average.” This is the region’s second blazingly hot summer in a row. Scientists now think the huge crater discovered this year in the area “was probably caused by thawing permafrost.” If such hot Siberian summers continue, permafrost will thaw and release its vast amount of heat-trapping carbon even sooner than expected.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...-provides-once-generation-opportunity-fix-bad
Seize the day
The fall in the price of oil and gas provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix bad energy policies
Jan 17th 2015 | From the print edition
Timekeeper
MOST of the time, economic policymaking is about tinkering at the edges. Politicians argue furiously about modest changes to taxes or spending. Once in a while, however, momentous shifts are possible. From Deng Xiaoping’s market opening in 1978 to Poland’s adoption of “shock therapy” in 1990, bold politicians have seized propitious circumstances to push through reforms that transformed their countries. Such a once-in-a-generation opportunity exists today.
The plunging price of oil, coupled with advances in clean energy and conservation, offers politicians around the world the chance to rationalise energy policy. They can get rid of billions of dollars of distorting subsidies, especially for dirty fuels, whilst shifting taxes towards carbon use. A cheaper, greener and more reliable energy future could be within reach.
The most obvious reason for optimism is the plunge in energy costs. Not only has the price of oil halved in the past six months, but natural gas is the cheapest it has been in a decade, bar a few panicked months after Lehman Brothers collapsed, when the world economy appeared to be imploding. There are growing signs that low prices are here to stay: the rising chatter of megamergers in the oil industry (see article) is a sure sign that oilmen are bracing for a shake-out. Less noticed, the price of cleaner forms of energy is also falling, as our special report this week explains. And new technology is allowing better management of the consumption of energy, especially electricity. That should help cut waste and thus lower costs still further. For decades the big question about energy was whether the world could produce enough of it, in any form and at any cost. Now, suddenly, the challenge should be one of managing abundance.
Clean up a dirty business
That abundance provides the potential for reform. Far too many economies are littered with the detritus of daft energy policies, based on fears about supply. Even though fracking has boosted America’s oil output by two-thirds in just four years, the country still bans the export of oil and restricts exports of natural gas, a legacy of the oil shocks of the 1970s—and a boondoggle for American refiners and petrochemical firms. Congress also keeps handing out money to Iowa’s already coddled corn farmers to produce ethanol and has not reviewed generous subsidies for nuclear power despite the Fukushima disaster and ruinous cost over-runs at new Western plants. Instead, it has spent four long years bickering about whether to allow the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to Canada’s tar sands. In Europe the giveaways are a little different—billions have gone to wind and solar projects—but the same madness often prevails: Germany’s rushed exit from nuclear power ended up helping boost American coal and Russian gas.
The most straightforward piece of reform, pretty much everywhere, is simply to remove all the subsidies for producing or consuming fossil fuels. Last year governments around the world threw $550 billion down that rathole—on everything from holding down the price of petrol in poor countries to encouraging companies to search for oil. By one count, such handouts led to extra consumption that was responsible for 36% of global carbon emissions in 1980-2010.
Falling prices provide an opportunity to rethink this nonsense. Cash-strapped developing countries such as India and Indonesia have bravely begun to cut fuel subsidies, freeing up money to spend on hospitals and schools (see article). But the big oil exporters in the poor world, which tend to be the most egregious subsidisers of domestic fuel prices, have not followed their lead. Venezuela is close to default, yet petrol still costs a few cents a litre in Caracas. And rich countries still underwrite the production of oil and gas. Why should American taxpayers pay for Exxon to find hydrocarbons? All these subsidies should be binned.
What a better policy would look like
That should be just the beginning. Politicians, for the most part, have refused to raise taxes on fossil fuels in recent years, on the grounds that making driving or heating homes more expensive would not only annoy voters but also hurt the economy. With petrol and natural gas getting cheaper by the day, that excuse has gone. Higher taxes would encourage conservation, dampen future price swings and provide a more sensible way for governments to raise money.
An obvious starting point is to target petrol. America’s federal government levies a tax of just 18 cents a gallon (five cents a litre)—a figure that it has not dared change since 1993. Even better would be a tax on carbon. Burning fossil fuels harms the health of both the planet and its inhabitants. Taxing carbon would nudge energy firms and consumers towards using cleaner fuels. As fuel prices fall, a carbon tax is becoming less politically daunting.
That points to the biggest blessing cheaper energy brings: the chance to inject some coherence into the world’s energy policies. Governments have a legitimate role in making sure that energy is abundant, clean and secure. But they need to learn the difference between picking goals and deciding how to reach them. Broad incentives are fine; second-guessing scientists and investors is not. A carbon tax, in other words, is a much better way to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases than subsidies for windmills and nuclear plants.
By the same token, in the name of security of supply, governments should be encouraging the growth of seamless global energy markets. Scrapping unfair obstacles to energy investments is just as important as dispensing with subsidies. The more cross-border pipelines and power cables the better. America should approve Keystone XL and lift its export restrictions, while European politicians should make it much easier to exploit the oil and gas in the shale beneath their feet.
This ambitious to-do list will drive regiments of energy lobbyists potty. But for the first time in years it is within the realm of the politically possible. And it would plainly lead to a more efficient and greener energy future. So our message to politicians is a simple one. Seize the day.
Seize the day
The fall in the price of oil and gas provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix bad energy policies
Jan 17th 2015 | From the print edition
Timekeeper
MOST of the time, economic policymaking is about tinkering at the edges. Politicians argue furiously about modest changes to taxes or spending. Once in a while, however, momentous shifts are possible. From Deng Xiaoping’s market opening in 1978 to Poland’s adoption of “shock therapy” in 1990, bold politicians have seized propitious circumstances to push through reforms that transformed their countries. Such a once-in-a-generation opportunity exists today.
The plunging price of oil, coupled with advances in clean energy and conservation, offers politicians around the world the chance to rationalise energy policy. They can get rid of billions of dollars of distorting subsidies, especially for dirty fuels, whilst shifting taxes towards carbon use. A cheaper, greener and more reliable energy future could be within reach.
The most obvious reason for optimism is the plunge in energy costs. Not only has the price of oil halved in the past six months, but natural gas is the cheapest it has been in a decade, bar a few panicked months after Lehman Brothers collapsed, when the world economy appeared to be imploding. There are growing signs that low prices are here to stay: the rising chatter of megamergers in the oil industry (see article) is a sure sign that oilmen are bracing for a shake-out. Less noticed, the price of cleaner forms of energy is also falling, as our special report this week explains. And new technology is allowing better management of the consumption of energy, especially electricity. That should help cut waste and thus lower costs still further. For decades the big question about energy was whether the world could produce enough of it, in any form and at any cost. Now, suddenly, the challenge should be one of managing abundance.
Clean up a dirty business
That abundance provides the potential for reform. Far too many economies are littered with the detritus of daft energy policies, based on fears about supply. Even though fracking has boosted America’s oil output by two-thirds in just four years, the country still bans the export of oil and restricts exports of natural gas, a legacy of the oil shocks of the 1970s—and a boondoggle for American refiners and petrochemical firms. Congress also keeps handing out money to Iowa’s already coddled corn farmers to produce ethanol and has not reviewed generous subsidies for nuclear power despite the Fukushima disaster and ruinous cost over-runs at new Western plants. Instead, it has spent four long years bickering about whether to allow the proposed Keystone XL pipeline to Canada’s tar sands. In Europe the giveaways are a little different—billions have gone to wind and solar projects—but the same madness often prevails: Germany’s rushed exit from nuclear power ended up helping boost American coal and Russian gas.
The most straightforward piece of reform, pretty much everywhere, is simply to remove all the subsidies for producing or consuming fossil fuels. Last year governments around the world threw $550 billion down that rathole—on everything from holding down the price of petrol in poor countries to encouraging companies to search for oil. By one count, such handouts led to extra consumption that was responsible for 36% of global carbon emissions in 1980-2010.
Falling prices provide an opportunity to rethink this nonsense. Cash-strapped developing countries such as India and Indonesia have bravely begun to cut fuel subsidies, freeing up money to spend on hospitals and schools (see article). But the big oil exporters in the poor world, which tend to be the most egregious subsidisers of domestic fuel prices, have not followed their lead. Venezuela is close to default, yet petrol still costs a few cents a litre in Caracas. And rich countries still underwrite the production of oil and gas. Why should American taxpayers pay for Exxon to find hydrocarbons? All these subsidies should be binned.
What a better policy would look like
That should be just the beginning. Politicians, for the most part, have refused to raise taxes on fossil fuels in recent years, on the grounds that making driving or heating homes more expensive would not only annoy voters but also hurt the economy. With petrol and natural gas getting cheaper by the day, that excuse has gone. Higher taxes would encourage conservation, dampen future price swings and provide a more sensible way for governments to raise money.
An obvious starting point is to target petrol. America’s federal government levies a tax of just 18 cents a gallon (five cents a litre)—a figure that it has not dared change since 1993. Even better would be a tax on carbon. Burning fossil fuels harms the health of both the planet and its inhabitants. Taxing carbon would nudge energy firms and consumers towards using cleaner fuels. As fuel prices fall, a carbon tax is becoming less politically daunting.
That points to the biggest blessing cheaper energy brings: the chance to inject some coherence into the world’s energy policies. Governments have a legitimate role in making sure that energy is abundant, clean and secure. But they need to learn the difference between picking goals and deciding how to reach them. Broad incentives are fine; second-guessing scientists and investors is not. A carbon tax, in other words, is a much better way to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases than subsidies for windmills and nuclear plants.
By the same token, in the name of security of supply, governments should be encouraging the growth of seamless global energy markets. Scrapping unfair obstacles to energy investments is just as important as dispensing with subsidies. The more cross-border pipelines and power cables the better. America should approve Keystone XL and lift its export restrictions, while European politicians should make it much easier to exploit the oil and gas in the shale beneath their feet.
This ambitious to-do list will drive regiments of energy lobbyists potty. But for the first time in years it is within the realm of the politically possible. And it would plainly lead to a more efficient and greener energy future. So our message to politicians is a simple one. Seize the day.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Peer-reviewed pocket-calculator climate model exposes serious errors in complex computer models and reveals that Man’s influence on the climate is negligible
What went wrong?
A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and, as the Orient’s equivalent of Science or Nature, one of the world’s top six learned journals of science, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man’s effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.
Thanks to the generosity of the Heartland Institute, the paper is open-access. It may be downloaded free from http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml. Click on “PDF” just above the abstract.
The IPCC has long predicted that doubling the CO2 in the air might eventually warm the Earth by 3.3 C°. However, the new, simple model presented in the Science Bulletin predicts no more than 1 C° warming instead – and possibly much less. The model, developed over eight years, is so easy to use that a high-school math teacher or undergrad student can get credible results in minutes running it on a pocket scientific calculator.
The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC’s predictions.
When the paper’s four authors first tested the finished model’s global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex “general-circulation” models:
clip_image002
Next, the four researchers applied the model to studying why the official models concur in over-predicting global warming. In 1990, the UN’s climate panel predicted with “substantial confidence” that the world would warm at twice the rate that has been observed since.
clip_image004 The very greatly exaggerated predictions (orange region) of atmospheric global warming in the IPCC’s 1990 First Assessment Report, compared with the mean anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue straight line) of three terrestrial and two satellite monthly global mean temperature datasets since 1990.The measured, real-world rate of global warming over the past 25 years, equivalent to less than 1.4 C° per century, is about half the IPCC’s central prediction in 1990.
The new, simple climate model helps to expose the errors in the complex models the IPCC and governments rely upon. Those errors caused the over-predictions on which concern about Man’s influence on the climate was needlessly built.
Among the errors of the complex climate models that the simple model exposes are the following –
The assumption that “temperature feedbacks” would double or triple direct manmade greenhouse warming is the largest error made by the complex climate models. Feedbacks may well reduce warming, not amplify it.
The Bode system-gain equation models mutual amplification of feedbacks in electronic circuits, but, when complex models erroneously apply it to the climate on the IPCC’s false assumption of strongly net-amplifying feedbacks, it greatly over-predicts global warming. They are using the wrong equation.
Modellers have failed to cut their central estimate of global warming in line with a new, lower feedback estimate from the IPCC. They still predict 3.3 C° of warming per CO2 doubling, when on this ground alone they should only be predicting 2.2 C° – about half from direct warming and half from amplifying feedbacks.
Though the complex models say there is 0.6 C° manmade warming “in the pipeline” even if we stop emitting greenhouse gases, the simple model – confirmed by almost two decades without any significant global warming – shows there is no committed but unrealized manmade warming still to come.
There is no scientific justification for the IPCC’s extreme RCP 8.5 global warming scenario that predicts up to 12 Cº global warming as a result of our industrial emissions of greenhouse gases.
Once errors like these are corrected, the most likely global warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is not 3.3 Cº but 1 Cº or less. Even if all available fossil fuels were burned, less than 2.2 C° warming would result.
Lord Monckton, the paper’s lead author, created the new model on the basis of earlier research by him published in journals such as Physics and Society, UK Quarterly Economic Bulletin, Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists’ Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, and Energy & Environment. He said: “Our irreducibly simple climate model does not replace more complex models, but it does expose major errors and exaggerations in those models, such as the over-emphasis on positive or amplifying temperature feedbacks. For instance, take away the erroneous assumption that strongly net-positive feedback triples the rate of manmade global warming and the imagined climate crisis vanishes.”
Dr Willie Soon, an eminent solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said: “Our work suggests that Man’s influence on climate may have been much overstated. The role of the Sun has been undervalued. Our model helps to present a more balanced view.”
Dr David Legates, Professor of Geography at the University of Delaware and formerly the State Climatologist, said: “This simple model is an invaluable teaching aid. Our paper is, in effect, the manual for the model, discussing appropriate values for the input parameters and demonstrating by examples how the model works.”
Dr Matt Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “A high-school student with a pocket scientific calculator can now use this remarkable model and obtain credible estimates of global warming simply and quickly, as well as acquiring a better understanding of how climate sensitivity is determined. As a statistician, I know the value of keeping things simple and the dangers in thinking that more complex models are necessarily better. Once people can understand how climate sensitivity is determined, they will realize how little evidence for alarm there is.”
What went wrong?
A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and, as the Orient’s equivalent of Science or Nature, one of the world’s top six learned journals of science, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man’s effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis.
Thanks to the generosity of the Heartland Institute, the paper is open-access. It may be downloaded free from http://www.scibull.com:8080/EN/abstract/abstract509579.shtml. Click on “PDF” just above the abstract.
The IPCC has long predicted that doubling the CO2 in the air might eventually warm the Earth by 3.3 C°. However, the new, simple model presented in the Science Bulletin predicts no more than 1 C° warming instead – and possibly much less. The model, developed over eight years, is so easy to use that a high-school math teacher or undergrad student can get credible results in minutes running it on a pocket scientific calculator.
The paper, Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, Willie Soon, David Legates and Matt Briggs, survived three rounds of tough peer review in which two of the reviewers had at first opposed the paper on the ground that it questioned the IPCC’s predictions.
When the paper’s four authors first tested the finished model’s global-warming predictions against those of the complex computer models and against observed real-world temperature change, their simple model was closer to the measured rate of global warming than all the projections of the complex “general-circulation” models:
clip_image002
Next, the four researchers applied the model to studying why the official models concur in over-predicting global warming. In 1990, the UN’s climate panel predicted with “substantial confidence” that the world would warm at twice the rate that has been observed since.
clip_image004 The very greatly exaggerated predictions (orange region) of atmospheric global warming in the IPCC’s 1990 First Assessment Report, compared with the mean anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue straight line) of three terrestrial and two satellite monthly global mean temperature datasets since 1990.The measured, real-world rate of global warming over the past 25 years, equivalent to less than 1.4 C° per century, is about half the IPCC’s central prediction in 1990.
The new, simple climate model helps to expose the errors in the complex models the IPCC and governments rely upon. Those errors caused the over-predictions on which concern about Man’s influence on the climate was needlessly built.
Among the errors of the complex climate models that the simple model exposes are the following –
The assumption that “temperature feedbacks” would double or triple direct manmade greenhouse warming is the largest error made by the complex climate models. Feedbacks may well reduce warming, not amplify it.
The Bode system-gain equation models mutual amplification of feedbacks in electronic circuits, but, when complex models erroneously apply it to the climate on the IPCC’s false assumption of strongly net-amplifying feedbacks, it greatly over-predicts global warming. They are using the wrong equation.
Modellers have failed to cut their central estimate of global warming in line with a new, lower feedback estimate from the IPCC. They still predict 3.3 C° of warming per CO2 doubling, when on this ground alone they should only be predicting 2.2 C° – about half from direct warming and half from amplifying feedbacks.
Though the complex models say there is 0.6 C° manmade warming “in the pipeline” even if we stop emitting greenhouse gases, the simple model – confirmed by almost two decades without any significant global warming – shows there is no committed but unrealized manmade warming still to come.
There is no scientific justification for the IPCC’s extreme RCP 8.5 global warming scenario that predicts up to 12 Cº global warming as a result of our industrial emissions of greenhouse gases.
Once errors like these are corrected, the most likely global warming in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration is not 3.3 Cº but 1 Cº or less. Even if all available fossil fuels were burned, less than 2.2 C° warming would result.
Lord Monckton, the paper’s lead author, created the new model on the basis of earlier research by him published in journals such as Physics and Society, UK Quarterly Economic Bulletin, Annual Proceedings of the World Federation of Scientists’ Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, and Energy & Environment. He said: “Our irreducibly simple climate model does not replace more complex models, but it does expose major errors and exaggerations in those models, such as the over-emphasis on positive or amplifying temperature feedbacks. For instance, take away the erroneous assumption that strongly net-positive feedback triples the rate of manmade global warming and the imagined climate crisis vanishes.”
Dr Willie Soon, an eminent solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, said: “Our work suggests that Man’s influence on climate may have been much overstated. The role of the Sun has been undervalued. Our model helps to present a more balanced view.”
Dr David Legates, Professor of Geography at the University of Delaware and formerly the State Climatologist, said: “This simple model is an invaluable teaching aid. Our paper is, in effect, the manual for the model, discussing appropriate values for the input parameters and demonstrating by examples how the model works.”
Dr Matt Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “A high-school student with a pocket scientific calculator can now use this remarkable model and obtain credible estimates of global warming simply and quickly, as well as acquiring a better understanding of how climate sensitivity is determined. As a statistician, I know the value of keeping things simple and the dangers in thinking that more complex models are necessarily better. Once people can understand how climate sensitivity is determined, they will realize how little evidence for alarm there is.”
Attachments
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150115163533.htm
Nearly half the systems crucial to stability of planet compromised
Date: January 15, 2015
Source: McGill University
Summary: Almost half of the processes that are crucial to maintaining the stability of the planet have become dangerously compromised by human activity. That is the view of an international team of 18 researchers who provide new evidence of significant changes in four of the nine systems which regulate the resilience of the Earth.
most half of the processes that are crucial to maintaining the stability of the planet have become dangerously compromised by human activity. That is the view of an international team of 18 researchers who provide new evidence of significant changes in four of the nine systems which regulate the resilience of the Earth. One of the systems which has been seriously affected is the nitrogen-phosphorus cycle which is essential to all life, and is particularly important to both food production and the maintenance of clean water.
"People depend on food, and food production depends on clean water," says Prof. Elena Bennett from McGill's School of the Environment who contributed the research on the nitrogen-phosphorus cycle to the study. "This new data shows that our ability both to produce sufficient food in the future and to have clean water to drink and to swim in are at risk."
The research fixing new planetary boundaries (which represent thresholds or tipping points beyond which there will be irreversible and abrupt environmental change) was published today in the journal Science. It suggests that changes to the Earth's climate, biosphere integrity (a concept covering loss of biodiversity and species extinction), and land-system (through deforestation for example) represent a risk for current and future societies. The fourth process which has become significantly compromised is the nitrogen-phosphorus cycle, which affects both the water we drink and our ability to produce food.
There are two issues relating to the state of the phosphorus-nitrogen cycle. Both elements are essential to plant and animal life. But one of the problems is that phosphorus, which is used as a fertilizer for fields and lawns is in limited supply, and that supply is geopolitically concentrated. Nearly 90% of all known phosphorus reserves are found in just three countries -- the vast majority is in Morocco, with China, Algeria coming in next.
The second issue is that the excess of phosphorus-based fertilisers that drain from fields and lawns into neighbouring lakes can have disastrous effects on the surrounding water. It can lead to the sudden growth of algae that can cause the decline or death of other lake organisms and produce toxins that are dangerous to people or animals that swim in the lake or get drinking water from it.
"About half a million residents of the city of Toledo found out that their tap water had been contaminated with a toxin called microcystin last summer. And in 2007 the Quebec government declared that more than 75 lakes were affected by toxins produced by blue-green algae, says Prof. Bennett. "This kind of problem is likely to become much more common. We will see more lakes closed, will have to pay more to clean our water, and we will face temporary situations where our water is not cleanable or drinkable more and more frequently. That's what it means to have crossed this planetary boundary. It's not a good thing for any of us."
Prof. Elena Bennett, of McGill University's School of the Environment, participated in developing the new assessments on the phosphorus and nitrogen cycles -- one of the four core planetary boundaries that scientists believe to have been crossed. She is available for interviews.
Key points:
The concept of planetary boundaries has been updated with new assessments and quantifications.
Climate change and biosphere integrity identified as core planetary boundaries. Significantly altering either of these "core boundaries" would "drive the Earth System into a new state."
Four boundaries are assessed to have been crossed, placing humanity in a danger zone: climate change, loss of biosphere integrity (biodiversity loss and species extinction), land-system change, altered biogeochemical cycles (fertiliser use -- phosphorus and nitrogen).
Crossing boundaries raises the risks to current and future societies of destabilising the Earth System -- the complex interactions of land, ocean, atmosphere, ice sheets, life and people.
Internationally agreed upper climate limit of 2 degrees lies beyond the climate change boundary: which makes 2 degrees a risky target for humanity, and therefore an absolute minimum target for the global climate negotiations.
Nine planetary boundaries
Climate change
Change in biosphere integrity (biodiversity loss and species extinction)
Stratospheric ozone depletion
Ocean acidification
Biogeochemical flows (phosphorus and nitrogen cycles)
Land-system change (for example deforestation)
Freshwater use
Atmospheric aerosol loading (microscopic particles in the atmosphere that affect climate and living organisms)
Introduction of novel entities (e.g. organic pollutants, radioactive materials, nanomaterials, and micro-plastics).
Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by McGill University. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Journal Reference: Will Steffen, Katherine Richardson, Johan Rockström, Sarah E. Cornell, Ingo Fetzer, Elena M. Bennett, R. Biggs, Stephen R. Carpenter, Wim de Vries, Cynthia A. de Wit, Carl Folke, Dieter Gerten, Jens Heinke, Georgina M. Mace, Linn M. Persson, Veerabhadran Ramanathan, B. Reyers, and Sverker Sörlin. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 15 January 2015 DOI: 10.1126/science.1259855 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
Nearly half the systems crucial to stability of planet compromised
Date: January 15, 2015
Source: McGill University
Summary: Almost half of the processes that are crucial to maintaining the stability of the planet have become dangerously compromised by human activity. That is the view of an international team of 18 researchers who provide new evidence of significant changes in four of the nine systems which regulate the resilience of the Earth.
most half of the processes that are crucial to maintaining the stability of the planet have become dangerously compromised by human activity. That is the view of an international team of 18 researchers who provide new evidence of significant changes in four of the nine systems which regulate the resilience of the Earth. One of the systems which has been seriously affected is the nitrogen-phosphorus cycle which is essential to all life, and is particularly important to both food production and the maintenance of clean water.
"People depend on food, and food production depends on clean water," says Prof. Elena Bennett from McGill's School of the Environment who contributed the research on the nitrogen-phosphorus cycle to the study. "This new data shows that our ability both to produce sufficient food in the future and to have clean water to drink and to swim in are at risk."
The research fixing new planetary boundaries (which represent thresholds or tipping points beyond which there will be irreversible and abrupt environmental change) was published today in the journal Science. It suggests that changes to the Earth's climate, biosphere integrity (a concept covering loss of biodiversity and species extinction), and land-system (through deforestation for example) represent a risk for current and future societies. The fourth process which has become significantly compromised is the nitrogen-phosphorus cycle, which affects both the water we drink and our ability to produce food.
There are two issues relating to the state of the phosphorus-nitrogen cycle. Both elements are essential to plant and animal life. But one of the problems is that phosphorus, which is used as a fertilizer for fields and lawns is in limited supply, and that supply is geopolitically concentrated. Nearly 90% of all known phosphorus reserves are found in just three countries -- the vast majority is in Morocco, with China, Algeria coming in next.
The second issue is that the excess of phosphorus-based fertilisers that drain from fields and lawns into neighbouring lakes can have disastrous effects on the surrounding water. It can lead to the sudden growth of algae that can cause the decline or death of other lake organisms and produce toxins that are dangerous to people or animals that swim in the lake or get drinking water from it.
"About half a million residents of the city of Toledo found out that their tap water had been contaminated with a toxin called microcystin last summer. And in 2007 the Quebec government declared that more than 75 lakes were affected by toxins produced by blue-green algae, says Prof. Bennett. "This kind of problem is likely to become much more common. We will see more lakes closed, will have to pay more to clean our water, and we will face temporary situations where our water is not cleanable or drinkable more and more frequently. That's what it means to have crossed this planetary boundary. It's not a good thing for any of us."
Prof. Elena Bennett, of McGill University's School of the Environment, participated in developing the new assessments on the phosphorus and nitrogen cycles -- one of the four core planetary boundaries that scientists believe to have been crossed. She is available for interviews.
Key points:
The concept of planetary boundaries has been updated with new assessments and quantifications.
Climate change and biosphere integrity identified as core planetary boundaries. Significantly altering either of these "core boundaries" would "drive the Earth System into a new state."
Four boundaries are assessed to have been crossed, placing humanity in a danger zone: climate change, loss of biosphere integrity (biodiversity loss and species extinction), land-system change, altered biogeochemical cycles (fertiliser use -- phosphorus and nitrogen).
Crossing boundaries raises the risks to current and future societies of destabilising the Earth System -- the complex interactions of land, ocean, atmosphere, ice sheets, life and people.
Internationally agreed upper climate limit of 2 degrees lies beyond the climate change boundary: which makes 2 degrees a risky target for humanity, and therefore an absolute minimum target for the global climate negotiations.
Nine planetary boundaries
Climate change
Change in biosphere integrity (biodiversity loss and species extinction)
Stratospheric ozone depletion
Ocean acidification
Biogeochemical flows (phosphorus and nitrogen cycles)
Land-system change (for example deforestation)
Freshwater use
Atmospheric aerosol loading (microscopic particles in the atmosphere that affect climate and living organisms)
Introduction of novel entities (e.g. organic pollutants, radioactive materials, nanomaterials, and micro-plastics).
Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by McGill University. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Journal Reference: Will Steffen, Katherine Richardson, Johan Rockström, Sarah E. Cornell, Ingo Fetzer, Elena M. Bennett, R. Biggs, Stephen R. Carpenter, Wim de Vries, Cynthia A. de Wit, Carl Folke, Dieter Gerten, Jens Heinke, Georgina M. Mace, Linn M. Persson, Veerabhadran Ramanathan, B. Reyers, and Sverker Sörlin. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 15 January 2015 DOI: 10.1126/science.1259855 http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Lets not use pipelines. Lets go with trains.
Really?
The transport of crude oil by rail cars — a hot national issue after the Lac-Mégantic disaster — is on track to break ever-greater records in B.C.
A total of 3,133 carloads containing 250,185 tonnes of crude were transported in B.C. during the first nine months of 2014, according to the latest Transport Canada figures provided at The Vancouver Sun’s request. With three months to go in the year, that amount was already close to the 3,381 carloads and 262,613 tonnes of oil — a record — hauled by rail in B.C. during all of 2013.
Transport Canada’s Sara Johnston said that since 2012 “most of the shipments” of oil transported by rail in B.C. were from Saskatchewan, the rest from Alberta and B.C., adding that rail shipments of oil from the U.S. “have been negligible.”
As evidence of the dramatic increase in crude-oil shipments by rail, there were just six carloads containing 251 tonnes as recently as 2009 in B.C.
While rail transport of other petroleum products in B.C. such as gasoline, diesel, propane and aviation fuel by far exceeds that of crude oil, the rate of increase is not nearly as dramatic. There were 30,859 such railcars hauling 2.5 million tonnes of product during the first nine months of 2014 compared with 42,555 cars hauling 3.6 million tonnes in 2013 and 29,470 cars hauling 2.4 million tonnes in 2009.
Industry Minister James Moore, Conservative MP for Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam, told The Sun last month that public safety in the Lower Mainland is a key reason for moving oil by pipelines instead of railways. “The people of Lac-Mégantic wished they had pipelines instead of rail,” Moore said. “It’s very dangerous for the Lower Mainland ... to have the massive spike in rail transfer of dangerous goods.”
CN countered that 99.998 per cent of its movements of dangerous goods arrive at destination without a spill caused by an accident.
On July 6, 2013, a runaway train of 72 tank cars owned by Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway and loaded with crude oil crashed in Lac-Mégantic, Que., killing 47 people and destroying half the downtown area.
Enbridge has received conditional approval for its $7.9-billion Northern Gateway pipeline to Kitimat, but remains mired in 19 lawsuits, while Kinder Morgan’s controversial $5.4-billion plan to twin its pipeline from Alberta to Burnaby is under review by the National Energy Board.
Chevron Canada’s refinery in Burnaby built a facility in 2013 to specifically off-load oil delivered by CP, along the same tracks used by the West Coast Express commuter train. Since then, the company has been off-loading about 8,000 barrels, or 10 rail cars, a day as a supplement to oil obtained from Kinder Morgan’s pipeline, said Dave Schick, Chevron’s manager of policy, government, and public affairs.
“We needed to get crude in here,” Schick said Thursday. “It all depends on how much access we can get to the pipeline.”
On Oct. 19, 2013, oil-filled rail cars bound for a transloading facility in Langley — and eventually the Chevron refinery — were part of a CN train that crashed and burned in Gainford, Alta. Of 134 rail cars, nine carrying liquid petroleum gas derailed, with three catching fire. Four derailed cars carrying crude oil remained intact with no leaks.
CP spokesman Jeremy Berry said “there has not been a significant change year over year in our movement of oil to the Canadian west coast; in fact, 2014 numbers are lower than 2013.”
CN has said it is shipping some oil by rail through B.C. to U.S. destinations, however spokesman Mark Hallman would not talk about 2014 numbers.
In November 2013, Transport Canada issued a “protective direction,” agreed to by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Railway Association of Canada and the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs. The direction requires railways to share dangerous goods data with municipalities and first responders once municipalities designate an emergency planning official, provide their contact information to Transport Canada, and complete a non-disclosure agreement.
White Rock council voted last September to begin the process of trying to move the rail line from the waterfront by using the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act, which stipulates that railways should neither gain nor lose from the relocation.
Mayor Wayne Baldwin said his city signed the confidentiality agreement and is receiving regular reports from BNSF about rail shipments along the waterfront after the fact, but is not at liberty to discuss them with the public.
Baldwin said he is frustrated that he cannot talk to his city’s citizens about what is passing through on the rail line.
“We’re just being told to mind our position and don’t bother questioning us (the railways) because we don’t have to tell you anything.”
In January 2014, the federal transportation safety board said the “amount of crude oil now being shipped by rail in North America is staggering.” It added: “The Lac-Mégantic derailment and other recent rail accidents demonstrate that, when accidents involving unit trains (or blocks of tank cars) transporting large volumes of flammable materials occur, there is significant risk for loss of life and damage to communities and the environment.”
In April 2014, Transport Minister Lisa Raitt announced that about 5,000 of the least crash-resistant DOT-111 tankers were to be removed from Canadian railways within 30 days. Another 65,000 must be removed or retrofitted within three years.
The Sun earlier reported that train derailments jumped 20 per cent to 110 incidents
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ra...ue+increase/10733394/story.html#ixzz3P1Q7S2Q3
Really?
The transport of crude oil by rail cars — a hot national issue after the Lac-Mégantic disaster — is on track to break ever-greater records in B.C.
A total of 3,133 carloads containing 250,185 tonnes of crude were transported in B.C. during the first nine months of 2014, according to the latest Transport Canada figures provided at The Vancouver Sun’s request. With three months to go in the year, that amount was already close to the 3,381 carloads and 262,613 tonnes of oil — a record — hauled by rail in B.C. during all of 2013.
Transport Canada’s Sara Johnston said that since 2012 “most of the shipments” of oil transported by rail in B.C. were from Saskatchewan, the rest from Alberta and B.C., adding that rail shipments of oil from the U.S. “have been negligible.”
As evidence of the dramatic increase in crude-oil shipments by rail, there were just six carloads containing 251 tonnes as recently as 2009 in B.C.
While rail transport of other petroleum products in B.C. such as gasoline, diesel, propane and aviation fuel by far exceeds that of crude oil, the rate of increase is not nearly as dramatic. There were 30,859 such railcars hauling 2.5 million tonnes of product during the first nine months of 2014 compared with 42,555 cars hauling 3.6 million tonnes in 2013 and 29,470 cars hauling 2.4 million tonnes in 2009.
Industry Minister James Moore, Conservative MP for Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam, told The Sun last month that public safety in the Lower Mainland is a key reason for moving oil by pipelines instead of railways. “The people of Lac-Mégantic wished they had pipelines instead of rail,” Moore said. “It’s very dangerous for the Lower Mainland ... to have the massive spike in rail transfer of dangerous goods.”
CN countered that 99.998 per cent of its movements of dangerous goods arrive at destination without a spill caused by an accident.
On July 6, 2013, a runaway train of 72 tank cars owned by Montreal, Maine & Atlantic Railway and loaded with crude oil crashed in Lac-Mégantic, Que., killing 47 people and destroying half the downtown area.
Enbridge has received conditional approval for its $7.9-billion Northern Gateway pipeline to Kitimat, but remains mired in 19 lawsuits, while Kinder Morgan’s controversial $5.4-billion plan to twin its pipeline from Alberta to Burnaby is under review by the National Energy Board.
Chevron Canada’s refinery in Burnaby built a facility in 2013 to specifically off-load oil delivered by CP, along the same tracks used by the West Coast Express commuter train. Since then, the company has been off-loading about 8,000 barrels, or 10 rail cars, a day as a supplement to oil obtained from Kinder Morgan’s pipeline, said Dave Schick, Chevron’s manager of policy, government, and public affairs.
“We needed to get crude in here,” Schick said Thursday. “It all depends on how much access we can get to the pipeline.”
On Oct. 19, 2013, oil-filled rail cars bound for a transloading facility in Langley — and eventually the Chevron refinery — were part of a CN train that crashed and burned in Gainford, Alta. Of 134 rail cars, nine carrying liquid petroleum gas derailed, with three catching fire. Four derailed cars carrying crude oil remained intact with no leaks.
CP spokesman Jeremy Berry said “there has not been a significant change year over year in our movement of oil to the Canadian west coast; in fact, 2014 numbers are lower than 2013.”
CN has said it is shipping some oil by rail through B.C. to U.S. destinations, however spokesman Mark Hallman would not talk about 2014 numbers.
In November 2013, Transport Canada issued a “protective direction,” agreed to by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the Railway Association of Canada and the Canadian Association of Fire Chiefs. The direction requires railways to share dangerous goods data with municipalities and first responders once municipalities designate an emergency planning official, provide their contact information to Transport Canada, and complete a non-disclosure agreement.
White Rock council voted last September to begin the process of trying to move the rail line from the waterfront by using the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act, which stipulates that railways should neither gain nor lose from the relocation.
Mayor Wayne Baldwin said his city signed the confidentiality agreement and is receiving regular reports from BNSF about rail shipments along the waterfront after the fact, but is not at liberty to discuss them with the public.
Baldwin said he is frustrated that he cannot talk to his city’s citizens about what is passing through on the rail line.
“We’re just being told to mind our position and don’t bother questioning us (the railways) because we don’t have to tell you anything.”
In January 2014, the federal transportation safety board said the “amount of crude oil now being shipped by rail in North America is staggering.” It added: “The Lac-Mégantic derailment and other recent rail accidents demonstrate that, when accidents involving unit trains (or blocks of tank cars) transporting large volumes of flammable materials occur, there is significant risk for loss of life and damage to communities and the environment.”
In April 2014, Transport Minister Lisa Raitt announced that about 5,000 of the least crash-resistant DOT-111 tankers were to be removed from Canadian railways within 30 days. Another 65,000 must be removed or retrofitted within three years.
The Sun earlier reported that train derailments jumped 20 per cent to 110 incidents
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ra...ue+increase/10733394/story.html#ixzz3P1Q7S2Q3
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/s...on®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0
New Research May Solve Puzzle in Sea Level’s Rise
By JUSTIN GILLISJAN. 14, 2015
A discrepancy in climate research had set off a search for possible additional melting from glaciers like those in Antarctica. Credit NASA, via Reuters
A team of researchers reported Wednesday that the ocean did not rise quite as much as previously believed in the 20th century. They proposed a seemingly tiny adjustment that could make a big difference in scientific understanding of the looming problem of sea-level rise.
Instead of rising about six inches over the course of the 20th century, as previous research suggested, the sea actually rose by approximately five inches, the team from Harvard and Rutgers Universities found. The difference turns out to be an immense amount of water: on the order of two quadrillion gallons, or enough to fill three billion Olympic-size swimming pools.
If the findings stand up to scrutiny by other scientists, they could help resolve a longstanding conundrum in climate research. For years, when experts added up their best measurements of melt water from land ice and of other factors causing the sea to rise, the numbers fell a bit short of the rise that had been recorded at harbors around the world.
Icebergs near Greenland's glaciers, which are speeding up as the climate warms.By Degrees: 3.6 Degrees of Uncertainty DEC. 15, 2014
The fast-retreating Sheldon Glacier in Antarctica. A collapse of a polar ice sheet could result in a jump in sea level.By Degrees: Timing a Rise in Sea LevelAUG. 12, 2013
Barrier Islands Feeling the Effects of Climate ChangeSEPT. 29, 2014
If the harbor measurements were right and the ocean really had two quadrillion gallons of extra water, where was it coming from? The discrepancy set off an intensive search for additional ice that might be melting from glaciers and ice sheets, or extra heat that might be causing ocean water to expand, and so on. To some scientists, the answers that emerged were never entirely satisfactory.
Now, in a paper published Wednesday by the journal Nature, the Harvard and Rutgers scientists applied advanced statistical techniques to the measurements taken at harbors. They found that previous research on that record had slightly overestimated the amount of sea-level rise in the 20th century. With their downward revision, the harbor record now matches the other records rather neatly.
“If it’s right, it’s pretty important,” said Peter U. Clark, a geologist at Oregon State University who studies sea level but was not involved in the new research. John A. Church, a scientist with Australia’s national scientific organization and a prominent researcher on sea level, echoed that view, but both men said they would like to see more details of the research before passing final judgment.
The main significance of the paper, if it holds up, may be to increase scientists’ confidence that they understand precisely why the ocean is rising — and therefore shore up their ability to project future increases.
A United Nations subcommittee led by Dr. Clark and Dr. Church said last year that if human emissions of greenhouse gases continued at a high level, the sea could rise as much as three feet by the end of this century, or possibly even more in the worst case. The research from Harvard and Rutgers has already set off efforts to develop new forecasts, with results due in the coming months.
The new paper was led by two young researchers, Carling C. Hay and Eric Morrow, working with two senior scientists, Robert E. Kopp of Rutgers and Jerry X. Mitrovica of Harvard.
Given that observers have been taking measurements at harbors for centuries, using devices called tide gauges, it might seem a simple problem to figure out how much the ocean has been rising. It is anything but simple, though: The tide-gauge record is plagued by gaps; the land to which many of the gauges are attached has itself moved over time; and factors like wind and ocean currents can cause variability of the sea level in particular locales. Moreover, the early harbor measurements were concentrated in Europe and the United States, leaving much of the world a blank.
The Harvard and Rutgers researchers believe their new statistical techniques do a better job than past research of accounting for the confounding variables, but they do not claim to have published the last word on the subject. “One of the main takeaway messages is that sea level is really complicated,” Dr. Hay said in an interview. “We don’t have a complete understanding of what’s been happening.”
If the paper represents an advance in climate science, that silver cloud comes with a dark lining. The new research confirms numerous previous estimates that the rate of sea-level rise jumped substantially toward the end of the 20th century. The ocean now appears to be rising at a rate of about a foot per century.
That would be worrisome enough, since mere inches of sea-level rise have been enough to force governments to spend billions of dollars to fight coastal erosion. But recent research suggests that the great ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are starting to break up as a result of global warming, a development that will send quadrillions of additional gallons of water pouring into the ocean. Many scientists see the recent jump in the rate as the beginning of a more troubling long-term acceleration that may ultimately threaten coastal cities around the world.
Already, tidal flooding is growing worse and causing severe problems in cities like Norfolk and Miami Beach, and in whole countries like Bangladesh.
New Research May Solve Puzzle in Sea Level’s Rise
By JUSTIN GILLISJAN. 14, 2015
A discrepancy in climate research had set off a search for possible additional melting from glaciers like those in Antarctica. Credit NASA, via Reuters
A team of researchers reported Wednesday that the ocean did not rise quite as much as previously believed in the 20th century. They proposed a seemingly tiny adjustment that could make a big difference in scientific understanding of the looming problem of sea-level rise.
Instead of rising about six inches over the course of the 20th century, as previous research suggested, the sea actually rose by approximately five inches, the team from Harvard and Rutgers Universities found. The difference turns out to be an immense amount of water: on the order of two quadrillion gallons, or enough to fill three billion Olympic-size swimming pools.
If the findings stand up to scrutiny by other scientists, they could help resolve a longstanding conundrum in climate research. For years, when experts added up their best measurements of melt water from land ice and of other factors causing the sea to rise, the numbers fell a bit short of the rise that had been recorded at harbors around the world.
Icebergs near Greenland's glaciers, which are speeding up as the climate warms.By Degrees: 3.6 Degrees of Uncertainty DEC. 15, 2014
The fast-retreating Sheldon Glacier in Antarctica. A collapse of a polar ice sheet could result in a jump in sea level.By Degrees: Timing a Rise in Sea LevelAUG. 12, 2013
Barrier Islands Feeling the Effects of Climate ChangeSEPT. 29, 2014
If the harbor measurements were right and the ocean really had two quadrillion gallons of extra water, where was it coming from? The discrepancy set off an intensive search for additional ice that might be melting from glaciers and ice sheets, or extra heat that might be causing ocean water to expand, and so on. To some scientists, the answers that emerged were never entirely satisfactory.
Now, in a paper published Wednesday by the journal Nature, the Harvard and Rutgers scientists applied advanced statistical techniques to the measurements taken at harbors. They found that previous research on that record had slightly overestimated the amount of sea-level rise in the 20th century. With their downward revision, the harbor record now matches the other records rather neatly.
“If it’s right, it’s pretty important,” said Peter U. Clark, a geologist at Oregon State University who studies sea level but was not involved in the new research. John A. Church, a scientist with Australia’s national scientific organization and a prominent researcher on sea level, echoed that view, but both men said they would like to see more details of the research before passing final judgment.
The main significance of the paper, if it holds up, may be to increase scientists’ confidence that they understand precisely why the ocean is rising — and therefore shore up their ability to project future increases.
A United Nations subcommittee led by Dr. Clark and Dr. Church said last year that if human emissions of greenhouse gases continued at a high level, the sea could rise as much as three feet by the end of this century, or possibly even more in the worst case. The research from Harvard and Rutgers has already set off efforts to develop new forecasts, with results due in the coming months.
The new paper was led by two young researchers, Carling C. Hay and Eric Morrow, working with two senior scientists, Robert E. Kopp of Rutgers and Jerry X. Mitrovica of Harvard.
Given that observers have been taking measurements at harbors for centuries, using devices called tide gauges, it might seem a simple problem to figure out how much the ocean has been rising. It is anything but simple, though: The tide-gauge record is plagued by gaps; the land to which many of the gauges are attached has itself moved over time; and factors like wind and ocean currents can cause variability of the sea level in particular locales. Moreover, the early harbor measurements were concentrated in Europe and the United States, leaving much of the world a blank.
The Harvard and Rutgers researchers believe their new statistical techniques do a better job than past research of accounting for the confounding variables, but they do not claim to have published the last word on the subject. “One of the main takeaway messages is that sea level is really complicated,” Dr. Hay said in an interview. “We don’t have a complete understanding of what’s been happening.”
If the paper represents an advance in climate science, that silver cloud comes with a dark lining. The new research confirms numerous previous estimates that the rate of sea-level rise jumped substantially toward the end of the 20th century. The ocean now appears to be rising at a rate of about a foot per century.
That would be worrisome enough, since mere inches of sea-level rise have been enough to force governments to spend billions of dollars to fight coastal erosion. But recent research suggests that the great ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are starting to break up as a result of global warming, a development that will send quadrillions of additional gallons of water pouring into the ocean. Many scientists see the recent jump in the rate as the beginning of a more troubling long-term acceleration that may ultimately threaten coastal cities around the world.
Already, tidal flooding is growing worse and causing severe problems in cities like Norfolk and Miami Beach, and in whole countries like Bangladesh.
http://globalnews.ca/news/1773476/e...-mcmurray-to-make-money-quickly-police-chief/
Extremists head to Fort McMurray to make money quickly: police chief
Edmonton’s police chief sits down with Gord. He says extremists are using Fort McMurray to make money fast to fund terrorist activities.
Extremists head to Fort McMurray to make money quickly: police chief
Edmonton’s police chief sits down with Gord. He says extremists are using Fort McMurray to make money fast to fund terrorist activities.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ange-exist-the-senate-is-about-to-let-us-know
Does climate change exist? The Senate is about to let us know
An amendent to the Keystone XL pipeline bill hopes to force Republican climate change deniers to state whether they agree with the science or not
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
theguardian.com, Thursday 15 January 2015 12.00 GMT
bernie sanders
Senator Bernie Sanders hopes his amendment will force Republicans to defend their anti-science positions on the floor of the Senate. Photograph: Win McNamee/Getty Images
Congress is to vote on whether climate change is real. Seriously.
The measure, which will come up in the debate about the Keystone XL pipeline, will ask the Senate to vote on whether climate change is real, caused by human activities, and has already caused devastating problems in the US and around the world.
It is intended to force Republicans who deny the existence of climate change – and they are a majority in Congress – to own their anti-science positions, said Bernie Sanders, the Independent senator from Vermont behind the amendment.
“The bottom line is that I think as a nation that we walk down a very dangerous road when the majority party in the United States Congress is prepared to reject science,” Sanders told the Guardian. “I think it is important for Republicans to tell their constituents, to tell the American people, and to tell the world whether they agree with the science or not.”
That could make for some very awkward moments.
Sanders’s amendment has no chance of passage in the Republican-controlled Congress – and he acknowledges that is not the point.
Indeed, when Sanders first introduced the measure in the Senate energy committee last week, one of his fellow Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, objected to the final clause urging the US to get off fossil fuels and move towards a clean energy economy.
But the amendment promises to produce some embarrassing footage from the Senate floor as Republicans try to align the party leadership’s position on climate change with the scientific community – and indeed much of the world outside the United States.
The Republican leadership for several years now has marched in lockstep on climate change, denying its existence and opposing measures to deal with the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing it as part of their strategy against Barack Obama.
Of Republicans in the Senate, 70% deny the existence of climate change or obstruct action on climate change, according to Climate Progress.
Some, such as Jim Inhofe, the chair of the Senate environment and public works committee who calls global warming a hoax, have practised climate denial for years.
Others have shifted positions as the Republican party drifted to the right – and Sanders suggested their newfound denial was a result of political expediency.
“I think some of them – Jim Inhofe, who I like and is a friend of mine, is very sincere in his belief that climate change is a hoax, who absolutely believes that,” Sanders said.
“But I think there are other senators who do not believe that. There are other senators who have scientific backgrounds but for political reasons are not prepared to come out and say that climate change is real.”
One such senator could be Mark Kirk, an Illinois Republican facing re-election next year. Earlier this month, Kirk appeared to have effected a conversion to climate denial, dismissing global warming as “political correctness”. Kirk later hedged on that position.
Such non-denial denials are widespread, Sanders went on. “I think many moderate Republicans, including many business people, know how serious this problem is and want to do something about it,” he said.
But there are powerful forces promoting climate denial, Sanders said.
“On the other hand, we have the Koch brothers and energy companies pouring millions into the coffers of the Republican party.”
Republicans blocked a similar climate vote last July – after objections from Inhofe.
But the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, seems inclined to allow a vote this time around. The Keystone bill, while guaranteed passage, is unlikely to gather enough support to circumvent a threatened presidential veto.
McConnell has an interest in extending the debate on Keystone, if only to pick off more Democrats to vote in favour of the bill.
Other Democrats would also like to tack riders on the Keystone bill, though none dealing directly with climate change.
McConnell told reporters on Tuesday afternoon that all of the proposed amendments could go ahead. “We are not anxious to block anybody’s amendment. We are wide open,” he said.
That could make for some interesting moments. Flat-out climate denial – though still acceptable in the Republican party leadership – is not shared by all rank-and-file Republicans.
New research this week from the Yale Project on Climate Communications found majorities of moderate and liberal Republican voters do accept the existence of climate change and do want to fight climate change.
Climate denial is also becoming a potential political liability, a signifier that Republicans are old and out of touch with reality. Climate denial has come under sustained attack from environmental campaigners and the green billionaire Tom Steyer, who poured millions into the midterm elections.
A number of prominent Republicans in tight races with Democrats shied away from outright denial, adopting a new formulation: “I’m not a scientist.” Even Mitch McConnell, in his race for his Kentucky Senate seat, took up the “I’m not a scientist” wording.
Sanders refused to speculate on how senators might vote when put on the spot on climate change. But it’s fair to say that he will enjoy the spectacle.
• This article was amended on 15 January 2015 to clarify that the Yale research found that majorities of moderate and liberal Republican voters accept the existence of climate change, rather than a majority of all Republican voters. An earlier version referred to “majorities of Republican voters”.
Does climate change exist? The Senate is about to let us know
An amendent to the Keystone XL pipeline bill hopes to force Republican climate change deniers to state whether they agree with the science or not
Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
theguardian.com, Thursday 15 January 2015 12.00 GMT
bernie sanders
Senator Bernie Sanders hopes his amendment will force Republicans to defend their anti-science positions on the floor of the Senate. Photograph: Win McNamee/Getty Images
Congress is to vote on whether climate change is real. Seriously.
The measure, which will come up in the debate about the Keystone XL pipeline, will ask the Senate to vote on whether climate change is real, caused by human activities, and has already caused devastating problems in the US and around the world.
It is intended to force Republicans who deny the existence of climate change – and they are a majority in Congress – to own their anti-science positions, said Bernie Sanders, the Independent senator from Vermont behind the amendment.
“The bottom line is that I think as a nation that we walk down a very dangerous road when the majority party in the United States Congress is prepared to reject science,” Sanders told the Guardian. “I think it is important for Republicans to tell their constituents, to tell the American people, and to tell the world whether they agree with the science or not.”
That could make for some very awkward moments.
Sanders’s amendment has no chance of passage in the Republican-controlled Congress – and he acknowledges that is not the point.
Indeed, when Sanders first introduced the measure in the Senate energy committee last week, one of his fellow Democrats, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, objected to the final clause urging the US to get off fossil fuels and move towards a clean energy economy.
But the amendment promises to produce some embarrassing footage from the Senate floor as Republicans try to align the party leadership’s position on climate change with the scientific community – and indeed much of the world outside the United States.
The Republican leadership for several years now has marched in lockstep on climate change, denying its existence and opposing measures to deal with the greenhouse gas emissions that are causing it as part of their strategy against Barack Obama.
Of Republicans in the Senate, 70% deny the existence of climate change or obstruct action on climate change, according to Climate Progress.
Some, such as Jim Inhofe, the chair of the Senate environment and public works committee who calls global warming a hoax, have practised climate denial for years.
Others have shifted positions as the Republican party drifted to the right – and Sanders suggested their newfound denial was a result of political expediency.
“I think some of them – Jim Inhofe, who I like and is a friend of mine, is very sincere in his belief that climate change is a hoax, who absolutely believes that,” Sanders said.
“But I think there are other senators who do not believe that. There are other senators who have scientific backgrounds but for political reasons are not prepared to come out and say that climate change is real.”
One such senator could be Mark Kirk, an Illinois Republican facing re-election next year. Earlier this month, Kirk appeared to have effected a conversion to climate denial, dismissing global warming as “political correctness”. Kirk later hedged on that position.
Such non-denial denials are widespread, Sanders went on. “I think many moderate Republicans, including many business people, know how serious this problem is and want to do something about it,” he said.
But there are powerful forces promoting climate denial, Sanders said.
“On the other hand, we have the Koch brothers and energy companies pouring millions into the coffers of the Republican party.”
Republicans blocked a similar climate vote last July – after objections from Inhofe.
But the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, seems inclined to allow a vote this time around. The Keystone bill, while guaranteed passage, is unlikely to gather enough support to circumvent a threatened presidential veto.
McConnell has an interest in extending the debate on Keystone, if only to pick off more Democrats to vote in favour of the bill.
Other Democrats would also like to tack riders on the Keystone bill, though none dealing directly with climate change.
McConnell told reporters on Tuesday afternoon that all of the proposed amendments could go ahead. “We are not anxious to block anybody’s amendment. We are wide open,” he said.
That could make for some interesting moments. Flat-out climate denial – though still acceptable in the Republican party leadership – is not shared by all rank-and-file Republicans.
New research this week from the Yale Project on Climate Communications found majorities of moderate and liberal Republican voters do accept the existence of climate change and do want to fight climate change.
Climate denial is also becoming a potential political liability, a signifier that Republicans are old and out of touch with reality. Climate denial has come under sustained attack from environmental campaigners and the green billionaire Tom Steyer, who poured millions into the midterm elections.
A number of prominent Republicans in tight races with Democrats shied away from outright denial, adopting a new formulation: “I’m not a scientist.” Even Mitch McConnell, in his race for his Kentucky Senate seat, took up the “I’m not a scientist” wording.
Sanders refused to speculate on how senators might vote when put on the spot on climate change. But it’s fair to say that he will enjoy the spectacle.
• This article was amended on 15 January 2015 to clarify that the Yale research found that majorities of moderate and liberal Republican voters accept the existence of climate change, rather than a majority of all Republican voters. An earlier version referred to “majorities of Republican voters”.
- Status
Similar threads
