• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Global warming discussion III

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I wasn't all that confident of a 2C limit.....1.5 would appear to be unobtanium. :boggled:

Keeping warming to 2 °C is not enough to save species

01:00 27 March 2015 by Fred Pearce
For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide
Is the world's target of limiting global warming to 2 °C too high, or too low? Does it even make scientific sense? The consensus around the target, which was agreed at climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009, seems to be coming unstuck.

Back in October, US climate analysts David Victor and Charles Kennel called it scientifically meaningless and politically unachievable. We should get used to the idea of something warmer, they said.

Now the target has been denounced as "utterly inadequate", by Petra Tschakert of Penn State University in University Park, who has been involved in a UN review of the target. She wants a 1.5 °C target instead. Writing in the journal Climate Change Responses, she says this lower limit is necessary if we want sea levels to rise less than a metre, to protect half of all coral reefs, and to still have some ice during Arctic summers.
........

Is a cap on warming at 1.5 °C achievable? Many think that, with the world already warmed by 0.85 °C, it is now all but impossible. But even so, it could shape the blame game, said Tschakert. The Paris agreement is likely to include a clause entitling the poorest countries to compensation for "loss and damage" resulting from climate change. If a 1.5 °C target were set – and then exceeded – their case for a payout in the event of climate disaster would be that much stronger. "The stakes," she writes, "are enormous."
Journal reference: Climate Change Reponses, DOI: 10.1186/s40665-015-0010-z

http://www.newscientist.com/article...-not-enough-to-save-species.html#.VRlpl1wdrHA
 
Well I wasn't all that confident of a 2C limit.....1.5 would appear to be unobtanium. :boggled:
http://www.newscientist.com/article...-not-enough-to-save-species.html#.VRlpl1wdrHA
.


(From the article) .... Keeping warming to 2 °C is not enough to save species

Areas where I live in Canada routinely have summer temperatures as high as +90*f and as low as -40*f

I ask -- So What if it "warmed" to +92*f and -38*f .... life would go on , and we would hardly even notice anything different

Every single living thing on earth today has lived through much warmer climates and much colder climates

.
 
You really don't understand much do you about your only planet?

Every single living thing on earth today has lived through much warmer climates and much colder climates

wrong...but you wouldn't listen anyways.

Perhaps you should try and learn something

http://kanat.jsc.vsc.edu/student/swift/mainpage.htm

http://www.climate.org/topics/climate-change/migratory-birds-climate-change.html\\from above - a specific case

In the United Kingdom, the North Sea saw an apian breeding collapse in the year 2004. The direct cause for this crash was a shortage of sandeels, a small fish essential to the diet of many birds, including the Hercules of all apian migrators: the Arctic Tern. This shortage of food was related to global warming, and according to the World Wildlife Fund Global Climate Change Program, “Warming ocean waters and major shifts in species that underpin the ocean food web are thought to be behind the major sandeel decline.”
The Arctic Terns (see figure 2) demonstrate perfectly how susceptible migratory birds are to climate disruptions, especially since this is a bird whose annual journey round-trip totals between 22,000 and 30,000 miles. Since Arctic terns live up to 30 years, a single one of these 14-17 inches long, two-pound birds may travel during its lifetime more than 650,000 miles. Interestingly enough, Arctic terns see more daylight than any other creature on the planet, “since they are in both the Arctic and Antarctic during the periods of longest days.”
Arctic Terns rely on the North Sea (see the map on figure 7) as a source of food in their long journeys. In the year 2004, the terns saw their habitual feeding stop unable to supply them with enough food. In fact, “no Arctic tern chicks were reared in the south of Shetland [archipelago in Northern Scotland] in 2004. And although hundreds of Arctic Terns arrived at the RSPB’s [a wildlife reserve owned by BirdLife International, UK] Mousa reserve this spring, no young were fledged. All the large Arctic Tern colonies in Orkney [Northern Scotland] failed, and for the first time in living memory, none nested at the RSPB reserve on Papa Westray [also in Scotland].” The Terns were not alone in their plight: “The nearly 7,000 pairs of Great Skuas in the Shetlands [another species dependent on the North Sea for food] produced only a handful of chicks and starving adult birds ate their own young.”

Figure5: An Arctic Tern, and its migration route, from the National Wildlife Federation website.
The collapse of fish productivity in the North Sea in the year 2004 has been called by scientists “a regime shift” because “rising sea temperatures have fundamentally changed the plankton mix to the detriment of sandeels,” the fishes that are essential as part of the diet of the many birds that stop in the North Sea to feed, as reported by BirdLife International in a press release entitled “Seabirds in the North Sea: victims of climate change?” Sandeels also are essential to other links of the marine food chain, which means that other fish and bird species have started to see their numbers drop as well, such as mackerels, cod, or kittiwakes (a seabird). The 2004 collapse “was so severe that fishermen voluntarily shut down the fishery in the worst affected area” of the United Kingdom’s North Sea. The Marine Policy Head of BirdLife International concluded that “We could be witnessing the single biggest change in the North Sea since it was formed 10,000 years ago.”

and the devastation of sea life on the West Coast of North America has yet to completely unfold.....

Mass Death of Seabirds in Western U.S. Is 'Unprecedented'
Why are so many auklets, from California to Canada, starving?
By Craig Welch, National Geographic
PUBLISHED JANUARY 24, 2015

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...ie-off-auklet-california-animals-environment/

•••••

the era of fossil fuels is passing ...move on...

The fossil fuel path is immoral and financially imprudentWhat was right once, is now wrong. If John D Rockefeller were alive today, he’d be as visionary about green energy as once he was about black crude

The second conclusion is that it’s financially imprudent to stay invested in companies whose profits depend on defying both physics and the international effort to restrain climate change. HSBC, for instance, has noted that if the world moves to meet its 2C target, the valuations of many fossil fuel companies would fall by half or more.

Some of my family members and other notable partners have made this case with the executives of Exxon, the company our family founded. Many have urged them to turn their great pools of capital, and wealth of technical expertise toward becoming an energy company, not a fossil fuel company. But these attempts at engagement have not sufficed. Thus, although we will hold on to a few shares to have the right to continue to try to influence company policy, we have begun to divest, and to look for ways to invest that money into the energy of the future.

Valerie Rockefeller Wayne
Tuesday 31 March 2015 01.50 AEDT

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...fuel-path-immoral-financially-imprudent-exxon
 
Last edited:
hmmmm....does not bode well for some North Atlantic regions dependent on the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic drift....

What’s going on in the North Atlantic?
Filed under: Climate Science — stefan @ 23 March 2015

The North Atlantic between Newfoundland and Ireland is practically the only region of the world that has defied global warming and even cooled. Last winter there even was the coldest on record – while globally it was the hottest on record. Our recent study (Rahmstorf et al. 2015) attributes this to a weakening of the Gulf Stream System, which is apparently unique in the last thousand years.
The whole world is warming. The whole world? No! A region in the subpolar Atlantic has cooled over the past century – unique in the world for an area with reasonable data coverage (Fig. 1). So what’s so special about this region between Newfoundland and Ireland?

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...n-in-the-north-atlantic/#sthash.B8s2PxQ2.dpuf
 
Every single living thing on earth today has lived through much warmer climates and much colder climates


Some corals, maybe, but I'm pretty sure that no mammal, fish, or plant alive today has lived through "much warmer" or "much colder" climates. I know I haven't. Are you claiming that you have?
 
.


(From the article) .... Keeping warming to 2 °C is not enough to save species

Areas where I live in Canada routinely have summer temperatures as high as +90*f and as low as -40*f

I ask -- So What if it "warmed" to +92*f and -38*f .... life would go on , and we would hardly even notice anything different

Every single living thing on earth today has lived through much warmer climates and much colder climates

.



we'll be lucky to keep it under a 4C average rise.
 
.


(From the article) .... Keeping warming to 2 °C is not enough to save species

Areas where I live in Canada routinely have summer temperatures as high as +90*f and as low as -40*f

I ask -- So What if it "warmed" to +92*f and -38*f .... life would go on , and we would hardly even notice anything different

Every single living thing on earth today has lived through much warmer climates and much colder climates

.


Average of 2 degrees C, does not mean that at all.

It is an average temperature rise taken over the whole globe.

So many areas on the land would see a marked rise in temperature compared to the oceans.

And if you care to study about the end of the last ice age, you will find there is a limit to how fast creatures and plants can adapt to temperatures shifts.

So yeah, if you think that no extinctions were caused by the period of widely swinging temperatures at the end of the last ice age be my guest.

So how fast does a boreal forest migrate? How many extended summers of 90 F can the northern Quebec forests take before they decline?
 
Last edited:
Average of 2 degrees C, does not mean that at all.

It is an average temperature rise taken over the whole globe.

It's also not an "every day is 2 Deg warmer" type of thing. Where/if things can live isn't determined by every day conditions it's determined by the worst case conditions, and those are loner and more frequent.

Something else to keep in mind is that 6 Deg C is the difference between the world we know today and a half mile of ice covering Chicago. Even 2 Degrees warmer is a very different world.
 
.

-40* to +90* = 130* f.

Every year my temperature varies by 130 degrees and everything survives just fine.

It has only warmed 0.8* and another 1.2* C. will not bring the hellfire Armageddon some climate evangelists keep preaching

.
 
Every year my temperature varies by 130 degrees and everything survives just fine.

You have an almost barren biome....guess why?? Yet a small temperature difference is allowing over wintering by beetles

Pine Bark Beetles Poised for New Attacks on Canada's ...
www.scientificamerican.com › Energy & Sustainability › Climatewire
Apr 11, 2013 - But forest managers now see new beetle infestations appearing at the ... The beetle's life cycle is regulated by temperature, and cold snaps are one of the only sure ways of killing the insects off in large numbers. ... with fir and spruce to form the diverse ecology of the Boreal Forest. .... risk free title graphic.
Pine Bark Beetles Poised for New Attacks on Canada's ...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ed-for-new-attacks-on-canadas-boreal-forests/

Where I am now....in one month my biologist GF counted 80 different fruits on the ground in a one km walk.
More than all the tree species in the UK...and that's just that month. At least the tropics will only get a small portion of the warming compared to mid latitudes and further north.

Small temperature changes have and are devastating coral reefs all over the world...some that have been extant for 10,000 years.

Study projects unprecedented loss of corals in Great Barrier Reef due to warming
Date:
January 22, 2015
Source:
National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis (NIMBioS)
Summary:
The coverage of living corals on Australia's Great Barrier Reef could decline to less than 10 percent if ocean warming continues, according to a new study that explores the short- and long-term consequences of environmental changes to the reef.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/01/150122103242.htm

20% plus of the fish stocks depend on the coral structures....now it's not all AGW, it's also acidification from the same source and of course poor practices like trawling and overfishing.

You are very poorly informed about your planet...consider changing your sources of information from the right wing gish gallop ...
 
Last edited:
You are very poorly informed about your planet...consider changing your sources of information from the right wing gish gallop ...


You too :D

ABDUSSAMATOV said:
The Sun is controlling and practically totally determining the mechanism of quasibicentennial cyclic alternations of climate changes from warming to Little Ice Age and set corresponding time-scales for practically all physical processes taking place in the Sun-Earth system.
The current long practically stable levels of World Ocean and of temperature additionally reflects the current state of global warming during past 17 years, which are under the direct control of the quasibicentennial decrease of TSI. Approximately in the end of 2014 we begin the descent into 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7,500 years [22, 23]. Early understanding of reality of the upcoming global cooling and physical mechanisms responsible for it directly determines a choice of adequate and reliable measures which will allow the mankind, in particular, population of countries situated far from the
equator, to adapt to the future global cooling.

Full PDF HERE
 
.

Every year my temperature varies by 130 degrees and everything survives just fine.

It has only warmed 0.8* and another 1.2* C. will not bring the hellfire Armageddon some climate evangelists keep preaching

.

That's weather, not climate.

In about the last 10000 years the climate has been very stable and average temperature has not varied more than +/- 1C.

This has resulted in stable and, mostly, predictable weather patterns.

Based on this predictable weather (which locally varies a lot depending on the seasons and a bunch of other stuff) we have invented cool stuff, like agriculture, and writing, and the internet. All of human civilisation fits into this 10000 year timespan, more or less.

the weather varies a lot mostly because the earth is moving. It spins on it's axis and it orbits the Sun. So just like when it's dark on one side of the planet it's light on the other, when it's hot on one side of the earth (summer) it's cold on the other side (winter)

Over a year it all averages out so that despite local weather variations the average temperature over the entire planet (2/3rds of which is ocean don't forget) stays within used to stay within a narrow +/- 1C band.

We've already shifted it 0.85ishC hotter, and given that what we observe now was caused by industrial activity (CO2 emissions mostly) 40 odd years ago, we've already done enough to likely shift the average to ~3C.

If it gets to +4C sealevel will rise by at least 3 ft and 40% of inhabited land will be stuck in drought. About half of all known species of life will go extinct.

We'll probably get there around 2100 give or take 20 years.

If we're lucky 4C is not high enough to trigger some of the nasty positive feedbacks. (things like heat melts permafrost, permafrost releases methane, extra methane increases GHE) and maybe by the time the average temp has gone up 2C people will start demanding stuff is done about it.
 
Two degrees doesn't sound like much, so how much actual heat is that? Across the entire atmosphere and the oceans, how many calories does it take to increase it all by 2 degrees? How many joules? How many nuclear bombs?
 
You too :D



Full PDF HERE

Your link triggers my malware protection systems,...not a good sign for the paper. Quick looks suggest your author trots out quite a few of the typical tropes repeatedly shown to be incorrect and unsupported by proper analyses of the evidences. The man doesn't even seem to have a basic level understanding of atmospheric radiation transfer physics and blithely hand-waves away 2 centuries worth of fundamental physical observation, research, experimentation and evidence. Not even contrarian, simply incorrect,

Here, try some actual climate science:

http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom