The planet is baking under relentless heat. We have severe dry conditions and droughts in broad areas around the entire globe. There is no end in sight to the current global heating trend. Our planet is on fire. The Earth is hot and getting hotter confirms the State of the Climate Report authored by some 450 scientists from 62 countries.
Credit: Cover for the State of the Climate in 2015 report
The Planet Is Baking
Such heating trends are truly distressing and alarming as climate change plays out before us. “The impacts of climate change are no longer subtle,” says Michael Mann, a leading climatologist at Penn State University. The annual State of the Climate Report confirms that 2015 surpassed 2014 as the hottest year on record. Carbon dioxide, sea levels and temperatures all hit new milestones according to the report.
Key findings of the report:
- Global surface temperature was the highest ever recorded.
- Greenhouse gases were the highest on record.
- Global sea level rose to a new record high in 2015.
- Sea surface temperature was the highest on record.
- Global upper ocean heat content highest on record.
- The Arctic continued to warm; sea ice extent remained low.
- Tropical cyclones were well above average, overall.
Global Surface Temperature
The first six months of 2016 have been the warmest half-year ever. June was the fourteenth consecutive month to shatter heat records. And 2016 will easily become the hottest year on record. This will be the earth’s third hottest year in a row.
Two key climate change indicators have broken numerous records through the first half of 2016, according to NASA analyses of ground-based observations and satellite data. Each of the first six months of 2016 set a record as the warmest respective month globally in the modern temperature record, which dates to 1880. Meanwhile, five of the first six months set records for the smallest monthly Arctic sea ice extent since consistent satellite records began in 1979. NASA researchers are in the field this summer, collecting data to better understand our changing climate.
Published July 19, 2016
Standard YouTube Licence
The world is now 1C warmer than it was in pre-industrial times, primarily caused by a huge escalation in the production of greenhouse gases. The oceans, which absorb more than 90% of the extra heat, also reached new record temperatures.
Greenhouse Gases
The three main greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. And all three set new records in 2015. The Mauna Loa Observatory (which I visited in 2009) recorded more than 400 ppm of CO2 for the month of March — the first time since measurements began . The annual CO2 average for 2015 was 399.4 ppm — an increase of 2.2 ppm compared to 2014.
The burning of fossil fuels for energy has increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than 40% since the Industrial Revolution.
Global Sea Level
Global sea levels continue to rise due to warming ocean temperatures and unprecedented Arctic warming and ice-melt. Oceans absorb about 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases, primarily in the top 700 metres of water. The Global Mean Sea Level (GMSL) has risen by 4 to 8 inches (10 to 20 centimeters) over the last century. And the annual rate of rise is accelerating — roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years.
Scientific research indicates that ocean levels will rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet (0.8 and 2 meters) by 2100, enough to flood cities along the East Coast of North America. However, a complete meltdown of the Greenland ice sheet will push sea level rise to 23 feet (7 meters), enough to submerge London, reports National Geographic.
While our planet is baking, we continue to pay only casual attention to the imminent climate crisis. The world is careening towards an environment never experienced before by humans, reports theguardian. In a recent opinion piece, George Monbiot writes that the climate crisis is already here. And yet the media is distracted by the US election, Brexit, ISIS and the Rio Olympics.
What is salient is not important. What is important is not salient. The media turns us away from the issues that will determine the course of our lives, and towards topics of brain-melting irrelevance.
Eight months ago in Paris, 177 nations promised to try to ensure the world’s average temperature did not rise by more than 1.5C above the pre-industrial level. Already it has climbed by 1.3C – faster and further than almost anyone predicted. In one respect, the scientists were wrong. They told us to expect a climate crisis in the second half of this century. But it’s already here. (George Monbiot, author, columnist)
*
Rolly Montpellier is the Founder and Managing Editor of BoomerWarrior.Org. He’s a Climate Activist and a blogger. He’s a member of 350.Org (Ottawa), Climate Reality Canada and Citizens’ Climate Lobby (Ottawa). Rolly has been published widely in both print and online publications. You can follow him on Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin and Pinterest.
Whoa!…My My
and El Nino has ended yet the planet continues to set monthly heat records.
Sadly, our governments are missing the big picture here. No one has yet approached them with all of the data from all of the sources as to what is happening to life around the globe.
As a whole, we, the population, also switch on to some piece of global warming information, worry, and then we switch off again to think about it no more! No one as yet has connected all the dots… Although some Scientists such as Michael Mann have been trying. Such wake up shouting seems to be lost in a wind of political turmoil across the world.
Animal life (especially the marine variety) is suffering greatly from our heating planet and species numbers are dropping rapidly. Does anyone care about a Guillemot or a Great Skewer? Perhaps many do not even know they are sea birds that are suffering severe population drops in some areas (Britain’s North East Coast for one)! This hardly makes main news so goes unnoticed by most people who will say they have never even seen either species anyway so it isn’t important!
But, has anyone considered what animals first do when temperatures first rise? They become more aggressive!
If one looks across the globe, we can see so many examples of aggression in the human population, we cannot count them all. And they are just what has been reported in the media. I’m sure we can all come up with personal examples of unexpected aggression, even from our friends and family! This is no coincidence, but an early warning sign that the Earth and it’s population are already victims of a planetary environment that is becoming less supportive of animal life!
http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/06/warm-climates-violence.html
Thank you Colette – your link is a very interesting paper. The effects of global warming on culture and human behaviour is such an interesting topic. Great article. One only has to think about how water scarcity can prompt wars as people compete for limited resources. We will see more of that in the coming decades.
As I’m responding to these comments, I’m also watching the Olympics rowing events. While we focus on the Olympics, the US elections, Brexit, ISIS, etc, the planet continues to heat up. Mainstream media will only focus on the climate during extreme weather events. In the not-too- distant future, as extreme weather becomes the norm, media coverage will catch up to reality.
I don’t think the media deals in ‘reality,’ they run around like headless chickens, scratching at one ‘shock horror’ story after another in the hope that it sells! It has nothing to do with reality – it has everything to do with entertainment to keep the population busy moaning about things they see in print or on TV instead of looking at what really matters in life and actually doing something about it.
We are all the victims of watching some guy who has just exceeded the world record for eating a gazillion hot dogs in two minutes flat and then continue to gleefully watch him explode on live TV (or YouTube). It is inane stuff that means nothing!
I for one would like to see media ‘reporters’ actually report what happens. The judgement of such reports is up to us because it is always subjective …I.e. Is the glass half full or half empty? Either way, the objective reporter needs only say that half of the space in a glass is occupied by a liquid….he/she should be as honest as possible because if the liquid is not tasted/smelled/tested, there is no way to determine if it is water or not?
I am fed up with the speculation in most reporting….it has led to the Iraq war, The invasion of Afghanistan and Syria by foreign parties who only had half the truths, and a lot of untruths that have led to hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths.
If we wait for the media to catch up with reality, Rolly, we will turn to stone waiting!
Koch Industries are extensively advertising on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and the like just to control their reporting on climate change in relation to floods, wildfires, hurricanes, and droughts. Why else would Koch Ind. run a commercial about an engineer in Brazil working on clean water if it wasn’t to control the media.
Brian – thank you for your comments and welcome to BoomerWarrior.
I agree that mainstream media is doing an extremely poor job of reporting accurately on climate science and climate change in general. Perhaps TheGuardian is the exception. Even world leaders are going soft now on the Paris Agreement commitments. There’s a new type of denial among politicians of all stripes. Many seem to believe that we can actually promote fossil fuel infrastructure such as more pipelines and continue to support subsidies for the fossil fuel industry and support the transition to a clean energy platform simultaneously. The two don’t mix.
You can’t do both.
“Scientific research indicates that ocean levels will rise between 2.5 and 6.5 feet (0.8 and 2 meters) by 2100,”
Boomer-
Where on earth did you read such nonsence? I know there are a huge number of irresponsible predictions on sea level rise, but do you know what the empirical data says for my country?
Well I hate to tell you this old cock but the empirical data around here says sea level rise is running at 1.7mm per year. The same as it has been running since records began.
To predict catestrophic sea level rise is all fun albeit a trifle irresponsible but the only catch is –
it has not stared yet.
You can read it at my blog at http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Cheers
]
Roger
Roger, I am afraid that Rolly is correct and may even be erring on the side of caution. The sea level rises are coming…and soon.
“On July 20th, James Hansen, the former NASA climatologist who brought climate change to the public’s attention in the summer of 1988, issued a bombshell: He and a team of climate scientists had identified a newly important feedback mechanism off the coast of Antarctica that suggests mean sea levels could rise 10 times faster than previously predicted: 10 feet by 2065. The authors included this chilling warning: If emissions aren’t cut, “We conclude that multi-meter sea-level rise would become practically unavoidable. Social disruption and economic consequences of such large sea-level rise could be devastating. It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migrations and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization.”
…
Earth’s Most Famous Climate Scientist Issues Bombshell Sea Level Warning
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/20/sea_level_study_james_hansen_issues_dire_climate_warning
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016-discussion.html
This is the actual website for Hanson’s paper
Research article
22 Mar 2016
Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous
Colette,
Thank you for visiting my site.
Your statement ” The sea level rises are coming…and soon.” is exactly what I am talking about. Sea level rise has not occurred yet according to fact ,(which you affirm is true), yet you continue to take heed of the numerous warnings that it is coming.
mmm if the scientist includes the word “could” in his dissertation, I think he needs to work on his research a little more:)
Colette, if you study Karl Popper and Richard Feynman, you will find that a hypothesis, in this case “Sea Level is rising because of global warming” is fiction unless you can back it up with some empirical data that confirms the theory..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
Unfortunately the model projections we are inundated with are not empirical and neither do they support the Co2 causes Global Warming theory and its related off shoots – such as sea level rise – in fact they thoroughly and inequivocably disprove it.
We have plenty of hypothesis’, some of which you quote and yet there is no unusual sea level rise and according to satelite data,(see RSS data for instance), no unusual global warming.
(Even the IPCC admits that there has been minimal warming and disparity,(I would say extreme disparity), with the official models.
“Although the forcing uncertainties are substantial, there are no apparent incorrect or missing global-mean forcings in the CMIP5 models over the last 15 years that could explain the model–observations difference during the warming hiatus.”
IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report Final Draft (7 June 2013) P.9-29 Paragraph 2.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter09.pdf)
I am following the tenents of real science when I say this, any one saying anything different is spouting fiction, breaking the rules of science and therefore ignoring science.
Sure catestrophic sea level rise would be devasting – if it happened suddenly – but even the worst scenarios do not predict a global warming induce tsunami.
Even the UN has very little concern about sea level rise. https://thedemiseofchristchurch.com/2016/05/06/un-headquarters-and-usd1-2-billion-upgrade-and-rising/
If I were you, I would very deeply concerned with the economic effect on you, your family and your community, that will most surely affect everyone, (except the mega rich and elite), should we squander the worlds wealth fighting a myth that shows no actual evidence or theoretical proof. This is where my heart is. We may very easily destroy our communities trying to fight some unproven theory which is not science but a political theory.
I will leave you to think about why and how AGW is a political theory
Oh by the way, the empirical data showing no unusual seal level rise around here comes from GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L03307, doi:10.1029/2003GL019166, 2004 J. Hannah
Well the Environmental protection agency (EPA) of the US Government seems to think that sea level has risen 10 inches since 1880.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level
The EPA also indicates that the oceans are heating…..heated water expands, and that does mean sea level rise.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-ocean-heat
I suppose that the science of examining our climate has become a battle of statistics and it depends on how you look at the data as to whether you want to worry or not.
I do look at things with my own eyes too….and I know how easy it is to cherry-pick the data!
In August 1880, a local newspaper reported that substantial rains had flooded Mount Sorrel, Sileby, Cossington and even parts of Loughborough in Leicestershire, England. It had cut off some of the roads, isolating people. In today’s terms it was probably as bad as the recent Paris, France floods. Sceptics of Global Warming would point at that and say that such floods have happened before, so today’s floods are nothing unusual.
However, I happen to know (from personal experience) that the area in Leicestershire is prone to floods all the time. It is a wide river valley that flanks the River Soar. Any rain at all, causes the river to rise rapidly! Most of the river plain is left to farmland as any building would be sheer folly. But some building has occurred over the years, and of course, now that floods are more commonly quite high, the newspapers are full of people with flooded houses. This would be the wrong place to look at data (unless of course, it is to look at the curve of increasing tendency to flood).
I give Scientists the benefit of believing they do more than one collection of data, or one study. Alone, data and studies are not very conclusive, but putting many studies together and having hundreds of data sets to compare is more indicative of trends, and I believe that most scientists now agree that global warming trends are too high to be due to purely natural causes.
Who is the fossil fuel empire then, Would it possibly be the former owners of Exxon perhaps?
Well maybe these guys used to own Exxon, but I would say – inspite of their assertions to the contrary – that they are part of big oil – the biggest of big oil actually.
Then why are they financing Green Peace, WWF, 350.org, Sierra Club and possibly Boomer Warrior through some sub agency?
Hit the search button at this site.
http://www.rbf.org
Its hard to reason w peoples like Roger with clams like RSS shows no ‘unusual’ warming. To him +.13*C a decade and rising is not ‘unusual’. He always has that ‘unusual’ qualifier to fall back on. By using that particular adjective he can claim and argue anything he wants. The fact that most scientists do find it unusual has no meaning to Roger, only his definition of it counts.
Lou, “The fact that most scientists do ~ ”
Have you actually examined the papers that claim this fictional 97% consensus? Consensus means nothing anyway. (Take Copernicus for example.)
Anyway I have taken the trouble to examine the three most vociferous papers and particularly Cook Et Al is particularly unconvincing. Cook eventually, (after some pressure), published his data and I cannot see any convincing 97% in his research. Neithe can any other scientist actually (cronies excepted)
Have you taken the trouble to look into the background of what you have been told?
I invite you to my long standing blog which deals with the comparative temperatures between now and the Medieval Warm Period and now. Was the MWP, which was warmer than the present, caused by humans? One must admit that it was very unlikely. Has anyone come up with a study that shows the current warming is not caused by the same thing as the MWP?
Rejoice for heavens sake. The world is secure, the main danger is the ruining of the world economy by investing in this futile effort to reverse the warming trend, which has not stood up to predictions anyway.
Read my blog.
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Cheers
Roger
Sorry Roger, i’ve absolutely no interest in adding traffic to your site. I’ve seen all your specious arguments over at WUWT, and Bishop Hill, and Tony Heller’s, and et al, so why would i want to see the same old chronic bs gish gallops and conspiracy theories rehashed over and over again at your place? Like ‘the MWP, which was warmer than present’ – LOL, do tell Rog. I’d ask you to present your scientific evidence about it except i realize thats a witless task and waste of time b/c all that ever will be returned is another of your fruitless gallops.
Lou,
You miss the point entirely. Everything I say on my blog is according to scientific methods and empirical data. I take a lot of trouble to make it this way.
Therefore there are no arguments that what I say – it is absolutely as reliable as proper science can be and I take offence when you describe it as “specious” especially as you have not delved into the methods and backgrounds of the sources you refer to.
If the oceans have expanded enough to make the sea level rise? I’m afraid the expansion does not show up on the record around here. Perhaps all the water is flowing your way for some undefined reason but here it is reliably measured by un biased scientists at 1.7mm per year, which is the rate recorded since records began about 150 years ago.
This is an example of empirical data – what is measured – not what is predicted. Trust you understand the difference.
A little arithmetic 1.7mm x 136years = 231.2 mm = ~ 10 inches! Can it be that we are in agreement? First of all in 1880, the little ice age was declining so there was warming – of the natural kind – but where is the acceleration needed to attain the absurd predictions we hear?
1 metre per 10 years for instance will need a rate of 100mm per year or 10mm per 100 years. Quite a bit of acceleration needed it seems, but not measured yet!
I wonder if the UN is worried about Sea level rise? Take a look at google earth.
https://www.google.co.nz/maps/place/United+Nations+Headquarters/@40.7448298,-73.9686024,505a,20y,41.58t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!1m3!3m2!1s0x89c2591ce0874d11:0xc5fae28bdd3df635!2sUnited+Nations+Headquarters!3m1!1s0x89c2591ce0874d11:0xc5fae28bdd3df635
It seems that the UN HQ is in the middle of a 1.8 billion refit, but I don’t see any provision for jetties and things – do you?
So do not believe what bureacracy is telling you without checking the facts and consistancy of what you are being told!
And please try to be scientific yourself, frankly you are simply acting like a sheep in Orwell’s Animal Farm at the moment.
Oh by the way, The Medieval Warm Period 1.Was warmer than today and was not warmer than some previous warmings in historical times. 2, It was world wide and even shows up in NZ studies. All this is on my blog so I am sorry that you are afraid to look the truth in the eye.
Cheers
Roger
Roger, you can’t even seem to grasp the simple science fact that heat melts ice. EVERY measure we have of temperature, whether its satellite, surface, ocean, etc, shows the planet is warming more and more. More heat means more ice will melt. So your conjecture that years from now SLR will still be the same as it was 50 years ago is not very intelligent or science based. If you can’t understand that more heat melts more ice i can’t see how there is any kind of science on your blog. Why would anyone visit it?
And btw, thanks for another gallop, didn’t expect anything else.
cheers Mate
I guess we will have to agree to disagree here on the subject of sea level rise, future predictions and causes. While there are arguments made on both sides, it doesn’t really help.
Ice melt may ( or may not) cause the sea level to rise and the salinity to drop. One may cancel the other out to a degree (salt water has more volume than fresh water). Also as ice melts off landmass, the land rises. In Svalbard, the landmass is rising at 2mm per year as it loses the weight of its ice cover, so actually, it cancels out any shoreline measurements of sea level rise ( but the extra volume of water may show up elsewhere in a tropical belt where warm waters expand and well up).
The mechanics of feedback loops in our oceans are not well understood, and we are learning as we go.
One thing is certain though. The human experience on earth is changing largely through our own actions. We have decimated large portions of interdependent ecosystems, especially in the oceans where species die off has been fastest in recorded history. This is no small thing, and if we continue to argue over the minutia details of how the oceans are (or are not rising), we will totally overlook the fact that our activities have put keystone marine ecosystems in jeopardy.
The ocean currents have changed, rainfall patterns have changed. Areas that are used to droughts, are flooding, and vice versa! Yes this has happened before, but not at the same rates and not with the same rapid species reduction.
The reasons are cloudy – muddied by differing statistical data, but we are missing a very big picture here…. We all want to live a good, healthy life. It cannot be done if we continue to willingly poison ourselves. We must find healthier alternatives to many of our living requirements. We have used the earth as a general dumping ground for all of our Frankenstein created waste. We have robbed the earth of every single natural resource without putting anything of natural value back. The oceans are full of contaminated waste that is lethal to life! The oceans are not able to absorb any more of our man made CO2. The oceans feedback circulation is altering in ways we can barely understand.
If we continue to stand on the side lines arguing about how many millimetres we have seen this in this, or that, body of water, rise, we will be suddenly overcome by the mass extinction all around us!
Look with your own eyes outside, in your own part of the world…look at the air, look at the water, look at the land. If you see litter, plastic waste, dead lifeless areas, no wildlife (or little compared to previous decades), then something is wrong! We do not need to argue over the whys and wherefores to know that something is wrong. It is like continuing to smoke cigarettes, when one knows that the data points to a shortened lifespan due to the various cancers that smoking causes. And we continue to argue that we are just fine, refusing to accept that it will eventually kill us.
We can live in denial, for a while. But is it fair to inflict our poor attitude to life on our young? They will only learn our bad habits and decrease their own lifespans further until the whole system implodes and civilisation collapses ( yet again).
This is not a responsible, caring attitude. This is not kind. This is not the actions of a loving society. Have we all turned into psychopaths, intent on species destruction for the gratification of our own narcism?
Thank you Roger, Colette and Lou for your interesting exchange of opinions and ideas. Of course I side with the arguments supporting AGW. I hate that we’re still even debating the issue. I don’t need more convincing. Having said that, I still feel that I need to post material that expose the current threats from global warming and climate change.
Someone has suggested that perhaps we have enough evidence….it’s time to move on to solutions, mitigation and survival strategies. But what about the millions who remain unaware of AGW or who refuse to acknowledge it. How do we reach them? It’s a “daunting challenge” to quote my Prime Minister.
To the moderator,
You accidentally forgot to publish my final comment.
I have to say that I have carefully read and understood all the comments here but not yet received a reasonable respectful reply to my own.
This is not an unreasonable expectation.
Do you not find it interesting that 10 inches of sealevel rise since 1880 is almost exactly the rate of 1.7mm per year which is recorded by scientists here?
I really need to know if it is the consensus here that melting Arctic ice will contribute to sea level rise and how much.
Are you really afraid to allow your readers to watch the lecture by Richard Feynman?
My original coment is below.
Oh Lou, you didnt even bother to read my comment let alone the facts on my blog.
Good luck with your bigoted view of things.
I have tried to get you to use what little intelligence you have but no you choose to believe the calamity prophets instead of facts.
I suppose you are going to tell me next that melting of Arctic ice is going to contribute to sea level rise are you?
I actually have another blog where I record these conversations. I think this conversation deserves a slot there. What do you think?
By the way, does your road to a particular belief follow the method shown in this video by Richard Feynman? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw
Hope you dont mind that he has a Jewish name.:)
Cheers
Roger
Projecting much Roger? As for Arctic sea ice, anyone w half a brain or simple knowledge of science knows that ice melting in water does not raise the level of the water. Like all AGWDeniers you just make up more specious arguments to go round and round in your head. Your silly little subterfuges are of no interest to me as are any of your blogs either. As for the rest of your comments you show yourself to be an insipid person. Good luck with that as little Lou here is done with your kind of ineffective and immoral pettiness. Ta ta.
Hi Roger, while I am no moderator, I do like to comment here.
Yes you are correct, 10 inches is almost exactly 1.7mm of sea level rise per year since 1880. Long term, that may stay the same, or it may be higher depending on which statistical predictions are used? Who knows. Nature has a habit of rebalancing itself in unpredictable manners which really is what has spawned the great debate on the climate warming issue and what is directly and indirectly causing it.
Unfortunately, I cannot currently look at YouTube or indeed any high download type material as I am on very restricted mobile data for my internet. I live on a boat (no apologies for that) and I am not your normal 9-5 rat-race kind of person. I live a pretty much basic life without the luxuries that most people want. I don’t need them or desire them!
Anyway, back to the subject…. I did say, we will have to agree to disagree. I think you will agree that BoomerWarrior is a site that promotes philosophies that you don’t agree with! You are sceptical that the global warming is in any way man-made and most of us here believe that Man has contributed in unnatural ways to increase a warming atmosphere.
Anyway, I have every respect for your research and indeed, academic qualifications. I just don’t happen to agree with them. I may be proved wrong, and I would be the first to apologise if I was….it’s just that most of the Sceptic papers disproving man-made global warming are inconclusive. The industrial age began in the late 1700’s. The pollution during the 1800’s was absolutely, mind-numbingly awful. The fact that sea level has been consistently rising since 1880 does not tell us what it was doing before the Industrial Revolution began and atmospheric CO2 increased. The earth is not a machine. Like us, it will not die from one smoked cigarette. But it will die like us if we chain smoke. We must have balance!
Colette,
So AGW started in the 18th century then? Very interesting but I’m sure you have empirical evidence on that? I suspect any increase in warming would have caused an ongoing acceleration over that period. What do you think.
I’m sorry that you are unable to watch the Richard Feynman video. Maybe you can get someone to post you a usb drive or CD of it.
Are you able to go to https://www.google.co.nz/maps/place/United+Nations+Headquarters/@40.7448298,-73.9686024,505a,20y,41.58t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!1m3!3m2!1s0x89c2591ce0874d11:0xc5fae28bdd3df635!2sUnited+Nations+Headquarters!3m1!1s0x89c2591ce0874d11:0xc5fae28bdd3df635
and see how concerned the UN is about sea level rise while they spend at least US$1.8 billion on their head quarters?
This address may be more achievable on your mobile.
https://thedemiseofchristchurch.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/un-headquarters-and-usd1-2-billion-upgrade-and-rising
Cheers
Roger
Roger,
http://sciencenordic.com/human-induced-global-warming-began-180-years-ago
This is one ( of many recent) reports on Industrial era warming. I’m sure you can find the paper quoted.
I am having black outs on my internet signal, so really cannot do much at the moment.
Roger – this link is a better one
https://theconversation.com/the-industrial-revolution-kick-started-global-warming-much-earlier-than-we-realised-64301
The paper for evidence that current global warming trends is published in Nature (24 August 2016).
The team of (mainly Australian) scientists who collected the data for this paper have not speculated, nor used extrapolated data, but rather have looked at solid evidence of centuries of measurable earth changes…tree ring growth, coral reef expansion, sedimentary deposits and so on.
During the 1800s many volcanoes spewed out enough detritus to block out the sunlight for an extended period of time ( I.e Krakatoa, Indonesia, 1883). This should have led to a cooling period, but it didn’t.
Two days ago, the Guardian published an article on humanity entering into the new Anthropocentric Epoch in the 1950’s. In a nutshell, the claim by Scientists is that the 12,000 years of the stable Holocene period of life on earth is now over. Our human activities are contributing to mass extinctions and changes in the earth that will now be one of constant and permanent change in our lifetime.
Oh, by the way Roger, we all know that the large governmental organisations (including the rather ineffectual UN), are so wrapped up in PC red tape protocol, they tend to trip over most of the rubbish they spew out. The world of’Authority’ vacillates between one piece of information and another, trying to give credence to all and support to none.
The world wouldn’t be looking at mass extinctions if our governmental attitudes to health and welfare were in any way effective. Just another civilisation that is about to collapse.
The saying ‘Nero fiddled while Rome burned,’ while incorrect, is an apt description of humanity’s response to the current climate crisis.
Note to Lou – yes I know melting ice doesn’t increase water level if that Ice is already in the ocean – basic physics. Land based ice that suddenly melts and enters the ocean will temporarily increase the volume, but evaporation and the water cycle seems to temper the effects quickly. However a heated ‘ocean’ will cause expansion of the volume (an effective sea level rise ). Eventually, feedback loops will kick in to compensate and bring levels back to a sustainable cycle, but the feedback loop weather is likely to be devastating to human habitations. And another thought, if ice melts away from glaciers completely, Svalbard, Iceland, Greenland, and Mountain ranges around the world, the land suddenly rises (like a released cork). With reduced pressure on the landmass, does this allow volcanic activity to come to the surface (with the reduced resistance)?
If volcanic activity increases, spewing matter into the atmosphere and blocking out sunlight, do we see yet another upper atmosphere ‘blanket’ trapping in our greenhouse gasses, or will they block enough sunlight for sudden and complete stoppage of the growth cycle, triggering a massive extinction? Either way, it doesn’t look too good!
“reveals that warming in some regions actually began as early as the 1830s.”
Really Collette – Maybe there was a little warming locally as they say on your link, but we are talking about GLOBAL warming here!
Unpleasant as the industrial revolution was to some with respect to the lack of care for the local environment, (and assuming the CO2 causes Global Warming hypothesis is true), – because of the total small portion of the globe affected at the time, it is hard to see how any GLOBAL warming could possibly start from such a small source.
Its more likely that there was cold weather because of the smog keeping things dark and reflecting the sun radiation back into space.
Try researching the population statistics and compare 1815 with 1949 for instance.
Here is a little info on the River Thames. Note it never consistantly froze, there were warm winters as well.
http://www.thamesweb.co.uk/windsor/windsorhistory/freeze63.html
Cheers
Roger
Yup volcanoes will cool the earth. Mt Pinotubo was the last one recorded as I recall.
Some say because of the lack of sun spots, we may be heading into another mini ice age. Will that make you happier?
PS if you read my blog, you will see there accounts of when the glaciers in europe were at a far greater retreat than now, yet we survived. And you will also see that the Medieval Warm Period – in spite of Michael Manns pathetic hockystick. (where he is still fighting requests for his data and method.), shows up in proxies and morain geology all round the world. (We survived that one too)
When the UN moves out of their East River, (tidal by the way), New York building that will be the time to worry.
Do you know that in my country we had the very first global warming refugee application. Him and his family were eventually packed up by the courts and sent home to Kiribati where they belonged. He is recorded as bemoaning the lack of fresh water and lack of jobs there, but it appears that the annual NZ allocation for immigrants from Kirbati is never filled from year to year.
Whatever happened to the 50,000,000 climate refugees forecast by the UN in 2005?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/feared-migration-hasn-t-happened-un-embarrassed-by-forecast-on-climate-refugees-a-757713.html
You see Collette, no predictions are coming true, and in fact the failure of the predictions are further rendering the Anthropogenic CO2 Causes Global Warming Hypothesis invalid.
So enjoy your boat and the sunshine and relax, unless you have grand children who, if Boomer Warrior and others have their way, may well starve as world economies continue crumbling.
Cheers
Roger
Tell Lou that Antarctica is growing, in ice cap depth. Lot bigger than Greenland you know:)
NASA dont sound too pleased about it with predictions that this will change, but time will no doubt tell. They talk about changes in the sea ice, but as Lou admits, that does not matter too much with regard to sea levels.
🙂
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
Rog, you should at least try a wee bit to learn the meaning of a word before you use it in a sentence. A word like ‘admits’ has a specific meaning. And since most people learned in the third grade that ice melting in a glass does not add to the volume in the glass, it means that your use of it in your reply sentence is vacuous and meaningless.
Also in the same vein, if you link to a NASA article you should at least try to read the whole article and comprehend all of it before trying to use it to make another of your off kilter allegations. As Inigo Montoya says ” … i don’t think it means what you think it means.”
Cheers
Roger, you are ‘grasping at straws.’ You haven’t taken the time to read the reports … The feedback loops in the warming cycle are complicated (and to a greater degree, beyond my knowledge of science and possibly yours too?).
The reports mention that the Antarctic is cooling due to a feedback loop of cold currents being pulled into the Antarctic while warm water circulate on a different loop further north. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v9/n7/full/ngeo2731.html
It is possible that this creates instability in our normal global ocean currents. Some scientists have warned of a similar effect possibly taking hold in the Arctic, cutting off the gulf stream.
The resulting weather that might occur in the populated temperate zones on our planet could be so altered and devastating as to wipe out large populations.
If you are so hell bent on this being totally normal, well I think you must be rubbing your hands with glee at the prospect of watching the meltdown (literally).
As for the ‘Little Ice Age,’ it was a temporary blip caused by combined low sunspot activity and volcano activity blocking out sunlight – a cooling trend starting in the 1300’s and lasting right through to 1715. Glaciers grew and European continents had cool wet summers and frosty winters. The ice on the Thames was short-lived through winter months (hardly an Ice Age in London). Just like the Rideau Canal in Ottawa is used for winter ice skating, the Thames winter Frost Fairs thrived into the 19th century until the climate warmed too much for the annual freeze for a month of skating and merrymaking. The period, while a bit chilly, was not devastating to life, didn’t cause mass extinctions and was just due to normal, if prolonged natural cycles.
For the first time in recent history, the Rideau canal, Ottawa, Canada, has not been consistently frozen through the winter and indeed, Canadian winters have been strange, with intermittent warming and unusual snow melt. It is a worrying trend
According to scientists who monitor sunspot activity, we should be well into a cooling period (your predicted ice age, and indeed something that was predicted nearly 50 years ago as I knew about it as a child), but something has gone wrong….we are still getting hotter every year.
There has been some recent volcanic activity, but will that spew out enough matter to hide the sun for a cooling effect? I rather think it is too late for that.
To be honest, I have not seen any climate denier come up with a credible new research paper in 2016 to disprove global warming trends as totally natural and not influenced by human activity. I see lots of papers to the contrary produced one after the other by Climate Scientists desperately trying to convince us that we are digging our own graves! Perhaps we should listen to them.
Lou – you are correct, Roger has not fully read the report at his NASA link (incidentally from 2015).
The ice formation and melt is complicated in Antarctica, not least because Scientists are seeing strange phenomena, like increased snowfall and formation of sea ice
and ice shelf ice that is totally different…http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/2016/06/14/larsen-c/
The Ross sea (Antarctica) is deep and unexplored. The theories on how cold water feedback loops operate here are not well understood.
Scientists are worried though, while there is snowfall and ice formation (due to the deep cold currents), there is a warming atmosphere that also creates melt.
http://phys.org/news/2016-05-deep-antarctic-ocean-hasnt.html
I think Scientists are still trying to figure out what this may mean in the longer term. Meanwhile, I wouldn’t recommend that anyone stand on thin ice such as the Larson Ice Shelf.
Incidentally, I was in Ushuaia, (gateway city to Antarctica) in February – their summer. Absolutely no snow, not even on the mountains….I wore a rain Mac! 10 years previous, again in February, I wore my thick winter coat and boots. While it was a bright sunny day, snow and ice lay everywhere. No one can tell me that our climate is not warming!
I am posting this just for Roger (again, because my response to Lou is still awaiting moderation because of the two links I sited).
http://phys.org/news/2016-05-deep-antarctic-ocean-hasnt.html
It might be an informative read for you Roger
Most people need to look at the data themselves….this is a really good web site to look at sea level rise, the data sets, the interviews with scientists, the latest news and reports and research….don’t rely on old news or snapshots of data from naysayers….have a look at where NASA really is headed on the subject of ocean changes during global warming….
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/
NASA is the most reputable source of oceanic data – accurate, reliable, indisputable.
Yes, a great resource. Bookmarked. Thanks for posting it Colette. The Rising Seas, By Decade multimedia resource is an invaluable video for seeing what is happening in real time.
Yes Lou, I believe it is a good resource. Thank you.
mmm Did anyone else actually examine the NASA site https://sealevel.nasa.gov/ objectively?
The NASA animation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eXNWV3cXj8 which features a graph with no indication of the interval values on the vertical axis puzzles me. Maybe one of you can explain it.
I also see the pages on the link rely a lot on the GRACE satelites.
Can I enlighten you all on what GRACE means? or perhaps Boomer can reply for all of you.
Boomer, did you know that you can be funded by big oil to help with your website and more?
By big oil I mean the owners of EXXON and more. Now why would they want to fund you and not me? Just not fair is it.
And by the way, read the NASA website for everyone wll you? Precious little data there as far as I can see, but you may know where its hidden.
Oh the Big Oil site where you can get funding is http://www.rbf.org Take a look at all the other initiatives they are funding. Some very green names there thats for sure.
Cheers
Roger
Roger, your comment on GRACE (Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment) running since 2002 answering to NASA, is either pointless or subject to one of your derisory episodes. I don’t see your point in denigrating the GRACE satellite? Are you having a joke?
The list of GRACE Reports is extensive… http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/publications/press/ and of course NASA uses the reports to inform us (in lay terms that we, the general population can understand) why not? Are you suggesting it is all lies?
How many reports have you funded Roger? How many have you concluded with empiracle evidence, non-refutable data, and void of null-hypothesis? Even Hadron Collider experiments have experienced failures….it is the nature of science that we need to keep looking at the questions we pose for ourselves! Only bullies poke holes in the work of other people without the necessary quantifying argument!
As for your constant tirade that ‘big oil’ is funding ‘green’ projects….well one would expect all business people to ‘hedge their bets’ and have ‘fingers in more than one pie.’
None of this is ‘black and white,’ as an issue. You are just ‘throwing obstacles’ into the conversation for the sake of it. You are really boring me!
One more thing Roger, NASA does link to the data sets https://sealevel.nasa.gov/data/data-search/?Collection%5B%5D=Ocean
They (each individual set of collected data) link to the source figures… Figures that most of us here wouldn’t understand as they are usually a series of recorded readings (in numbers rather than a pretty graph for lay people).
Again, you are just skirting around evidence and presenting us only with ‘red herrings.’
Deep, old water explains why Antarctic Ocean hasn’t warmed I took the trouble to read the proper extract.
Actually what kills it is the use of the word “suggests”.
Dont want suggestions around here Boomer, I only deal with facts, not guesses.
Of course predictions are not facts by definition. Facts are true and supported observations on what has actually happened. These are known as Emperical Data.
The fact is that Antarctica has NOT warmed. Everything else is guesses and half baked theoriies of why.
In fact we dont know why.
We don’t know precisely why the climate is heating some recently either. We know it has cooled and heated before (hotter than now it seems), but we really dont know why.
CO2 causes Global Warming hypothesis is a guess. No proof and but definitely disproof as observations disagree with the predictions.
You should really watch the Richard Feynman video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw so you can explain this to your two “followers”
Guesses are not truth, I’m sure you will agree, and I’m going with the Null Hypothesis until some real supporting empirical data comes along to provide me with reasonable proof that I am wrong I mean you wouldnt want your government to blow all your tax dollars and more on all this without reasonable PROOF would you?.
Oops another big word. Maybe you should google “null hypothesis”so you can understand that as well:)
Cheers
Roger
ps and please tell you followers to look for empirical data on the NASA website. I would like to see what they have got as well:)
Roger, your cynicism and sarcasm (dripping) is truly offensive. But then, I think it is your goal to be the little worm in the woodpile! Please, why is it that you keep quoting Richard Feynman as the God of all that refutes man-made global warming? He is one person….what makes his theory so great that it blows everything else out of the water.
I won’t be able to watch the YouTube video as I said before. I wish you to post a link here that takes me to a scientific report (not your site) that tells me in plain words this undeniable theory that you keep referring to with derisory glee, that has turned you into a sanctimonious troll here on Boomer Warrior! I think you are here to poke fun at us and our concern for the planet. I suppose you agree with Fracking, Nuclear Power and possibly the use of neonics’s to spray crops? You strike me as a person who thinks that man is the architect of all things great and that we have such dominion over the planet, that we can do anything we want with impunity!
Ps – Roger, do you think that the US and China would ratify the Paris Agreement to cut greenhouse gases on a mere ‘suggestion’ that our activities have increased the warming of the planet? If you think that, perhaps I don’t need to worry about your comments here….because then I will just believe that you are delusional, and your comments no more valid than that of people who fall into the category of ‘conspiricy theorists!’
Oops! you’ve opened up a can of worms there Colette. Thats all Rog has is conspiracy theories. With all his ‘scientific’ arguments blown out of the water he’s now down to the ‘Null Hypothesis’ and ‘Empirical Evidence’. Poor lad. Finally it’ll be ‘Its the Sun!’
Eh, you can’t win with his type. His next response will be another condescending bore’s gish gallop of mined and taken out of context quotes and a few personal digs. And all from someone who believes melting ice “may (or may not)” raise sea level and that Antarctica has not warmed even though the whole planet has warmed according to UAH and RSS Satellite data. Oh my.
Yes, I know Lou! I am a glutton for punishmen it seems. I guess Roger won’t give up until he has worn me/us down to thinking it’s no use to argue any more. Not sure of the point of that! Anyone else reading this back and forth diatribe would have moved on to more interesting information on Boomer Warrior long ago. Roger is wasting his time. Obviously he has lots of free time to ponder his next interaction here. Sigh!