New insights into global warming

sealevel.colorado.edu/content/continental-mass-change-grace-over-2002–2011-and-its-impact-sea-level. This paper makes rising sea level not seem like a problem at all, at least not one we won't have time to adapt to.

And here's another: podaac.jpl.nasa.gov/OceanEvents/GRACE_2010-11_GMSL_ENSO_Oct2012.

GRACE = Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment. It's run by NASA.

You can stop worrying, folks.

Sorry,*J08*, I started writing it mid-afternoon, then the garage rang to say the car could be collected and I just carried on where I left off when I returned so hadn't seen any of the responses when I posted.

Well! That was a long-winded way of saying what I said!

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports with 95 % certainty that climate change is man made.

It says that sea levels could rise between 11 to a maximum of 32 inches by the end of the century if carbon emissions continue to soar. Not a pretty picture but somewhat less alarmist than the figures you quote CarbonCareful.

You have published articles like this before and you clearly feel very deeply on this issue but the question is what do you suggest we do about it? I mean real practical measures that can be instituted and in action in the next five years, not just remarks about moving to renewables, what kind? How will we deal with providing a steady supply of power when dealing with the uncontrollable variability of wind power and diurnal and seasonal variability of output from photovoltaic panels? What form of power generation, other than nuclear will provide a steady base load (you have previously suggested that you want a non-nuclear energy industry)?

I have asked these questions before but you do not reply and we cannot have a dialogue on this subject, which you have clearly studied in depth, if you will not answer them and that surely defeats your purpose in drawing these articles to our attention..

I will be fine if I am still living at 3,600', but what about when I move to New Zealand! I will be living about 12 miles from the coast in an earthquake zone!

The mountain tops would still be above sea level, Jings and the hilly ground. Avoid buying a house on a flood plain (if you already live on one, put it on the market and buy a boat (an Ark?)

Greatnan may know of suitable property near her. She could look forward to lots of new neighbours at this rate.

Should we all find a carbon neutral way to top ourselves and have done with it? Would definitely save the planet. God knows what for though.

Hope you did n' t fly to that holiday carbon.

Well, if it's that bad, what are we supposed to do about it? Do you really think everyone is going to scrap their cars and use public transport all the time? And the airlines ground their planes permanently? It is n' t going to happen. Most people would n' t want it to happen.

If it is as huge as that article says it is, the little bits and bob's we do like turning the roomstat down and walking to the supermarket won't scratch the surface.

What do you personally want to happen?

Too long to read!

ENVIRONMENT
→ Climate Change, Climate Desk, Energy, Environment, Science, Top Stories
5 Terrifying Statements in the Leaked Climate Report
Is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change getting blunt about how bad global warming is going to be?
—By Chris Mooney
| Tue Aug. 20, 2013 7:02 AM PDT
n the long run, global sea level rise could easily exceed 5 meters. Brendan Howard/Shutterstock
Climate Desk has obtained a leaked copy of the draft Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2013 Summary for Policymakers report, which other media outlets are also reporting on. The document is dated June 7, 2013. We recognize, as we've previously reported, that this document is not final, and is in fact certain to change.
Most media outlets are focusing on the document's conclusion that it is now "extremely likely"—or, 95 percent certain—that humans are behind much of the global warming seen over the last six decades. But there is much more of note about the document—for instance, the way it doesn't hold back. It says, very bluntly, just how bad global warming is going to be. It gives a sense of irreversibility, of scale…and, of direness.
In particular, here are five "holy crap" statements from the new draft report:
We're on course to change the planet in a way "unprecedented in hundreds to thousands of years." This is a general statement in the draft report about the consequences of continued greenhouse gas emissions "at or above current rates." Unprecedented changes will sweep across planetary systems, ranging from sea level to the acidification of the ocean.
Ocean acidification is "virtually certain" to increase. Under all report scenarios, the acidification of the world's oceans will increase—the draft report calls this outcome "virtually certain." As we have previously reported, more acidity "threatens the survival of entire ecosystems from phytoplankton to coral reefs, and from Antarctic systems reliant on sea urchins to many human food webs dependent on everything from oysters to salmon."
Long-term, sea level rise could be 5 to 10 meters. Journalists are already citing the draft report's prediction that by the year 2100, we could see as much as three feet of sea level rise. But there is also a more long-range sea level scenario alluded to in the draft report, and it's far more dramatic and alarming.
Taking a look at the planet's distant past, the document ascribes "very high confidence" to the idea that sea levels were "at least 5 [meters] higher" during the last interglacial period, some 129,000 to 116,000 years ago. It also adds that sea level during this period probably did not exceed 10 meters higher than present levels. Finally, the draft report says, with "medium confidence," that temperatures at that time weren't more than 2 degrees Celsius warmer than "pre-industrial" levels.
Add it all up, and what that means is that if we exceed 2 degrees of warming beyond pre-industrial levels, then we could be looking at radically higher oceans, and submerged coastal cities, in the long run. And just how close are we to exceeding 2 degrees Celsius? Several scenarios used for the draft report project "high confidence" that we'll get there by the end of the century. At that point, seas would continue to rise well beyond the year 2100, and by much more than three feet.
This also implies a substantial melting of the Greenland ice sheet. The draft report adds that during the last interglacial period, the melting of Greenland "very likely" contributed between 1.4 and 4.3 meters of global sea level rise, with additional contributions coming from the melting of Antarctica. If Greenland were to melt entirely, it is estimated that sea level would rise by about seven meters.
Thus, a substantial Greenland melting could also be set in motion by the end of this century, which would eventually result in dramatic sea level increases. To be sure, most of this wouldn't occur during the current century—it would play out on a much longer time scale. But over 1,000 years or more, the draft report says, Greenland could melt almost entirely, and much of the change might be "irreversible." (Granted, the report expresses low confidence about the precise temperature threshold required to bring about a full melting of Greenland.)
Much of the carbon we've emitted will stay in the atmosphere for a millennium…even after we've stopped emitting it. The draft report says that 20 percent of the carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere will stay there for an almost unimaginably long time—more than 1,000 years. Even if we were to completely cease all greenhouse gas emissions, the draft report adds, warming would continue for "many centuries." "A large fraction of climate change," the document intones, "is thus irreversible on a human time scale." The only way out would be if our emission levels were "strongly negative for a sustained period"—which, to put it mildly, seems highly unlikely.

Wish I could post links!
I've just 'Googled' global warming (yet) again only to find an interesting article in 'Time' .... 'The battle against global warming is all in your head'.... scanned it but will read it more carefully later.....

Yes, I meant too!!!

I think

Is that carbon's reply to nonu?? Most people content themselves with a picture postcard with a "x" to show their hotel room [confused}??

arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/diagram-of-doom.html

Hi Carbon , did you have a good holiday ?

I thought that the less than predicted rise has been found to be due to the oceans absorbing the heat and warming up. Nothing to be complacent about.

arctic-news.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/arctic-ocean-is-turning-red.html

Bags
Read quite recently that for the last 8 to 12 years the global temp has not risen in a manner that could be interpreted as other than what could be expected, taking into account normal variations, this in spite of increased amounts of CO2 being released.
Met office "boffins' are perplexed and don't know how to account for it. All the projections are at sixes and sevens and no longer applicable.I assume that they will have to recalculate, or, as is more likely, to suit the majority, explain the hiccup and discount it?

No, I did't mean to quote either, or I would have been remonstrated with from the likes.....For not attributing.

No - it just loses its point when it's the "logical" version. it's the apparent contradiction in the real quote which gives it its edge!

I like the Michael Coreleone version best !

Oddly, the misquote made perfect sense to me!