CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING

[PanBiker]

I checked on him today as well Kev, looks like he's missed Irma but he is keeping an eye on Jose' that's following up.

[Stanley]

Good. I hadn't thought about him.......
Irma has gained strength again and is over Cuba now but heading for Florida in the next 24 hours.....

[Tizer]

Some good news about climate change today from an international group of scientists. With more data available and improvements in climate modelling they show that we can be more optimistic about tacking climate change if nations keep to the pledges made on curtailing emissions. Their paper in Nature Geoscience concludes: "If CO2 emissions are continuously adjusted over time to limit 2100 warming to 1.5 °C, with ambitious non-CO2 mitigation, net future cumulative CO2 emissions are unlikely to prove less than 250 GtC and unlikely greater than 540 GtC. Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible." Nature Geoscience

The Guardian gives a more user-friendly explanation:
`Ambitious 1.5C Paris climate target is still possible, new analysis shows'
`Goal to limit warming to 1.5C to avoid the worst impacts of climate change was seen as unreachable, but updated research suggests it could be met if strong action is taken.'
The highly ambitious aim of limiting global warming to less than 1.5C remains in reach, a new scientific analysis shows. The 1.5C target was set as an aspiration by the global Paris climate change deal in 2015 to limit the damage wreaked by extreme weather and sea level rise. It was widely seen as impossible because analysis at the time indicated it required carbon emissions to fall to zero within seven years, a speed deemed “incompatible with democracy” by one climate economist. However, an updated analysis using the latest data shows the global carbon emissions budget that meets the 1.5C goal is significantly bigger than thought, equivalent to 20 years of current annual emissions. The scale of the challenge remains huge but it means that, if the world’s nations ratchet up their emissions cuts in future as intended under the Paris deal, the expected “severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts” on people and the natural world could be avoided." Guardian

The Daily Telegraph leads with the headline: `Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests' but then claims, wrongly: "Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found." The scientists didn't get their modelling wrong. It's a process of continuous improvement. Climate modelling is never right or wrong, it simply gives the best prediction with the currently available tools and data. But that doesn't suit the Telegraph's reader's of course. Telegraph

[Stanley]

Trust the Telegraph to use the honest statement as 'proof' that the climate change theory is wrong. The deniers will leap on this as well. A brave move, making the statement but in the end it's the correct thing to do. That's how science works!

[Tizer]

Now the Mail has got hold of it too. But then the mail is already in trouble with IPSO for wrongly reporting on climate change. LINK

[Pluggy]

Some of us gave up on the Mail as a viable source long ago.....

[PanBiker]

I gave up on every newspaper about 30 years ago. Yesterdays news and someone else's opinion. I can get more or less instant news and make my own mind up on any issues.

[Stanley]

I agree with Ian. I used to get the Manchester Guardian every day and the Observer on Sundays..... Now I only get the BET and Private Eye once a fortnight. I manage to keep up to date even so.....

[Tizer]

Here's a balanced view on the effect of climate change on the intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, from the BBC's environment correspondent. Basically, it's what we've been saying all along - the warming climate doesn't necessarily cause the extreme events but it makes them even worse. A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture so it's obvious that you'd expect heavier rainfall. Melting glaciers leads to higher sea levels and that makes storm surges on the coast greater; the melting also reduces glaciers' buffering effect on river flow and leads to bigger swings between floods and draughts.

`Hurricanes: A perfect storm of chance and climate change?' LINK

[Stanley]

Basically all weather systems are chaotic and this makes them inherently unstable, butterflies flapping wings etc. That's why occasionally even in Barlick we get exceptional events. The more enhanced the basic factors like sea level and temperature are, the more unpredictable and violent the events are.
I note that Uncle Bob and Paulette got caught in the outriders of Jose on their crossing to NY. Even Cunard admitted the seas were 'very rough'.

[Tizer]

This is the best easy introduction and summary of climate change that I've read so far. It's so good that I've taken the liberty of copying the text into this post. I trust that the author and the BBC would regard it as an acceptable way to spread the true facts and provide a better understanding of the issue.
`A brief history of the Earth's CO2' LINK

A brief history of the Earth's CO2
By Prof Joanna Haigh Co-Director, Grantham Institute
19 October 2017, BBC News web site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41671770

Climate change has been described as one of the biggest problems faced by humankind. Carbon dioxide is is the primary driver of global warming. Prof Joanna Haigh from Imperial College London explains why this gas has played a crucial role in shaping the Earth's climate.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) has been present in the atmosphere since the Earth condensed from a ball of hot gases following its formation from the explosion of a huge star about five billion years ago.

At that time the atmosphere was mainly composed of nitrogen, CO2 and water vapour, which seeped through cracks in the solid surface. A very similar composition emerges from volcanic eruptions today.

As the planet cooled further some of the water vapour condensed out to form oceans and they dissolved a portion of the CO2 but it was still present in the atmosphere in large amounts.

The first life forms to evolve on Earth were microbes which could survive in this primordial atmosphere but about 2.5 billion years ago, plants developed the ability to photosynthesise, creating glucose and oxygen from CO2 and water in the presence of light from the Sun.

This had a transformative impact on the atmosphere: as life developed, CO2 was consumed so that by around 20 million years ago its concentration was down to below 300 molecules in every one million molecules of air (or 300 parts per million - ppm).

Life on Earth has evolved under these conditions - note that humans did not appear until about 200,000 years ago - and atmospheric CO2 has not exceed that concentration until the industrial revolution brought with it massive emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels: coal and oil.

CO2 plays an important role in climate because it is one of the atmospheric "greenhouse" gases (GHGs) which keep the Earth's surface about 33 degrees warmer than the -18C temperature it would be at were they not present.

They do this by being fairly transparent to the Sun's rays, allowing them through to warm the surface, but then absorbing the radiant heat that the surface emits, so trapping it and enhancing the warming. In the present climate the most effective GHGs are water vapour, which is responsible for about two-thirds of the total warming, and CO2 which accounts for about one quarter.

Other gases, including methane, make up the remainder. The atmospheric concentration of water vapour is less than 1% and, with CO2 making up only a few molecules in every ten thousand of air, it may be surprising that they can have such a significant impact on the surface temperature.

They are able to do this, however, because the structure of their molecules makes them especially effective at absorbing heat radiation while the major atmospheric gases, nitrogen and oxygen, are essentially transparent to it.
Image copyright NOAA
Image caption This air sampling station at Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii recorded CO2 levels going past 400ppm

The greenhouse effect means that as the atmospheric loading of GHGs increases the surface temperature of the Earth warms. The overall increase in global temperature of about 1C over the past 150 years is almost entirely due to the human activities that have increasing amounts of atmospheric GHGs.

Most significantly, the concentration of CO2 has been rising exponentially (at a rate of about 0.17% per year) since the industrial revolution, due mainly to the combustion of fossil fuels but also to large-scale tropical deforestation which depletes the climate system's capacity for photosynthesis.

In 2015, it passed 400ppm, more than 40% higher than its pre-industrial value of 280ppm and a level that has not existed on Earth for several million years.

While the basic science of how GHGs warm the Earth is very well understood, there are complications. The climate system responds in various ways which both enhance and ameliorate the effects of these gases.

For example, a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapour (before it condenses out in clouds or rain) and because water vapour is a GHG, this increases the temperature rise. Another example: as the oceans warm they are less able to hold CO2 so release it, again with the result the initial warming is enhanced.

The global temperature record over the past century does not show the same smooth increase presented by CO2 measurements because the climate is influenced by other factors than GHGs, arising from both natural and human sources. Some particles released into the atmosphere by industrial activities reflect sunshine back to space, tending to cool the planet.

Similarly, large volcanic eruptions can eject small particles into the higher atmosphere, where they remain for up to about two years reducing the sunlight reaching the surface, and temporary dips in global temperature have indeed been measured following major volcanic events.

Changes in the energy emitted by the Sun also affect surface temperature, though measurements of the solar output show this effect to be small on human timescales.

Another important consideration in interpreting global temperatures is that the climate is inherently complex. Energy moves between the atmosphere and oceans in natural fluctuations - an example being El Niño events. This means that we cannot expect an immediate direct relationship between any influencing factor and surface temperature.

All these factors complicate the picture. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the global temperature rise over the past century is a result of human-produced GHGs, mainly CO2.

While, until the industrial revolution, the CO2 concentration has not exceeded the 280ppm value that last occurred several million years ago, it has gone through periods when it was considerably lower.

Notably, during the ice ages which have occurred roughly every 100,000 years over at least the past half million, drops in global temperature of perhaps 5C have been accompanied by reductions in CO2 concentration to less than 200ppm.

The ice ages, and associated warmer interglacial periods, are brought about by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun which take place on these long timescales. The cooling in response to a decline in solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface results in a greater uptake of CO2 by the oceans and so further cooling due to a weakened greenhouse effect.

This is an entirely natural phenomenon and it is worth noting that such amplification of temperature fluctuations will occur in response to any initiating factor regardless of its source and including human-produced greenhouse gases.

The effects of increasing CO2 are not limited to an increase in air temperature. As the oceans warm they are expanding so producing a rise in sea level, this being exacerbated by the melting of some of the ice present on land near the poles and in glaciers. The warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour resulting in increased occurrences of heavy rainfall and flooding while changes in weather patterns are intensifying droughts in other regions.

If human emissions of GHGs into the atmosphere continue unabated then the global temperature will continue to rise and the associated weather impacts become ever more severe. The UN climate conference in Paris in December 2015, at which 195 nations unanimously agreed on an aim to restrict the temperature rise to less than 2C, or preferably 1.5C, above the pre-industrial "baseline" was an extraordinary political achievement.

To achieve this, however, will require a complete cessation of global CO2 emissions by the second half of this century and, while the world considers how this might be achieved, the crossing of the 400ppm mark in CO2 concentration has been matched by a global warming of 1C.

[Stanley]

Thanks Tiz. A complete and wholly persuasive argument which I believe based on evidence. Is it being taught in schools all over the world? How can the deniers have any case?
Looking at this and adding the global political and economic situation I despair. Is it any wonder I am quoting Yeats? I am helpless, the sensible thing to do is bury myself in my family and the shed and wait for death......
I get the feeling that Gaia is working up to the cleansing of the Augean Stables.....

[Tizer]

I'm glad the BBC has been rebuked for this Lawson incident. He's doing what Trump does, fabricating his own `facts'.
`BBC wrong to not challenge climate sceptic Lord Lawson' LINK
"The BBC should have challenged the views of climate sceptic Lord Lawson in an interview in August, the complaints unit for the corporation has ruled. The ex-chancellor claimed in an interview with the Today programme that "official figures" showed average world temperatures had "slightly declined". This view, shown to be false by the Met Office, was not challenged on air. The BBC admitted it had breached its "guidelines on accuracy and impartiality"."

[Stanley]

I saw that report as well Tiz and like you immediately connected it to Trump. All I can do is throw my hands up and say that the world has gone mad!

[Tizer]

`Record surge in atmospheric CO2 seen in 2016' LINK
"Concentrations of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere surged to a record high in 2016, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). Last year's increase was 50% higher than the average of the past 10 years. Researchers say a combination of human activities and the El Niño weather phenomenon drove CO2 to a level not seen in 800,000 years. Scientists say this risks making global temperature targets largely unattainable."

This doesn't surprise me because scientists had already expected the El Nino event to boost CO2 and the results have been coming in steadily. This report is simply the official release of the data. I'm pleased, though, to see that at last it raises something that I've been trying to get over to people for a long time. It states: "The figures published by the WMO are what's left in the atmosphere after significant amounts are absorbed by the Earth's "sinks", which include the oceans and the biosphere.... according to Dr Tarasova, it is the cumulative total in the atmosphere that really matters as CO2 stays aloft and active for centuries." It's the words `CO2 stays aloft and active for centuries' that are important. Vast quantities of the gas are cycled between the atmosphere and the surface (land & sea) but it's a stable system that evolved over millenia. We have been forcing extra CO2 into the atmosphere for centuries and, even if we stop all our CO2 emissions now, it's going to take centuries for the cycle to adapt.

Another important point is that we are shifting into unpredictable territory: "Over the past 70 years, says the report, the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is nearly 100 times larger than it was at the end of the last ice age. Rapidly increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 and other gases have the potential, according to the study, to "initiate unpredictable changes in the climate system... leading to severe ecological and economic disruptions". The study notes that since 1990 there has been a 40% increase in total radiative forcing. That's the warming effect on our climate of all greenhouse gases. "Geological-wise, it is like an injection of a huge amount of heat," said Dr Tarasova. "The changes will not take 10,000 years, like they used to take before; they will happen fast. We don't have the knowledge of the system in this state; that is a bit worrisome!" According to experts, the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was three to five million years ago, in the mid-Pliocene Epoch. The climate then was 2-3C warmer, and sea levels were 10-20m higher due to the melting of Greenland and the West Antarctic ice sheets."

And if all that isn't enough: "Another concern in the report is the continuing, mysterious rise of methane levels in the atmosphere, which were also larger than the average over the past 10 years. Prof Nisbet says there is a fear of a vicious cycle, where methane drives up temperatures which in turn releases more methane from natural sources. "The rapid increase in methane since 2007, especially in 2014, 2015, and 2016, is different. This was not expected in the Paris agreement. Methane growth is strongest in the tropics and sub-tropics. The carbon isotopes in the methane show that growth is not being driven by fossil fuels. We do not understand why methane is rising. It may be a climate change feedback. It is very worrying."

We knew that there was a danger of sudden methane release from permafrost and from oceans and lakes but now we are seeing it from the tropics. I suspect it's due to the higher temperatures boosting microbial growth and the more rapid degradation of biomaterials.

[Stanley]

I can add nothing Tiz and agree with everything that is being said. Even if these excellent researchers are wrong, we should accept worst case and proceed on the Precautionary Principle but nobody is concentrating on this. My feeling is that we are way past the 'tipping point' and that humanity is condemned to a long period of adverse climatic conditions which will slowly cause more and more chaos. By the end of this century there will be no argument, it will be too late. Humanity will demonstrate conclusively that it was a failed evolutionary blip on the course of Earth history.
Two good friends of mine have just been on a visit to Churchill MB Canada and sent me some pics....



These wonderful animals will be casualties of our folly.....

[plaques]

Stanley's post in 'Read any Good Books Lately' Ref: 'The stars look down'. It's a first hand account of anthracite mining in South Wales. Reminded me of Bill Bryson's 'A walk in the Woods' where he mentions an anthracite coal mine fire that started in 1962 and is still burning. This was in the town of Centralia which was totally abandoned and left to burn Link. There is enough coal in there to burn for 250 years, some estimate 1000 years. The reason for letting it burn... it would cost too much to put it out and there is plenty of coal in America. Global warming.. What global warming.

[Stanley]

Rollie and Shar sent me another pic. They tell me the bears are rolling in what snow there is to cool themselves down as they wait for the ice to form so they can hunt for Ring Seals.....

[Stanley]

Remember Trump saying that climate change is a "Chinese Hoax"? He has consistently denied it since but have a look at THIS for his own administration's latest report on the subject.
You've heard of people burying their heads in the sand, Trump has gone way beyond this!
How can anyone ignore evidence like this?

[Tizer]

The Heartland Institute is mentioned in that report. They're a nasty bunch that fight against claims that cigarettes cause cancer and that humans are causing climate change. They twist the meaning of statements made by climate scientists, use it to support their own claims then refuse to retract it when challenged by the scientists. LINK

[Stanley]

A good reminder Tiz. I have been aware of them for a long time. A good example of money financing the protection of dangerous principles. I'll bet they defended asbestos ......

[Stanley]

THIS is worth a read. Trump's team at the climate change conference in Bonn are expected to argue for the use of fossil fuel and nuclear to combat fuel poverty in under-developed countries. They are ignoring their own scientists.

[Tizer]

The coal men get away with claiming they `can help fight climate change' by saying that we need coal to get us through while developing other means of energy generation.

[Stanley]

The problem is that they see the possibility of instant profit in more fossil fuel use and can't grasp the longer term prospect of even greater economic gain in nurturing clean technologies. Yet again the 'fast buck' rules!

[Tizer]

The latest Costing the Earth radio programme was marvellous, very worthwhile listening to...
`America's Climate Resistance' Podcast page
"It's a year since President Trump was elected. In that time he has appointed a climate sceptic as head of the Environmental Protection Agency, he has insisted that he will bring the coal industry back, and he still has not appointed a science advisor. Roger Harrabin travels to the USA to meet those spearheading the resistance to President Trump's climate policies. In California he meets Governor Jerry Brown. Jerry is determined that California pushes ahead towards a cleaner future. He visits the world's largest battery storage plant near San Diego, and travels to the San Gorgonio Pass, the site of one of the world's largest wind farms. Heading east from California to Ohio, and coal country, Roger meets Bob Murray, head of the Murray Energy Corp. Bob is determined to see coal jobs protected, but even he believes that coal's heyday has passed, but he remains bullish. Roger also meets form science advisor to President Obama, Dr John Holdren. John thinks that economics should ensure that the USA remains on a path to cleaner energy."

Harrabin had some sympathy with coal baron Murray because he's worried about the future for his workers. If he really wants to help his workers he should be shifting Murray Energy Corp from coal production into developing and building renewable energy projects and equipment and re-training his employees for the new world. That way he could help prevent climate change and ensure a secure future for his workers too.