What World Under Climate Change

[Tyger]

Climate change will lead to deformed and virus-hit coral reefs: Bleaching events triggered by CO2 emissions will make oceans acidic and hostile for coral growth, new studies say Friday, 19 February 2016
LINK: Climate change will lead to deformed and virus-hit coral reefs

TEXT: "Coral will become deformed and increasingly fall victim to outbreaks of herpes-like viruses as humans continue to pump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, according to two new studies. Combined, the two effects suggest coral reefs will have trouble recovering from bleaching events, like the the world is currently experiencing. When carbon dioxide is emitted from factories, cars and power plants, about 30% of it is absorbed by the ocean. As that happens, the acidity of the oceans increases, which makes it harder for corals to build their alkaline skeletons.​

[See Article LINK for Graphics]​

"But exactly how the increasing acidity impacts coral growth was hard to determine. “If you just look at survival rates of these things, effectively they all survive,” said Peta Clode from the University of Western Australia. “So if you look at that data you think nothing is wrong.” Even studies that used microscopes to examine how corals grow in more acidic water had trouble finding differences, she said. So Clode and colleagues went a step further and grew corals in a range of different temperatures and acidities, and then used a high-resolution three-dimensional x-ray microscope to examine how they grew. Published in the journal Science Advances on Friday, the images and videos they produced revealed striking deformities in corals grown under conditions the oceans are expected to see by the end of the century.

"Under normal conditions, baby corals grew skeletons that were symmetrical, strong and with thick walls. But when the acidity was raised to the level expected by 2100 if emissions are not cut drastically, the skeletons had some spines stunted in growth, while others grew longer. Some parts of the skeleton were completely absent. They grew into an asymmetrical shape and their walls became pitted and porous, and half of them had fractures in their deformed skeletons. “You think ‘oh my god, look at them.’ It is very dramatic,” said Clode. “You would expect they would not grow very well. But to see such deformity is surprising. We expected they might just grow less.”

"The effect of heat alone seemed to have little impact, and when combined with high acidity it had a beneficial effect, mitigating some of the deformities caused by the higher acidity. Clode said that was not completely surprising, since higher temperatures that did not stress coral – temperatures that were not too high or too suddenly raised – had been seen to improve coral growth before.

"The results showed that as the ocean acidifies, young coral reefs will have trouble re-establishing after they get damaged by events like bleaching or storms, Clode said. “The juveniles, they’re the reef formers of the future so to start out at a disadvantage like this, you start to worry about how [much] it can take,” said Tracy Ainsworth from James Cook University in Townsville, Australia.

"Ainsworth and colleagues recently published a different paper examining the struggles coral will experience in the future. They examined the viral loads in corals as they got bleached over three days in 2011 on part of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, publishing their results in the journal Frontiers of Microbiology.

"Bleaching occurs when corals are stressed by things including hot temperatures, being exposed to the air, or heavy rainfall that lowers the salinity of the water. Global warming is expected to increase the frequency of bleaching by pushing corals closer to the limits of temperatures they can tolerate.

"Ainsworth and colleagues found that as the coral bleached, a viral outbreak occurred. Among the many viruses they saw explode was a big spike in one that was similar to the herpes viruses that infect humans. Viral loads were up to four times higher than has ever been seen in corals before. Ainsworth said the viral loads of corals during a bleaching event hadn’t been studied before, and outbreaks like this might be normal. That is bad news since it might be too much for corals to cope with as they bleach more frequently, she said. “When corals are under stress, it’s not just bleaching that they have to overcome,” she said. “It’s coupled with a change in the microbial communities that it has to deal with.” "​

 

[Tyger]

The change will hit far sooner than anticipated even just a handful of years ago - 2026 is the date to circle on your calendar. Forget 2100 - target year is 2026 because of the Arctic Ice Sheet melting and projected being gone in 4 years. Science on this is really getting intense and scary.

Mass Extinction Is Closer Than You Know

TEXT: "Published on Mar 24, 2016: Climate change is real, of course, but two new scientific papers out this past week say that it's happening a hell of a lot faster, and in a more dangerous direction, than scientists were even considering as a worst-case scenario just a few years ago. We need a rapid worldwide shift away from fossil fuels now - not even a decade from now, but today - and if we don't get started, we, too, may go the way of the dinosaurs."

 

[Tyger]

Americans’ Concern About Climate Change Is Growing
BY ALEJANDRO DAVILA FRAGOSO MAR 18, 2016 2:48 PM
LINK: Americans’ Concern About Climate Change Is Growing

TEXT: "If you are concerned about global warming, you are part of a growing majority that hadn’t been this large since 2008, a new Gallup poll has found. In fact, 64 percent of adults say they are worried a “great deal” or “fair amount” about global warming, up from 55 percent at this time last year. According to the poll, concerns about global warming have increased among all party groups since 2015, though concerns remain much higher among Democrats than Republicans and Independents.

"In March, 40 percent of Republicans said they worry a great deal or fair amount about global warming, up from 31 percent last year. Independents expressing concern increased nine points, from 55 percent to 64 percent. Democrats’ concern is up slightly less — four points — and is now at 84 percent.

" “All of these things that Gallup is showing are all things that we expected to see,” Geoff Feinberg, research director for the Yale Program on Climate Change Communications, told ThinkProgress. “We didn’t know when it was going to happen, but it looks like it’s happening now.”

"Americans’ shift toward belief in global warming follows a winter that most described in the same poll as being unusually warm. Sixty-three percent of Americans said they experienced an unusually warm winter, and most attributed the warm weather pattern to human-caused climate change. Indeed, December to February was the hottest meteorological winter ever recorded. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that this winter was 2.03°F above the 20th century average. “I think the unseasonably warm winter has a lot to do with this [change], because people were able to experience first-hand global warming,” said Feinberg, adding that all the attention around the Paris agreement also influenced people’s opinion.

"And yet the number of Americans concerned about global warming is lower than the most recent peak reached in 2000. At that time, about 72 percent of people reported concerns, according to the poll. However, by 2004 only 51 percent were worried about climate change. That’s not surprising, either. Public opinion is ephemeral and many factors can influence how people respond to polls. Feinberg said the most recent comparable increase in concern, in 2008, happened as publicity of the issue increased, most notably after Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth was released in 2006.

"After 2008, however, the Gallup poll shows that people worried less about climate change as years passed. Feinberg said the Great Recession is partly to blame. As research suggests, environmental protection and attention is a priority often stemming from affluence. The idea that economically secure people can worry about the environment more would explain why so many Americans were worried about climate change in 2000. Then, America had a thriving economy, crime was low, welfare dependency and joblessness were down, and the stock market was soaring. Since then, public opinion on climate change has been a bit of a roller coaster, in a way mirroring the economy, although for the past year or so the trend toward interest and concern about human-caused climate change is clear.

"And “when people are worried, that means that they see something that [is] a real threat, and when people see a threat they begin to take action or demand action,” Feinberg said."​

 

[Tyger]

Dr. Michael Mann - Are We In Runaway Climate Change?

TEXT: "Published on Mar 28, 2016: Dr. Michael Mann, Earth System Science Center-Penn State University/Dire Predictions: Understanding Climate Change (2nd edition) joins Thom. We had all better hope these scientists are wrong about the planet’s future. Scientists now say that ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica could speed up faster than we previously thought. But that's not just going to raise sea levels - it could drive storms stronger than anything humans have ever seen."

 

[Tyger]

See Link to see maps of new coastlines -

Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
LINK: Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.

TEXT: "In a groundbreaking climate change study, scientists have found that by neglecting to include the melting of Antarctica, we have vastly underestimated the potential for sea level rise over the next 80 years — and beyond.

"The most widely cited estimate of around three feet by 2100 includes sea level rise from thermal expansion (water expands when it warms) and the melting of smaller glaciers. It includes minimal contributions from Greenland and Antarctica.

"Instead, this study published in the journal Nature suggests that we should actually double that forecast when we include melting in Antarctica: approximately six feet of sea level rise by 2100. Just as alarming is the projection that Antarctica by itself could add 50 feet of sea level rise by 2500.

"What does that even look like?

[Antarctic loss could double expected sea level rise by 2100, scientists say]

"The 50-foot estimate is hard to imagine. The study essentially concludes that we could alter the face of the Earth over the next 100 to 500 years.

"In the study’s projection for 2500, almost the entire state of Delaware would disappear. Much of Manhattan and Brooklyn would be reduced to just slivers of their current selves. The southern coast of Florida would end north of Lake Okeechobee. California’s Central Valley would flood from Modesto to Colusa, and the state capital of Sacramento would be entirely under water. And this says nothing about the millions — billions? — of people who could be displaced around the globe.

"It’s a little easier to picture the 2100 projection, which, if this study is correct, would significantly change coastlines in the United States.

"Each of these maps was created by the research team at Climate Central. You can explore more coastlines in the interactive viewer. Climate Central used the highest resolution elevation maps available to create these projections. The researchers take into account the mitigating effects of levees, under the assumption that all levees will be able to withstand the pressure of rising seas (despite the fact that only 8 percent of the monitored levees in the United States are considered in “acceptable” condition).

"The outcomes range from dire in places such as Miami and New Orleans to avoidable with mitigation strategies in Washington, D.C. Most important to remember when scanning these images is that they still do not include the potentially significant sea level rise from Greenland.

Miami
The science behind projections of much higher seas in this century]

"However, none of the scenarios — low or high emissions — take into account things that are not well-understood, such as the effect of melting permafrost, which in itself has the ability to inject large amounts of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

"The portrait it paints is a worst-case scenario for how our planet could look if we continue today’s actions and policies unabated — or if we have simply underestimated how much greenhouse gas is entering the atmosphere. Either way, it’s an important potential outcome to examine, if only to serve as motivation to reduce fossil fuel emissions sooner rather than later."​

 

[Tyger]

A good rundown of the situation -

Short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change
By JUSTIN GILLIS NOV. 28, 2015
LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/28/science/what-is-climate-change.html

TEXT: "The issue can be overwhelming. The science is complicated. Predictions about the fate of the planet carry endless caveats and asterisks. We get it. So we’ve put together a list of quick answers to often-asked questions about climate change. This should give you a running start on understanding the problem."​

 

[Tyger]

Depleted aquifers have many reasons but will play into the whole scenario. NASA data indicates that the water table is dropping all over the world - a global drought coming.

New NASA data show how the world is running out of water
By Todd C. Frankel June 16, 2015
LINK: New NASA data show how the world is running out of water

TEXT: "Twenty-one of the world’s 37 largest aquifers — in locations from India and China to the United States and France — have passed their sustainability tipping points, meaning more water was removed than replaced during the decade-long study period, researchers announced Tuesday. Thirteen aquifers declined at rates that put them into the most troubled category. The researchers said this indicated a long-term problem that’s likely to worsen as reliance on aquifers grows.​

"Scientists had long suspected that humans were taxing the world’s underground water supply, but the NASA data was the first detailed assessment to demonstrate that major aquifers were indeed struggling to keep pace with demands from agriculture, growing populations, and industries such as mining."​

 

[Tyger]

An opinion piece by Bill McKibbon -

The mercury doesn’t lie: We’ve hit a troubling climate change milestone
By Bill McKibben MARCH 05, 2016
LINK: The mercury doesn't lie: We've hit a troubling climate change milestone - The Boston Globe

TEXT: "Thursday, while the nation debated the relative size of Republican genitalia, something truly awful happened. Across the northern hemisphere, the temperature, if only for a few hours, apparently crossed a line: it was more than two degrees Celsius above “normal” for the first time in recorded history and likely for the first time in the course of human civilization.

"That’s important because the governments of the world have set two degrees Celsius as the must-not-cross red line that, theoretically, we’re doing all we can to avoid. And it’s important because most of the hemisphere has not really had a winter. They’ve been trucking snow into Anchorage for the start of the Iditarod; Arctic sea ice is at record low levels for the date; in New England doctors are already talking about the start of “allergy season.”

"This was followed by a few months of the highest wind speeds ever recorded in our hemisphere, when Patricia crashed into the Pacific coast of Mexico. And it joins all the other lines of misery: the zika virus spreading on the wings of mosquitoes up and down the Americas; the refugees streaming out of Syria where, as studies now make clear, the deepest drought ever measured helped throw the nation into chaos.

"The messages are clear. First, global warming is not a future threat — it’s the present reality, a menace not to our grandchildren but to our present civilizations. In a rational world, this is what every presidential debate would focus on. Forget the mythical flood of immigrants — concentrate on the actual flooding.

"Second, since we’re in a hole it’s time to stop digging — literally. We’ve simply got to keep coal and oil and gas in the ground; there’s not any other way to make the math of climate change even begin to work. There is legislation pending in the House and Senate that would end new fossil fuel extraction on America’s public lands. Senator Sanders has backed the law unequivocally; Secretary Clinton seemed to endorse it, and then last week seemed to waffle. Donald Trump has concentrated on the length of his fingers.

"No one’s waiting for presidential candidates to actually lead, of course. In May campaigners around the world will converge on the world’s biggest carbon deposits: the coal mines of Australia, the tarsands of Canada, the gasfields of Russia. And they will engage in peaceful civil disobedience, an effort to simply say: no. The only safe place for this carbon is deep beneath the soil, where it’s been for eons.

"This is, in one sense, stupid. It’s ridiculous that at this late date, as the temperature climbs so perilously, we still have to take such steps. Why do Bostonians have to be arrested to stop the Spectra pipeline? Anyone with a thermometer can see that we desperately need to be building solar and windpower instead.

"In a much deeper sense, however, the resistance is valiant, even beautiful. Think of those protesters as the planet’s antibodies, its immune system finally kicking in. Our one earth is running a fever the likes of which no human has ever seen. The time to fight it is right now."​

 

[Tyger]

Study Confirms World’s Coastal Cities Unsavable If We Don’t Slash Carbon Pollution BY JOE ROMM
March 31, 2016
LINK: Study Confirms World’s Coastal Cities Unsavable If We Don’t Slash Carbon Pollution

TEXT:

South Florida and "Miami Island" in 2100 after 5 feet of sea level rise (via Climate Central).

A new study confirms what leading climate scientists have warned about for many years now: Only very aggressive climate action can save the world’s coastal cities from inundation by century’s end.

We still could limit sea level rise to two feet this century if we keep total warming below 2°C, according to analysis using these new findings. Otherwise, we should be anticipating five to six feet of sea level rise by 2100 — which would generate hundreds of millions of refugees. That isn’t even the worst-case scenario.

This latest research from the journal Nature underscores that what the nation and the world do in the next decade or two will determine whether or not cities like Miami, Boston, New York, or New Orleans have any plausible chance to survive by 2100.

The study, “Contribution of Antarctica to past and future sea-level rise,” analyzes “new processes in the 3-dimensional ice sheet model.” It makes use of mechanisms involving the impact of warming oceans on the unstable Antarctic ice sheet “that were previously known but never incorporated in a model like this before.” It then tests its findings “against past episodes of high sea-levels and ice retreat.”

The researchers dramatically raise the likely contribution to sea level rise we will see from the disintegration of the Antarctic ice sheet, which, as we reported two years ago, has already begun. The “authors find that Antarctica has the potential to contribute greater than 1 meter (39 inches) of sea-level rise by the year 2100, and greater than 15 meters (49 feet) by 2500 if atmospheric emissions continue unabated.”

Climate Central has created a number of interactive “slider” maps to show the choices we face. They add the new Antarctic melt numbers to earlier projections for the other main contributors to sea level rise.

Here’s Miami: [see LINK for map of Miami]

Is the choice really that tough for humanity? Remember that what Climate Central labels “extreme pollution cuts” would be super-cheap to achieve according to every major independent economic analysis.

One key point is that the deep pollution cuts case means vastly lower sea level in 2100. It also means that the rate of sea level rise is much more manageable from an adaptation perspective. If we stabilize below 2°C, then it’s possible Antarctica will contribute very little to the rate of sea level rise, which might be only two to three inches a decade by 2100. But in the business-as-usual case, Antarctic ice loss by itself could be raising seas a staggering inch per year within the century!

Significantly, these worrisome conclusions are not really new. Back in December 2009, weheadlined our coverage of a new study, “Sea levels may rise 3 times faster than IPCC estimated, could hit 6 feet by 2100.”

I asked one of the authors of that study “Global sea level linked to global temperature,” Stefan Rahmstorf, for a comment. Rahmstorf, who leads Earth System Analysis at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said: "The new results based on detailed modeling of the Antarctic ice sheet support our own estimates published in 2009 which were based on a much simpler method. Back then we also concluded that up to 6 feet of sea-level rise could result by the year 2100 if we keep increasing our greenhouse gas emissions. The new study shows once again how urgent it is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions drastically in order to prevent a catastrophic sea-level rise."

So why is the new study such a big deal? Well, the 2009 study proposed “a simple relationship linking global sea-level variations on time scales of decades to centuries to global mean temperature” and verified that model with historical data. But that study did not offer a detailed physical mechanism for the ice loss required to see that much sea level rise. As a result, their findings were ignored by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its “consensus” projections for sea level rise in its 2013 report assessing the scientific literature. In the unconstrained CO2 emissions case, the IPCC basically projected a sea level rise of 0.5-1.0 meters (20 to 40 inches). [For more details on what the IPCC projected, see this RealClimate post by Rahmstorf.]

The IPCC’s findings were instantly obsolete. Indeed, a 2014 study made use of expert opinion (from 2012) to conclude that the worst-case scenario was closer to six feet of rise by 2100. The experts estimated Greenland would probably contribute under 0.2 meters (20 centimeters or 8 inches). Same for Antarctica.

Yet that 2014 study was also instantly obsolete because we had already learned from two studies earlier in the year that glaciers in the Amundsen Sea region of the Antarctic ice sheet had begun the process of irreversible collapse.

But it has not been until this new Nature study that somebody actually put together a model using advanced ice sheet dynamics and then tested that model against paleoclimate data for accuracy.

So now we know that when you model the kind of dynamic disintegration of Antarctica that has happened in the past and that is clearly happening now, you get a contribution from Antarctica that is vastly higher than the experts thought just four years ago. If you add that to the expert assessment for Greenland along with the other more easy-to-calculate contributions (such as thermal expansion of the oceans as the planet warms), then you get a sea level rise double what the IPCC had said. And you get pretty much exactly what a simpler historically accurate model had found seven years ago.

To be clear, though, the five to six feet of sea level rise is not the worst-case scenario. For instance, it doesn’t include a more dynamic modeling of what will happen to Greenland’s ice sheet.

For a “worse-case scenario,” NASA scientist Eric Rignot directs us to the study he coauthored with James Hansen and others. That study posits 10 feet of sea level rise by 2100 is possible. But, again, it doesn’t provide a physical mechanism for how that much ice-melt could occur that fast, so some scientists tend to view it as unrealistic.

The bottom line is that we now know that if we don’t quickly redouble our current efforts to slash carbon pollution, we are risking rates of sea level rise that are catastrophic and beyond adaptation.​

 

[Tyger]

None of the maps copy-and-paste so you must go into the link. Bummer, as it's the maps that I thought interesting. Unless a moderator can help?

Here is the link to the codes for the maps: Climate Central - Sea Level Rise - Risk Finder

Antarctica at Risk of Runaway Melting, Scientists Discover by John Upton March 30th, 2016
LINK: Antarctica at Risk of Runaway Melting, Scientists Discover

TEXT: "The world’s greatest reservoir of ice is verging on a breakdown that could push seas to heights not experienced since prehistoric times, drowning dense coastal neighborhoods during the decades ahead, new computer models have shown.

A pair of researchers developed the models to help them understand high sea levels during previous eras of warmer temperatures. Then they ran simulations using those models and found that rising levels of greenhouse gases could trigger runaway Antarctic melting that alone could push sea levels up by more than three feet by century’s end.

The same models showed that Antarctica’s ice sheet would remain largely intact if the most ambitious goals of last year’s Paris agreement on climate change are achieved.

Antarctica. Credit: Eugene Kaspersky/Flickr

The new findings were published Wednesday in the journal Nature, helping to fill yawning gaps in earlier projections of sea level rise.

The models were produced by a collaboration between two scientists that began in the 1990s. In those models, rising air temperatures in Antarctica caused meltwater to seep into cracks in floating shelves of ice, disintegrating them and exposing sheer cliffs that collapsed under their own weight into the Southern Ocean.

Similar effects of warming are already being observed in Greenland and in some parts of Antarctica, as greenhouse gas pollution from fossil fuels, farming and deforestation warms the air. Last year was the hottest on record, easily surpassing a record set one year earlier. The ice sheets are also being melted from beneath by warming ocean temperatures.

“Sea level has risen a lot — 10 to 20 meters — in warm periods in the past, and our ice sheet models couldn’t make the Antarctic ice sheet retreat enough to explain that,” said David Pollard, a Penn State climate scientist who produced Wednesday’s study with UMass professor Robert DeConto.

“We were looking for new mechanisms that could make the ice more vulnerable to climate warming to explain past sea level rise,” Pollard said.

The breakdown that they discovered was not triggered when warming in the models was limited to levels similar to those called for under the Paris Agreement — something that Pollard described as potentially “good news.” That agreement aims to keep warming to well below 2°C (3.6°F) compared with preindustrial times. Since then, temperatures have already warmed 1°C.

“You need to have a lot of melt to do this,” Pollard said.

Although the Paris Agreement contained highly ambitious goals, individual countries have not come close to committing to action plans that would ensure that the goals are actually realized.

If pollution continues to be released without being reined in, the modeling showed that high Antarctic air temperatures could lead to melting that would push up sea levels by dozens of feet during the centuries ahead. Warmer ocean waters would prevent a recovery for thousands of years after that, the scientists found.

Ongoing work is planned to refine the projections, which remain imprecise, but are nonetheless being hailed by climate scientists as an important step forward in understanding the planet’s future.

“It’s an important paper,” said Luke Trusel, a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution scientist who was not involved in producing it, and who has recently published high-profile research on Antarctica and climate change.

“It really starts to look at some of the more underappreciated aspects of climate change across Antarctica,” Trusel said. “They’re starting to look at how sensitive ice shelves are to climate change.”

Assessments by the United Nations and others have previously assumed the effects on Antarctica’s ice sheet would be negligible as temperatures rise. The new study is the latest in a growing list of peer-reviewed papers that rejects that optimistic scenario as unrealistic.

In major East Coast cities, where land is sinking at the same time that seas are rising, an independent analysis by Climate Central shows that the rapid Antarctic melting described by the new modeling effort would push tide levels up by between five and six feet this century alone.

Climate Central’s analysis combined mid-range values from the new projections for Antarctic melting with previous mid-range projections regarding global sea level rise, along with local factors such as sinking that naturally occurs in some areas. It illuminated the dangerous collective impacts of the different ways that climate change is expected to affect sea levels.

If climate pollution is quickly and dramatically reined in, the analysis shows sea level rise in major East Coast cities, including New York, Boston and Baltimore, could be kept to less than two feet — which could nonetheless see developed stretches of shorelines regularly or permanently flooded.

Problems associated with sea level rise are expected to be worse in Louisiana, where stretches of land are being lost to erosion caused by flood control projects and gas and oil exploration. New Orleans could see more than seven feet of sea level rise by 2100, Climate Central’s analysis of the new findings showed.

West Coast cities would experience four to five feet of sea level rise by 2100, Climate Central found.

The new paper by Pollard and DeConto was received positively by sea level rise scientists. That contrasts with overwhelmingly skeptical responses to a recent apocalyptic scenario that was finalized and published last week by a team of researchers led by well-known scientist-turned-activist James Hansen.

Hansen’s 52-page academic treatise, published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics following an unconventional peer review process, described a dystopian near-future in which climate change triggers superstorms and more than 10 feet of sea-level.

John Church, an Australian government scientist who specializes in sea level rise projections, cautioned that the experiments used to produce Wednesday’s paper were based on too few models to give him total confidence in the findings. But he said his “overall reaction” to the paper was “positive.”

“Yes, the projections are larger than previous estimates,” Church said. “But not in the unrealistic range like Hansen et al.”

The recent Hansen paper was a “worse-case scenario,” said NASA scientist Eric Rignot, one of its coauthors.

Rignot said the Antarctic study published Wednesday was “absolutely realistic.”

“I think it is setting up a new paradigm for sea level projections, because their numbers are much higher than those from traditional ice sheet models with incomplete or simplified physics,” Rignot said. “Once the ice shelves are gone, melted away, calving of big walls will be the dominant process of mass wastage. It is a great paper.”

•••

To create the maps in this story, Climate Central adjusted existing local sea level rise projections to account for DeConto and Pollard's new findings, rounded results to the nearest foot, and took matching screenshots from our Surging Seas Risk Zone Map. We used local median sea level projections from Kopp et al. 2014 and replaced the Antarctic component with the average of the central projections from the two main scenarios in the new paper.​

 

[Tyger]

Climate-Related Death of Coral Around World Alarms Scientists
By Michelle Innis April 9, 2016
LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/w...0160410&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=54852892&_r=0

TEXT: "SYDNEY, Australia — Kim Cobb, a marine scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, expected the coral to be damaged when she plunged into the deep blue waters off Kiritimati Island, a remote atoll near the center of the Pacific Ocean. Still, she was stunned by what she saw as she descended some 30 feet to the rim of a coral outcropping. “The entire reef is covered with a red-brown fuzz,” Dr. Cobb said when she returned to the surface after her recent dive. “It is otherworldly. It is algae that has grown over dead coral. It was devastating.”

"The damage off Kiritimati is part of a mass bleaching of coral reefs around the world, only the third on record and possibly the worst ever. Scientists believe that heat stress from multiple weather events including the latest, severe El Niño, compounded by climate change, has threatened more than a third of Earth’s coral reefs. Many may not recover.

"Coral reefs are the crucial incubators of the ocean’s ecosystem, providing food and shelter to a quarter of all marine species, and they support fish stocks that feed more than one billion people. They are made up of millions of tiny animals, called polyps, that form symbiotic relationships with algae, which in turn capture sunlight and carbon dioxide to make sugars that feed the polyps.

An estimated 30 million small-scale fishermen and women depend on reefs for their livelihoods, more than one million in the Philippines alone. In Indonesia, fish supported by the reefs provide the primary source of protein. “This is a huge, looming planetary crisis, and we are sticking our heads in the sand about it,” said Justin Marshall, the director of CoralWatch at Australia’s University of Queensland.

"Bleaching occurs when high heat and bright sunshine cause the metabolism of the algae — which give coral reefs their brilliant colors and energy — to speed out of control, and they start creating toxins. The polyps recoil. If temperatures drop, the corals can recover, but denuded ones remain vulnerable to disease. When heat stress continues, they starve to death. Damaged or dying reefs have been found from Réunion, off the coast of Madagascar, to East Flores, Indonesia, and from Guam and Hawaii in the Pacific to the Florida Keys in the Atlantic.

"The largest bleaching, at Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, was confirmed last month. In a survey of 520 individual reefs that make up the Great Barrier Reef’s northern section, scientists from Australia’s National Coral Bleaching Task Force found only four with no signs of bleaching. Some 620 miles of reef, much of it previously in pristine condition, had suffered significant bleaching.

"In follow-up surveys, scientists diving on the reef said half the coral they had seen had died. Terry Hughes, the director of the Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University in Queensland, who took part in the survey, warned that even more would succumb if the water did not cool soon. “There is a good chance a large portion of the damaged coral will die,” he added.

Photo

Bleached coral off New Caledonia in the Pacific last month. CreditXL Catlin Seaview Survey
Scientists say the global bleaching is the result of an unusual confluence of events, each of which raised water temperatures already elevated by climate change. In the North Atlantic, a strong high-pressure cell blocked the normal southward flow of polar air in 2013, kicking off the first of three warmer-than-normal winters in a row as far south as the Caribbean.

"A large underwater heat wave formed in the northeastern Pacific in early 2014, and has since stretched into a wide band along the west coast of North America, from Baja California to the Bering Sea. Nicknamed the Blob, it is up to four degrees Fahrenheit warmer than surrounding waters, and has been blamed for a host of odd phenomena, including the beaching of hungry sea lions in California and the sighting of tropical skipjack tuna off Alaska.

"Then came 2015, with the most powerful El Niño climate cycle in a century. It blasted heat across the tropical and southern Pacific, bleaching reefs from Kiritimati to Indonesia, and across the Indian Ocean to Réunion and Tanzania on Africa’s east coast. “We are currently experiencing the longest global coral bleaching event ever observed,” said C. Mark Eakin, the Coral Reef Watch coordinator at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Maryland. “We are going to lose a lot of the world’s reefs during this event.”

"Reefs that take centuries to form can be destroyed in weeks. Individual corals may survive a bleaching, but repeated bleachings can kill them. Lurid reports of damaged reefs started coming in from worried scientists in the summer of 2014. Lyza Johnston, a marine biologist in the Northern Mariana Islands, dived to the reefs off Maug, a group of small islands: “In every direction, nearly all of the corals were bright white.” Misaki Takabayashi, a marine scientist at the University of Hawaii at Hilo, surfed the waves above the blue rice coral there: “I could see what looked like bleached white ghosts popping up off the ocean floor at me.” Cory Walter, a senior biologist at the Mote Marine Laboratory in Florida, peered down from a boat over Wonderland Reef off the Lower Florida Keys: “It almost looks like it snowed on the reef.”

"Predicting the duration of the bleaching or forecasting the next one is difficult. The Blob has cooled somewhat, and El Niño, while weakening, is expected to stretch into 2017. Dr. Eakin, the coral-reef specialist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said he expected the bleaching to continue for nine more months. Scientists will not be able to measure the full extent of the damage until it is over.

Damaged Reefs
Reports of damaged or dying coral reefs around the world have become a major concern.

"What is clear is that these events are happening with increasing frequency — and ferocity. The previous bleachings, in 2010 and 1998, do not appear to have been as extensive or prolonged as the current one. The 1998 bleaching, which Dr. Eakin said had been set off by a fierce El Niño, killed around 16 percent of the world’s coral. By 2010, oceans had warmed enough that it took only a moderate El Niño to start another round. Then in 2013, Dr. Eakin said, “a lot of bleaching happened due to climate change, before the El Niño had even kicked in.”

"Reefs that were bleached in 2014, like those in the Florida Keys and the Caribbean, had no time to regenerate before suffering further thermal stress from El Niño last year, leaving the coral vulnerable to disease and death. The reefs in the Florida Keys “are about to go into a third year straight of bleaching, something that has never happened before,” said Meaghan Johnson, a marine scientist at the Nature Conservancy. “We are worried about disease and mortality rates.”

"Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the director of Australia’s Global Change Institute, noted that 2015 was the hottest year ever recorded, both on land and in the oceans — breaking a record set just the year before. “Rising temperatures due to climate change have pushed corals beyond their tolerance levels,” he said, adding that back-to-back bleaching can be particularly deadly to the corals.

"El Niño warms the equatorial waters around Kiritimati Island more than anywhere else in the world, making it a likely harbinger for the health of reefs worldwide. That is why Dr. Cobb, the Georgia Tech scientist who made the recent dive, has been making the trek at least once a year for the past 18 to the tiny atoll, part of the Line Islands archipelago. Though the atoll sits just north of the Equator, trade winds suck water up from the depths of the ocean, usually keeping the water temperature surrounding the reefs a healthy, nearly constant 78 degrees. But in 2015, the expected upwelling of deep, cold water did not happen, Dr. Cobb said, speaking by satellite phone after her dive. So water in the atoll was 10 degrees warmer than normal, and never cooled enough to allow coral to recover. “The worst has happened,” she said. “This shows how climate change and temperature stresses are affecting these reefs over the long haul. This reef may not ever be the same.” "​

 

[Tyger]

Scorching March temperatures set a global record — for the third straight month this year
By Chris Mooney April 15, 2016
LINK: Scorching March temperatures set a global record — for the third straight month this year

TEXT: "[See Graphic in Link] On Friday NASA released the latest temperature data for the globe, showing that March of 2016 was the hottest March on record since reliable measurements began in 1880. The month was 1.28 degrees Celsius, or 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit, higher than the average temperature in March from 1951 through 1980, with particularly scorching temperatures in the Arctic (as has been the case throughout this year so far).

This follows on temperatures for January and February that, NASA data show, were also the warmest for their respective months in the agency’s dataset. The February departure even prompted the following Tweet from Gavin Schmidt, who directs the agency’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies: [See Graphic in Link]

If you dip back into last year, meanwhile, you find still more monthly temperature records – but you’ll also note that the temperature departures in 2016 have, so far, exceeded even those in 2015, the official warmest year on record. This extreme heat around the world, which scientists believe reflect both a now-weakening El Nino event and also the background influence of climate change, has traveled alongside striking impacts. Coral reefs are bleaching and in some cases dying, Greenland has shown major meltingearlier in the year than at any time on record, and Arctic sea ice has set several records so far this year for low winter extent. Stefan Rahmstorf, a researcher with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, has already shown just how much change these data represent since the year 1880: [See Graphic in Link]

The analysis suggests that, if temperatures indeed persist at these high levels, then the globe might be nearing a 1.5 degree Celsius increase over pre-industrial temperatures, which is one of the thresholds that the international community has recognized as important to avoid.

And as if that’s not enough, NASA’s Schmidt just predicted, based on the first three months of this year alone, that 2016 as a whole will set another all time temperature record, outdistancing both 2014 and 2015: [See Graphic in Link]

And it’s not just NASA data: The Japan Meteorological Agency recently also found that March 2016 was the hottest March in its temperature dataset, which goes back to 1891. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which also keeps a dataset constructed in a somewhat different way from NASA’s, has not yet reported on March’s global temperatures — its assessment is expected next week.

And then, there are the satellites – the temperature datasets relied upon most by those who tend to question climate change. These, too, have been showing quite hot temperatures lately.

According to the University of Alabama-Huntsville team, March of 2016 saw the third largest warm anomaly, or departure from average, of any month in their satellite dataset, which goes back to late 1978. The month was 0.73 degrees Celsius, or 1.31 degrees Fahrenheit, above average, the group reported, for a region of the atmosphere known as the “lower troposphere” (from the Earth’s surface up to about 6 miles into the atmosphere). That made it the warmest March on record, and the third most anomalously hot month other than February of this year and April of 1998 (which fell during another strong El Nino event).

We still haven’t sorted out all the consequences of the burst of major heat that the planet is now seeing, and with El Nino fading, it isn’t expected to continue at this high of a pitch. Still, it’s startling – bringing into focus, perhaps as never before, what a warming planet really looks like.​

 

[pixelsmith]

when Al Gore was born there were 5,000 Polar Bears.. today only 30,000 remain...

hey tyger did you miss me?

 

[pixelsmith]

You have obviously picked my post apart point by point. I still stand by what I said. If you don't think there is evil in world looking to have their way, you haven't been paying attention much in my opinion.

BTW, I do like a good pissing contest like you and pixelsmith seem to share with each other. My question is... who has the biggest bladder?

I do. If Tyger is up for it we can discuss every post in a civilized manner and I will show there is a scientific view and a fear based politicized view.

 

[pixelsmith]

NASA: Carbon dioxide fertilization greening Earth, study finds

This image shows the change in leaf area across the globe from 1982-2015. CREDIT Credits: Boston University/R. Myneni

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.

Green leaves use energy from sunlight through photosynthesis to chemically combine carbon dioxide drawn in from the air with water and nutrients tapped from the ground to produce sugars, which are the main source of food, fiber and fuel for life on Earth. Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth.

However, carbon dioxide fertilization isn’t the only cause of increased plant growth–nitrogen, land cover change and climate change by way of global temperature, precipitation and sunlight changes all contribute to the greening effect. To determine the extent of carbon dioxide’s contribution, researchers ran the data for carbon dioxide and each of the other variables in isolation through several computer models that mimic the plant growth observed in the satellite data.

Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”

About 85 percent of Earth’s ice-free lands is covered by vegetation. The area covered by all the green leaves on Earth is equal to, on average, 32 percent of Earth’s total surface area – oceans, lands and permanent ice sheets combined. The extent of the greening over the past 35 years “has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system,” said lead author Zaichun Zhu, a researcher from Peking University, China, who did the first half of this study with Myneni as a visiting scholar at Boston University.

Every year, about half of the 10 billion tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere from human activities remains temporarily stored, in about equal parts, in the oceans and plants. “While our study did not address the connection between greening and carbon storage in plants, other studies have reported an increasing carbon sink on land since the 1980s, which is entirely consistent with the idea of a greening Earth,” said co-author Shilong Piao of the College of Urban and Environmental Sciences at Peking University.

While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.

The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

“While the detection of greening is based on data, the attribution to various drivers is based on models,” said co-author Josep Canadell of the Oceans and Atmosphere Division in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Canberra, Australia. Canadell added that while the models represent the best possible simulation of Earth system components, they are continually being improved.

###

Read the paper at Nature Climate Change.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3004.html

 

[pixelsmith]

The Fable of a Stable Climate
link: The Fable of a Stable Climate



Translation from the Dutch book review “Het Sprookje van een stabiel klimaat” by Hans Labohm. Posted on the climategate.nl blog.

My loyal readers know him as co-author of my blog: the geologist, paleoclimatologist and climate sceptic Gerrit van der Lingen, an antipode of Dutch origin who has been living in New Zealand for many years.

Gerrit van der Lingen has recently published a fascinating book, “The Fable of a Stable Climate, the writings and debates of a climate realist”, which contains a collection of his essays, lectures, discussions and letters to the media about climate and associated subjects.

Most of the public information about the climate comes from scientists who studied the weather and weather processes and who consider temperature data of 150 years already a long period. For van der Lingen this is only one heartbeat in the geological history, which forms the only correct context for judging the present climate developments.

While studying climate change in the past he realised that the present belief in man-made catastrophic global warming (AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming), caused by CO2emissions, is not supported by the science. He became involved in the climate debate, in which the protagonists of the AGW, who believe in the dominant role of mankind in the warming of the atmosphere, and the antagonists, who base their opinions on factual data and observations, are diametrically opposed to each other. It seems to be a debate between ideology and pure science.

In his introduction Gerrit van der Lingen describes his adventurous lifecycle as a geologist. After his education at the University of Utrecht, he took part in several scientific expeditions to inhospitable areas.

The first chapter contains an overview of his email bulletins “Global warming and cooling”, which he wrote over several years. These give a clear overview of the climate debate, with all its high and low points. In doing this he draws attention to the role played by important participants, protagonists as well as antagonists, such as (alphabetically) Habibullo Addussamatov, Joe d’Aleo, Will Alexander. Noor van Andel, Timothy Ball, David Bellamy, Bob Carter, Ian Castles, Michael Crighton, John Daly, Freeman Dyson, Bas van Geel, Al Gore, James Hansen, David Henderson, Warwick Hughes, Sir John Houghton, Craig en Keith Idso, Yuri Izrael, Kees de Jager, Phil Jones, Sir David King, Kirill Kondratyev, Salomon Kroonenberg, Richard Lindzen, Bjørn Lomborg, Michael Mann, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Pat Michaels, Lord Christopher Monckton, Nils–Axel Mörner, Roger Pielke Jr., Ian Plimer, Stefan Rahmstorf, Arthur Rörsch, Fred Singer, Hans von Storch, Rajendra Pachauri, Harry Priem, Paul Reiter, Sir Nicolas Stern, Dick Thoenes, Bob Tisdale, Kevin Trenberth, Pier Vellinga, Anthony Watts and many others.

As a Dutchman, Gerrit van der Lingen is also well informed of the climate discussion in the Netherlands. He draws attention to this in various parts in his book. As far as I know this is the first time that this happens in an English-language book.

He is all the time surprised how it is possible that intelligent people can be taken in by the AGW hypothesis and, as a consequent, have lost all sense of reality.

I select one salient detail, to which van der Lingen returns a few times, because there are still misunderstandings about it. It pertains to the Russian position in relation to the Kyoto Protocol. The Russians had a few questions on which they never received an answer. In 2004, they decided to organise a climate conference in Moscow, independently of the UN IPCC climate panel, and with the co-operation of a number of climate sceptics. At the end of this conference, Andrei Illarionov, at the time economic advisor of president Putin, presented his impressions.

Yuri Antonovich and I have mentioned the fact that this is the first seminar of its kind that we have managed to arrange and it was accidental. Over almost a year we have repeatedly asked our foreign partners who advocate the Kyoto Protocol and who insist that Russia should ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and we have invited them to meet and discuss these issues, present arguments and counter-arguments and discuss them jointly. But we have not received any reply for a year. These people persistently refused to take part in any discussion.

Nine months ago, at an international climate change conference in Moscow, ten questions concerning the essence of the Kyoto Protocol and its underlying theory were submitted to the IPCC. We were told that the reply would be given within several days. Nine months have passed since

then but there has been no reply, even though we have repeated our inquiries on these and the growing number of other related questions.

Instead of getting replies to our questions, we kept on hearing that replies did not matter. What was important is that whether or not Russia trusts Britain, the European Union and the countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol and that have been exerting unprecedented pressure on Russia to ratify it. This is why it was so important for us to arrange a real meeting and a real discussion of real problems with the participation of foreign scientists who have different views in order not to stew in one’s own juice, as Yuri Antonovich put it, but to hear the arguments not only of our Russian scientists but also the arguments and counter-arguments from scientists in other countries.

We did get such an opportunity and over the past two days we heard more than 20 reports, we held detailed discussions, and now we can say that a considerable number of the questions we formulated and raised have been somewhat clarified, just as some other questions have.

I would sum up my conclusions in six points. The first one concerns the nature and the contents of the Kyoto Protocol. This is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, international adventure of all times and nations. Frankly speaking, it’s hard to recall something like this of the same scale and of the same consequences, just as the lack of any grounds for action in field.

Basically, none of the assertions made in the Kyoto Protocol and the “scientific” theory on which the Kyoto Protocol is based been borne out by actual data. We are not seeing any high frequency of emergency situations or events. There has been no increase in the number of floods. Just as there has been no increase in the number of droughts. We can see that the speed of the wind in the hails in some areas is decreasing contrary to the statements made by the people who support the Kyoto Protocol. We are not witnessing a higher incidence of contagious diseases, and if there is a rise, it has nothing to do with climate change.

Andrei Allarionov continued by describing in detail the misbehaviour of the British delegation under the leadership of Sir David King, then the most important advisor of the British government, who did his utmost to sabotage the meeting, among others by requiring that climate sceptics not be allowed to present their presentations, and by stalking out of the meeting.

Illarionov compared the AGW with an ideology.

The next point brings us directly to the Kyoto Protocol, or more specifically, to the ideological and philosophical basis on which it is built. That ideological base can be juxtaposed and compared … with man-hating totalitarian ideology with which we had the bad fortune to deal during the 20th century, such as National Socialism, Marxism, Eugenics, Lysenkoism and so on. All methods of distorting information existing in the world have been committed to prove the alleged validity of these theories. Misinformation, falsification, fabrication, mythology, propaganda. Because what is offered cannot be qualified in any other way than myth, nonsense and absurdity.

And that from the mouth of a Russian!

The Moscow climate conference leaves no doubt that the Russian Academy of Sciences cannot be considered as supporters of the AGW dogma – a thesis that is part of the standard repertoire of the disinformation by climate alarmists.

In the course of the book all important themes of the climate debate are discussed in short, clear analyses, and all allegations of the climate alarmists are tested against measurements and observations …. and refuted! After all, the warming hysteria is not based on science, but only on non-validated computer models. As is often said: Rubbish in – gospel out.

The book is full of anecdotes, showing that the author and his allies have provoked the ire of the supporters of the human greenhouse gas hypothesis. These days, if someone admits that he does not believe in God, it will, in general, be accepted without fuss. However, if one declares not to believe in AGW, it is seen by many as blasphemy, and the “culprit” is subjected to a tidal wave of ad hominems, insults and accusations.

At the end of the book, Gerrit van der Lingen sighs that:

When future historians will be studying the present global mass hysteria about alleged catastrophic man-made global warming (MMGW), they will most likely shake their heads in total disbelief. They may well compare it with other such historic irrational hysterias, like the tulipomania in Holland in the 17th century. …

The belief that human emissions of carbon dioxide cause, or will cause catastrophic global warming is a … totalitarian belief. It does not allow ‘critical discussion’. Those scientists who try are vilified. Over the years I collected the following abuses: ‘climate change deniers’, ‘cashamplified flat-earth pseudo scientists’, ‘the carbon cartel’, ‘villains’, ‘cranks’, ‘refuseniks lobby’, ‘polluters’, ‘a powerful and devious enemy’, ‘profligates’. The list is endless. …

By saying that the science of climate change is ‘settled’ and not open to further discussion, clearly shows that the belief in man-made global warming is not based on proper science, but is a neoMarxist, intolerant ideology. It is anti-science, anti-capitalist, anti-democracy, anti-growth, antihumanity, anti-progress.

All in all, “The Fable of a Stable Climate” shows a wide and solid knowledge of the subject. Moreover, Gerrit van der Lingen has the talent to very clearly explain the complicated problems, which make his writings very accessible for a broad public. In other words: his book reads like a riveting novel.

 

[pixelsmith]

What in the World made Climate Change from cooler to "warmer"?
NOAA for one. All you have to do is change the data.

Link: Biggest Fraud In Science History | Real Science

Biggest Fraud In Science History


In 1978, NOAA showed 0.6 degrees global cooling since 1975 at the surface and in balloon data. The cooling was present in both hemispheres.



1520-0493(1978)106<0755:GTVSMA>2.0.CO;2

The National Academy of Sciences knew about this cooling in 1975.

sn1975_climate_change_chilling_possibilities-1.pdf

This cooling was seen in the vast majority of US stations and is still present in the untampered US data.

But for some reason, the cooling has disappeared from NASA data.



Fig.A.gif (656×446)

NASA used to show the cooling, but have since made it disappear.

Challenge_chapter2.pdf

Over the last 16 years, satellite and radiosonde data show cooling, which NASA has also erased.

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

In 1989, Tom Karl at NOAA reported that almost all global warming occurred before 1919, and that Earth cooled from 1921 to 1979.



7 Dec 1989, Page 14 – at Newspapers.com

Tom Karl has since changed his story.

In 1971, the top climatologists at NCAR and NASA reported that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible, because the CO2 absorption spectra is nearly saturated already.

 

[pixelsmith]

What A Better World under Climate Change

Link: Top 10 Possible Benefits Of Global Warming - Listosaur | Hungry for Knowledge

BY TODD HILL IN SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY MARCH 7, 2011

The negative consequences of global warming are well-documented — melting ice caps, rising sea levels, loss of habitat for polar bears and countless other species, mass disruptions and dislocations around the world as formerly habitable areas become unlivable. It sounds like the world’s going to become a very unpleasant place to call home if everything that’s been predicted comes to pass.

The less-publicized reality of climate change is that some change is likely to be beneficial. Granted, virtually every positive effect has a negative corollary, and sometimes the negative outweighs the positive (territorial disputes over low-lying islands will cease, which is good, but only because the islands will be underwater, which is worse). But it’s not all bad. The following list details the top 10 effects of global climate change that could be good for the planet. This may not convince the doomsayers, but should global warming transpire as many scientists predict, it could make waiting for that toasty Armageddon a much more endurable experience.



10. More Usable Land

Presently, vast swaths of the Earth — the northern half of Canada, for instance, and the majority of Russia’s land area — aren’t suitable for agriculture. As the globe warms, however, high-latitude zones now on the verge of cultivation could become agriculture-friendly. More food for the world’s people is certainly a good thing, although it must be acknowledged that climate change could at the same time transform other fragile regions such as sub-Saharan Africa into more of a desert than they are already.



9. Longer Growing Seasons

It’s conceivable that the world’s current breadbaskets could become even more productive as temperatures warm, increasing yields. Farmers accustomed to one harvest a year may even see two. What’s more, a larger variety of crops could be grown in more locations than is currently possible.



8. Extra CO2 For Plants

We humans can only expel carbon dioxide, but plants love it. With heightened levels of CO2 in the atmosphere thanks to a warming globe, plants will have the opportunity to get drunk on the stuff, growing larger and more robust. This in turn would be good news not just for agriculture, but also for the many animal species that depend on plant life (at least those not already threatened by habitat degradation).



7. Northwest Passage Becomes Reality

The long-sought shipping lane through Canada’s polar regions is already close to being a viable alternative during the summer months. Its existence could mean the world’s largest ships, particularly oil tankers too big for the Panama Canal, which have to round the southern tip of South America, would have a much shorter route between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans at their disposal.



6. Arctic’s Resources Become Accessible

Nobody really knows just how much oil exists in the Arctic, but oil companies and various nations, are moving fast in an effort to find out. Russia is already taking a lead staking claims to promising stretches of international waters that had long been under frozen lock and key. Drilling for Arctic oil, currently not a viable option, could be soon.



5. Less Energy Required For Heating

Credit: Advanced Telemetry

This obvious benefit of warmer winters has yet to come to pass, as recent winters across North America and Europe have actually trended colder than normal in many locales. Whether this is simply a statistical anomaly or a more long-term effect of climate change remains to be seen.



4. Warmer Weather is Healthier

The doomsayers have made much of tropical diseases such as malaria spreading as the globe warms, but cold-weather illnesses like the flu kill more people every year. If warmer winters (when they do finally take hold) mean less time spent indoors in close quarters, where so many contagions are spread, maybe someday flu shots will become a thing of the past.



3. Warmer Weather is Safer

No more middle-aged men falling down with heart attacks while shoveling snow. No more motorists careening off icy highways. No more kids falling through thin ice, or elderly people freezing in their homes. Wintertime is a dangerous time. Granted, record-breaking heat waves have killed scores of people, especially in northern cities where older buildings aren’t equipped for such heat, but those structures are being demolished and replaced daily.



2. People Enjoy Sunny Climates

Where do senior citizens go to retire? Cleveland? Not usually. Statistics may not show the residents of Florida to be any happier than people elsewhere, but nobody would complain if they had their weather. However, some scientists believe climate change has thus far led to an increase in extreme conditions, from heat waves and cold spells to snowstorms and flooding, not just warm, sunny days.



1. Increased Interest in Alternative Energy

Fear of global warming has already led many people to look beyond fossil fuels at wind and solar power as possible alternatives for powering our way of life. If climate scientists are to be believed, it will likely be too little, too late. But ironically, such efforts could represent progress toward weaning us from our dependence on foreign oil. A warmer globe leading to energy independence? Even this cloud could have a silver lining.

WRITTEN BY TODD HILL

Todd Hill has been a working journalist since 1987, with a focus on meteorology, climate studies and the Hollywood and independent film industries. After 20 years in the media maelstrom of New York City, Todd is now based on a farm in the rural highlands of central Ohio.

• 
  
  ​

 

[pixelsmith]

See Link to see maps of new coastlines -

Scientists say Antarctic melting could double sea level rise. Here’s what that looks like.
.....

“After three record high extent years, this year marks a return toward normalcy for Antarctic sea ice,” said Walt Meier, a sea ice scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: 2015 Antarctic maximum sea ice extent breaks streak of record highs

There is no need to worry about Antarctic sea ice..or any ice for that matter. If it did all melt it would only indicate we are finally out of the current ice age. To consider trying to stop a natural process would be to disrespect Mother Nature.

 

[pixelsmith]

Climate History & the Cryosphere
"...we are currently in the midst of an ice age right now!"

Link: 4A: Glacial Ages

Part A: Glacial Ages

Temperatures change all the time. Locally, it's not uncommon for temperatures to drop 5, 10, even 20 degrees or more overnight. Over the course of a year in the northern hemisphere, we see gradual increases in daily and monthly average temperatures as winter eases into spring and summer and watch them fall again as summer turns to autumn and then back to winter. When we look at temperature on a regional or global scale over the course of many years, climatic patterns emerge.

Throughout its history, Earth has experienced several periodic swings in climate. For example, Earth was entirely ice-free and temperatures were hot enough for turtles and palm trees to thrive at the poles during the Early Eocene Climatic Optimum around 49 million years ago. On the other hand, during the Last Glacial Maximum, which occurred between 26,500 and 19,000 years ago, ice sheets covered nearly one third of Earth's surface. Today, we are somewhere in between extremes. Snow and ice exist year round near the poles and seasonally at lower latitudes. Glaciers cover about 10% of Earth's surface and can be found on every continent except Australia.

Glacial Ages
The term "ice age" typically invokes images of a frozen world, covered in snow and ice, in a time when woolly mammoths and sabre-toothed tigers roamed the Earth. However, scientists use the term ice age or glacial age to describe any geological period in which long-term cooling takes place and ice sheets and glaciers exist. That means we are currently in the midst of an ice age right now! More specifically, we are in aninterglacial (warm period) within a glacial age. Cold periods within a glacial age are called glacials or glaciations, and are characterized by cooler temperatures and advancing glaciers.

Glacial ages come and go over millions of years. Interglacial periods, like the one we are in now, are typically spaced apart by hundreds of thousands of years. Based on observed patterns, we should be swinging back to an "icehouse Earth." However, since the industrial revolution, increased carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere (largely due to the burning of fossil fuel), are pushing Earth toward a warmer climate. In fact, we now see that this increase in CO2 is warming Earth at a rate ~100 times faster than Earth has seen through slow natural swings.
.... continued

I encourage anyone interested in SCIENCE to click on the link above and continue reading about this interesting topic that causes chaotic climate conditions in Our World Under Climate Change.