The hottest year on record is 2010, not 1998, according to new calculations of the major British climate study unit.
The findings have just been published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, which means that they have been subjected to searching scrutiny by other climate specialists. The UK Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit (Cru) at the University of East Anglia was able to recalculate climate change data so as to incorporate large numbers of observations from the arctic, which had earlier been sparsely recorded.
Since 1900, the average surface temperature of the earth has increased by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit, about .75 degrees C., because of the enormous amount of carbon dioxide and soot that industrial society is spewing into the atmosphere. Because of increasing carbon emissions, the earth is likely headed toward a 3-5 degree C. increase (5-7 degrees F.), which will over centuries melt all the surface ice, produce tropical conditions over the entire planet, and cause a sea level rise of dozens of meters/ yards. In the worst case scenario, a third of all land will be submerged.
New research on the Pliocine era has shown that even a 2 degree C. increase will likely cause a sea level rise of as much as 60-70 feet (20-23 meters). That would affect 70% of the earth’s inhabitants, hundreds of years down the road. Typically in past geologic eras, a 1 degree increase in average surface temperature produces a sea level rise of 10-20 meters (roughly 30-60 feet). But note that in the Pliocene, a couple of million years ago, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was only what it is presently (about 390 parts per million), whereas we are moving rapidly toward much higher levels before emissions level off.
For a list of 100 good recent documentaries on sustainability, see this site
I think you have the wrong numbers in projected sea level rise.
I thought to remember 2 meters would be the upper limit. Wikipedia says so too: link to en.wikipedia.org
That would be a mix up of feet an inch.
Two to three meters sea rise is expected in this century. The ocean is deep and cold and only over centuries will it heat up because of a hotter atmosphere.
I’m certainly open to new evidence, but there is a serious problem here. When doing an experiment it’s important to set out what measurements you are going to use before you collect the data. If you choose your measurement afterwards it’s too easy to cherry pick and manipulate.
It’s really discouraging that sites defending global
warming are blacking out the data from accepted sources that shows a decade long halt in warming. (See article published in 2010, with data only through 2000
link to skepticalscience.com )
Considerable data suggests that about 0.5 C has occurred. But by many measurements accepted by scientist, this warming trend is abating rather than accelerating. (link to en.wikipedia.org . It is certainly good to be conservative about how we pollute. The issue I have is the certainty with which some claim warming will continue to catastrophe. Most changes eventually reach an equilibrium and considerable data suggests this may be happening.
link to joannenova.com.au
And what about ocean acidification, which buffers the CO2 emissions?
If we check history, this is ordinary process.
Everything changes time by time. Earth has cycles, warming, sea rise etc happens every 300 year.
The Precautionary Principle never applies to the excesses of capitalism. Until after the catastrophe.
I have no doubt that our climate is changing, but there is a problem with your numbers somewhere. You’re saying that since 1900 we’ve seen a 1.4 degree increase, but you also say that a 2 degree increase is likely to cause the sea to rise 60-70 feet. If both of those things are correct, then we should have already seen a dramatic rise in sea level.. something on the other order of 45 feet if the growth is linear or let’s say 20+ feet assuming things will accelerate to make up the difference. However, from the sea level rise data I’ve seen, the sea was only currently rising about 1-2mm per year during the 20th century. 200mm from 1900-2000 which is less than 8 inches.
Don’t get me wrong, I think global climate change needs to be addressed, but the numbers above don’t pass the smell test.
Assume the surface temperature were to be steady for the next century.
Would there be ice formation or melting?
Would the subsurface temperature rise or fall?
Dear Juan, Happy Nowruz to you! Today Sun is exactly at Earth’s equator, like Sun and Earth looking at each other face to face. Science and technology is leaping forward such that no one can predict what is in store for us in as much as 5 years ahead. I can say that already we have the technology to make magic. The real question is how we must allocate and distribute resources, especially polluting energy sources, so some people are not left behind, and our human resources are not destroyed. The best of regulators of economy are first taxation on wealth and then limiting the use of natural resources. This way human resources are developed and they can solve any future problem. Earth, Sun and Moon will also be on our side. I wonder if the evolution of consciousness in the core of these bodies were any slower than the evolution of consciousness on the surface of the Earth.
Soot basically has very little to do with it. The issue is C02.
“2010 Hottest Year Yet, 70 ft. Sea Rise Virtually Assured
Posted on 03/20/2012 by Juan
The hottest year on record is 2010, not 1998, according to new calculations of the major British climate study unit.
The findings have just been published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, which means that they have been subjected to searching scrutiny by other climate specialists. The UK Meteorological Office’s Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit (Cru) at the University of East Anglia was able to recalculate climate change data so as to incorporate large numbers of observations from the arctic, which had earlier been sparsely recorded.
Since 1900, the average surface temperature of the earth has increased by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit, about .75 degrees C., because of the enormous amount of carbon dioxide and soot that industrial society is spewing into the atmosphere. Because of increasing carbon emissions, the earth is likely headed toward a 3-5 degree C. increase (5-7 degrees F.), which will over centuries melt all the surface ice, produce tropical conditions over the entire planet, and cause a sea level rise of dozens of meters/ yards. In the worst case scenario, a third of all land will be submerged.
New research on the Pliocine era has shown that even a 2 degree C. increase will likely cause a sea level rise of as much as 60-70 feet (20-23 meters). That would affect 70% of the earth’s inhabitants, hundreds of years down the road. Typically in past geologic eras, a 1 degree increase in average surface temperature produces a sea level rise of 10-20 meters (roughly 30-60 feet). But note that in the Pliocene, a couple of million years ago, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was only what it is presently (about 390 parts per million), whereas we are moving rapidly toward much higher levels before emissions level off.
For a list of 100 good recent documentaries on sustainability, see this site
0 Retweet 14 Share 10 StumbleUpon 1 Printer Friendly Send via email
Posted in Environment, Uncategorized | 3 Comments | Print
§ 3 Responses to “2010 Hottest Year Yet, 70 ft. Sea Rise Virtually Assured”
Christian
03/20/2012 at 4:54 am
I think you have the wrong numbers in projected sea level rise.
Reply
Nathan Jonson
03/20/2012 at 5:09 am
I’m certainly open to new evidence, but there is a serious problem here. When doing an experiment it’s important to set out what measurements you are going to use before you collect the data. If you choose your measurement afterwards it’s too easy to cherry pick and manipulate.
” It’s really discouraging that sites defending global
warming are blacking out the data from accepted sources that shows a decade long halt in warming. (See article published in 2010, with data only through 2000
link to skepticalscience.com
)
Considerable data suggests that about 0.5 C has occurred. But by many measurements accepted by scientist, this warming trend is abating rather than accelerating. ”
This is completely false. The temperature record has inherent volatility but the long-term trend is absolutely clear. If you cherry pick a starting point that happened to be an unusually warm year you can make it look like the trend since has been relatively flat — but in fact the oughts included 4 of the warmest years on record and 2010 was the warmest year on record. Here is the truth.
Didn’t take the denialists long, did it.
Quote:
———————————————————
Since 1900, the average surface temperature of the earth has increased by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit, about .75 degrees C., because of the enormous amount of carbon dioxide and soot that industrial society is spewing into the atmosphere.
———————————————————-
This statement is quite possibly a “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy. This means “after this, there for because of this”. Since the supposed increase in CO2 emissions is occurring at the same time as the increase in temperature, the assumption is made that it is due to the increase in emissions. However, there have been previous large increases in temperature in earth, long before industialization increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Thus, the cause and effect relationship is not proven.
Not True.
Most if not all previous warmings also had significant increases in greenhouse gases preceeding the warmings. These increases were caused, however, by natural disasters such as violent volcanic activity or a shift in the poles which caused significant melting of tundra releasing methane.
No one claims that damaging releases of greenhouse gases can’t happen in nature. They have. But how does that justify us condemning future generations of ourselves to living with the consequences of such an event caused by “us” when it could have been avoided?
I tend to listen to climate experts when talking about climate change, and on this issue there is strong consensus among climate experts that the current rapid increase of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is being caused by human activity and is responsible for the warming we have witnessed so far.
This study is literally incredible and its source discredited. I’d stay away from science, Juan.
All of the people who replied to this post evidently didn’t read or understand it.
May I ask what part of my post do you claim is incorrect?
@Nathan Jonson:
“It’s really discouraging that sites defending global
warming are blacking out the data from accepted sources that shows a decade long halt in warming.”
Yes, global warming slowed down in the 90s, but since then it’s accelerated. That data wasn’t ignored: atmospheric scientists searched for an explanation, and they found that aerosols (a kind of air pollution) caused some cooling. That cooling effect is still there, but the amount of greenhouse gases is now so high that the planet is heating again.
“Most changes eventually reach an equilibrium and considerable data suggests this may be happening.”
Equilibrium is not necessarily a good thing. If I drive my car off a cliff, I’ll eventually reach an equilibrium at the bottom.
@Sears:
Actually no, this isn’t normal. The recent changes in global chemistry and global temperature are unprecedented in recorded history.
Awww, c’mon, Perfesser — let me keep doing what I want that makes me richer than the next guy and really tickles my fancies. The change is slow enough that I’ll be dead and buried before it starts to get really ugly, and in the meantime, well hey, you every drive a Ferrari California with a blonde babe in the second seat, flat out on I-4 with a PO-lice chopper straining to keep up? Or swim in your own heated Olympic-sized pool, without having to think about other people peeing, etc., in YOUR water? Or zoom off to Bali in your Gulfstream IV, for a little beach time?
MY little contribution to pollution is TINy compared to All Those Other People… And besides, Whatchagonnadoaboutit, huh? Any idea what our Military runs on, and how much of it, and what its general mission is?
I think the rise in the sea levels is due to all the obese folks in the US and Europe, now over 30% of the pops; they are too big! Them going in the sea is the problem.
Seriously though, how much carbon was wasted over making all those millions of fat tums n bums?
Integrity seems to have been flushed by the food comps too, along with the oil and defense boys.
We don’t deserve any planet especially not this beautiful place.
To all the skeptics out there:
I am sure your “theories” will be read to your children under the sea.
For the rest of us, let us plant a tree to save our planet, since the polluters will not stop polluting nor will they even try to decrease their foot-print.
Soot actually masks the full impact of CO2 emmission.
link to pbs.org
If China, India and the US were to turn off all their dirty fuel generation the global temperature would actually spike upwards in the short term.
The Nova linked above in a fascinating take on the complexity of the problem.