Our Oceans are Under Attack

Global warming slowdown: No systematic errors in climate models | Phys.org

 

That's great
It’s very strange how easily upset you are, then state a degrading insult when all I did was to present facts with no offence to you what so ever.
Chill out mate and look forward to be placed on your ignore list.
Cheers

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Climate Change Debate (HBO)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjuGCJJUGsg

 

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2015/01/are-oceans-verge-mass-extinction-event

We land-based creatures live in the midst of a massive extinction crisis, just the sixth one over the past half billion years. What about the oceans? A much-discussed, wide-ranging recent Science study (paywalled) has good news: Sea critters are currently faring much better than their land counterparts, which are going extinct at a rate 36 times higher. (That number is likely exaggerated, the authors note, because scientists have done a much better job of cataloging land critters than sea critters.)
But the report also brings horrible news: Between over-fishing and habitat destruction (think acidification, coastal development, warming, coral destruction, dead zones from fertilizer runoff, etc.), the oceans may be on the brink of their own extinction catastrophe. (The New York Times' Carl Zimmer has more details here; Vox's Brad Plumer has a good analysis here.) Today's marine extinction rates look eerily similar to the "moderate" land-based ones just before the Industrial Revolution, the authors warn. "Rates of extinction on land increased dramatically after this period, and we may now be sitting at the precipice of a similar extinction transition in the oceans."
What to do? Tackling the over-fishing problem will be no mean feat, given the expected rise of the human population to 9 billion by 2050, but it's probably doable. Globally, about half of seafood consumed comes from farms, but much of it actually harms the oceans. Salmon farms, for example, rely on sucking up mass quantities of wild fish for feed—it takes at least three pounds of anchovies, sardines, menhaden, and other "forage fish" to deliver a pound of farmed salmon (not to mention the waste problem created when you confine thousands of big fish loose together).
And Asian shrimp farms—source of nearly 90 percent of the shrimp consumed in the US—have been plunked down atop what had been highly productive coastal ecosystems called mangrove forests. According to the United Nations, as much as a third of the globe's mangroves have been destroyed since 1980—and shrimp and other forms of aquaculture account for more than half that loss.
Habitat degradation, according to the Science authors, is the main trigger for the extinction wave we're now seeing on land, and is probably the biggest threat to cause a similar catastrophe at sea. "If you cranked up the aquarium heater and dumped some acid in the water, your fish would not be very happy," Malin L. Pinsky, a marine biologist at Rutgers University and an author of the report, told The Times' Zimmer. "In effect, that's what we’re doing to the oceans." Of course, both warming and acidification are the direct result of our fossil fuel habit—the same force that's generating potentially catastrophic climate change up here on land. There's no saving the oceans without solving that problem.

 

Who are the climate change deniers?

Why is that? 97% of climate scientists agree that global climate change is occurring. The news was abuzz about climate change and global warming earlier this year.

So why do these Americans refuse to budge on the issue? In a provocative article earlier this year, Chris Mooney suggested a simple answer: “Conservatives don’t deny climate science because they’re ignorant. They deny it because of who they are.”

Could this be true? Do climate change deniers know all there is to know about climate change and global warming, but they still refuse to accept it because of their beliefs? To get at this question, I dug further into the UT Energy Poll’s most recent poll results.

Surprisingly, income and educational attainment have no effect whatsoever on whether someone accepts that climate change is occurring or not: The “Yes” answers float around 70% regardless of whether the poll respondent brings in $20,000 or $200,000 a year. This finding seems to hint that knowledge has very little to do with whether someone accepts climate change nowadays.

Political affiliation
If knowledge has little to do with climate change acceptance, what does? American conservatives are well-known to be climate change deniers, so what do the poll results look like when we break the answers down by political affiliation?
86% of Democrats accept climate change, whereas half of all Republicans are still in denial on the issue. While there are still some Democrats in denial about climate change, it’s fair to say that the majority of climate change deniers today are Republican.

Religiosity
Oddly enough, climate change has also become a religious issue in the past decade. Could a person’s religiosity affect whether they accept that global climate change is occurring?

The more religious a person is, the more likely they are to deny climate change. Whereas 80% of atheists accept climate change, only 56% of all very religious Americans agree.

 

Good grief , you need a new pair of spectacles Glowball warming is right before your eyes . Get with it ...Repent your evil ways...repent, or Ye shall burn .


image upload no size limit

 

That image reminds me of someone. Anyone heard of Knickerless Parsons?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Parsons

http://www.nicholasparsons.co.uk/

 

Poll: Young Voters Call Climate Deniers "Ignorant," "Out of Touch," "Crazy"

A majority of young Republicans say they'd be less likely to vote for opponents of President Obama's climate change plan.

 

NASA | A Year in the Life of Earth's CO2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1SgmFa0r04

How China's Filthy Air Is Screwing With Our Weather

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/01/pollution-china-winter-weather-america-smog

Toxic smog billowing from China's coal-fired power plants is making snowstorms in the US worse.

As the snow began to fall earlier this week in the lead up to the season's first major blizzard, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo told reporters that the Northeast was witnessing "a pattern of extreme weather that we've never seen before." Climate change, Cuomo argues, is fueling bigger, badder weather events like this one—and like Hurricane Sandy.

While the science that links specific snowstorms to global warming is profoundly difficult to calculate, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says it's "very likely"—defined as greater than 90 percent probability—that "extreme precipitation events will become more intense and frequent" in North America as the world warms. In New York City, actual snow days have decreased, but bigger blizzards have become more common, dumping more snow each time. Mashable reported that all of New York City's top 10 snowfalls have occurred in the past 15 years. Scientists can trace the cause to the enormous amount of energy we're pumping into the oceans. Kevin Trenberth, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, told Wired this week that "the oceans are warmer, and the air above them is more moist"—giving storms more energy to unleash more precipitation. In short, the blizzard dubbed Juno was being fueled in part by the ocean's excess of climate change-related heat.

But climate change may not be the only way that human activity is making storms worse. In an emerging body of work, NASA scientists have identified a surprising contributor to American storms and cold snaps: Asia's air pollution. Over the past few years, a team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the California Institute of Technology has found that aerosols—or airborne particles—emitted from the cities fueling Asia's booming economies are making storm activity stronger in the Northwest Pacific Ocean. These storms wreak havoc on the polar jet stream, a major driver of North America's weather. The result: US winters with heavier snowfall and more intense cold periods.

Pollution billowing from Asia's big cities, they found, is essentially "seeding" the clouds with sulfur, carbon grit, and metals. This leads to thicker, taller, and more energetic clouds, with heavier precipitation. These so-called "extratropical" cyclones in the Northwest Pacific have become about 10 percent stronger over the last 30 years, the scientists say.

Chinese cities, for example, are so toxic that 90 percent of them fail to meet the country's own pollution standards. But it's not just China. In terms of air quality, 13 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are in India. And thirty-one of the world's 50 most polluted cities are found in China and Southeast Asia (including India), according to the World Health Organization.

 

NASA | Why is the Ozone Hole Getting Smaller?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBu3vltczRw

 

Hah - yeah, ok, it took me longer than that but that was before his nuttiness became quite so obvious.

Back to a nice 20C now, far more civilised. Better for getting epoxy paint to kick off in reasonable time anyway but not too hot for welding & grinding in decent protective clothing.

I still need that 1-2m of sea level rise though or I'm going to have to freight the boat to the nearest travel lift. This is so unfair, all the global warming people swore black & blue that there'd be rapid sea level rise before I started building and what happens? A lousy 1-2 MILLIMETRES! At most!!

PDW

 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/sealevel-rise-threat-to-coast/2008/10/28/1224956039688.html

SYDNEY'S iconic beaches, coastal houses, commercial property and roads will be threatened by rising sea levels by 2050, while the city's temperature is expected to rise by at least 2 degrees, a new scientific study, launched by the Premier, Nathan Rees, reveals.

"Today, the science is in for Sydney," Mr Rees said yesterday as he proclaimed the influence of the climate sceptic and former treasurer Michael Costa at an end in NSW.

"The Costa era of ambiguity around this issue is over. Along with the rest of the NSW public, I recognise that climate change is a reality and that the NSW Government needs to prepare for it," the Premier said. "There is no longer a climate-change sceptic at the centre of government decision-making in this state".

The study commissioned by the NSW Department of Climate Change, and adopted by the Government, was carried out by the University of NSW and uses research from the United Nations' peak scientific body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It examines the effect of climate change on the greater Sydney metropolitan region from the Central Coast to Wollongong, along with other regions in rural NSW. The full state study is expected to be released in January.

"We've used world's best science to understand what will happen in different parts of this state so we can start planning now for the future," Mr Rees said. "We will all have to change the way we live to some degree."

The study finds that bushfires are likely to be more intense while rainfall may become more erratic, creating water shortages. But while winter rains decline, intense summer rain in parts of Sydney could increase flash flooding.

This, combined with higher temperatures, is expected to put the state's emergency services and health services under stress.

The study has enormous implications for urban planning, building standards and flood-risk mapping as well as agriculture. It finds by 2050 the expected sea level rise is likely to be 40 centimetres, reaching 90 centimetres by 2100. While the figure sounds deceptively small, a one-centimetre sea-level rise can cause erosion effects of up to one metre.

The projections would mean changes to the Sydney coastline, including the harbour, Parramatta River and the Georges River, said Professor Andy Short of the University of Sydney's coastal studies unit.

"Beaches with a low gradient like Narrabeen, Dee Why and Curl Curl are going to be the most heavily affected," he said.

 

Just a quick reminder regarding respecting other authors' copyrights: If the works of another are required to complete a thought of your own, please remember that you must have permission to post copyrighted works and that you should always give credit where credit is due. Remember that with news sites, the full news articles are their product. As when writing an academic paper, "fair use" does not allow you to copy and paste a complete article from another source. If you wish to include a full article from another source, you must have specific permission from the author and copyright holder.
Otherwise, instead, please provide a link to the original content and a succinct relevant summary, but please do not copy and paste whole articles from other sites without getting specific permission from the author(s)/copyright holder(s) first.

Thanks.

 

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=11396684

 

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/02/australia-tony-abbott-climate-change


One of the World's Worst Climate Villains Could Soon Be Booted From Office

Australia: Your long national Knightmare may soon be over.


Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott is terrible on climate change. He has gutted his country's historic cap-and-trade carbon pricing system, has called climate science "crap," and has spoken out against strong international action to fight global warming. He praises coal as "good for humanity."

But there might soon be good news for critics of Abbott's climate policies: It looks like Australia's skeptic-in-chief could be coming to the end of the road as prime minister. Members of his party are plotting to dump him, and while it's still far from certain if the current leadership crisis will ultimately result in his downfall, one thing is clear: The climate would find a much better friend among his potential replacements.

 

Blah blah blah. Baaaaa