The Boat Design & Boatbuilding Site
Our Oceans are Under Attack
- Thread starter brian eiland
- Start date
- Status
2100 is *waaaay* too late. I need at least half of that sea level rise by 2016!
I think I'll go crank up the air conditioning and run my 250A welder. Except - my power comes from hydroelectricity so I'm screwed......
PDW
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ut-alaska-village-under-the-sea-10069631.html
Climate change threatens to put Alaska village under the sea
Residents of the remote Alaskan village of a Kivalina say they may be forced to relocate from their homes because of the effects of climate change.
The thinning of sea ice has meant it is not possible for the Iñupiat people of the region to hunt the bowhead whales, while the US government has warned that with less and less sea ice every year to protect the island, it could be washed away by powerful waves. Some have predicted Kivalina could be under water just 10 years from now.
“Global warming has caused us so much problems,” Joseph Swan, a Kivalina elder, told the Washington Post. “The ice does not freeze like it used to. It used to be like ten to eight feet thick, way out in the ocean.”
Climate change threatens to put Alaska village under the sea
Residents of the remote Alaskan village of a Kivalina say they may be forced to relocate from their homes because of the effects of climate change.
The thinning of sea ice has meant it is not possible for the Iñupiat people of the region to hunt the bowhead whales, while the US government has warned that with less and less sea ice every year to protect the island, it could be washed away by powerful waves. Some have predicted Kivalina could be under water just 10 years from now.
“Global warming has caused us so much problems,” Joseph Swan, a Kivalina elder, told the Washington Post. “The ice does not freeze like it used to. It used to be like ten to eight feet thick, way out in the ocean.”
Yobarnacle
Senior Member holding true course
Climate change has been occurring for a long time before modern technologies and energy production. It's the human induced climate change that's at issue and belief in it is exactly that, a belief.
Whenever I argue with the mankind ruining the planet crowd and their arguments get too thin, they resort to "Well, what if we are right?"
A suggestion we should avoid any risk.
But they don't really believe in or follow that reduce risk philosophy. They only urge others to that mindset, an attempt get their agenda passed.
Proof they aren't serious about avoiding risk?
"What if the Christian God does exist?"
Consequences are eternity!
Point and game!
A new theory could answer the question of how life began – and throw out the need for God.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...how-life-began-and-disprove-god-10070114.html
A writer on the website of Richard Dawkins’ foundation says that the theory has put God “on the ropes” and has “terrified” Christians.
It proposes that life did not emerge by accident or luck from a primordial soup and a bolt of lightning. Instead, life itself came about by necessity – it follows from the laws of nature and is as inevitable as rocks rolling downhill.
The problem for scientists attempting to understand how life began is understanding how living beings – which tend to be far better at taking energy from the environment and dissipating it as heat – could come about from non-living ones.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/s...how-life-began-and-disprove-god-10070114.html
A writer on the website of Richard Dawkins’ foundation says that the theory has put God “on the ropes” and has “terrified” Christians.
It proposes that life did not emerge by accident or luck from a primordial soup and a bolt of lightning. Instead, life itself came about by necessity – it follows from the laws of nature and is as inevitable as rocks rolling downhill.
The problem for scientists attempting to understand how life began is understanding how living beings – which tend to be far better at taking energy from the environment and dissipating it as heat – could come about from non-living ones.
Last edited:
Sea level “jumps” 5 inches. Probably nothing to worry about
http://grist.org/climate-energy/sea...&utm_term=Daily%20Feb%2027&utm_campaign=daily
Climate change is a disaster in slow-motion: The global temperature creeps up by fractions-of-a-degree each year, the seas rise inches every decade. Except, apparently, when they do much more.
Exhibit A: In just two years, 2009 and 2010, sea levels along the Atlantic coast north of New York City jumped up by more than 5 inches, according to a paper published this week in the journal Nature Communications. That might not seem like much on its own, but consider that, according to the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global sea levels are rising at a rate of less than a half an inch each year, and that’s causing all sorts of havoc.
For a while now, climate models have projected incidents of “extreme sea-level rise,” when changes in ocean currents and weather patterns cause the oceans to claw their way quickly inland and swamp seaside communities — but this is the first time scientists have documented this actually happening.
The researchers behind the study, from the University of Arizona and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, looked at data from tide gauges up and down the Atlantic coast dating back to 1920. Their conclusion: the 2009-2010 event was “unprecedented during the entire history of the tide gauge records.”
Now, this is one of those cases when we can’t say with any certainty that climate change did this! We can only say that really smart people with really, really powerful computers predict that this is exactly the kind of thing that climate change is going to do, and that these events will get bigger and more frequent as the mercury rises.
But the fact that, with or without our help, Mother Nature can just throw down a quick 5-inch sea-level surge is plenty alarming, especially when you throw that on top of the already well-documented climate-driven rise, and toss in some extra storm surge for good measure. Think of what an extra 5 inches of seawater would have done to New York during Sandy or, god forbid, Miami during Hurricane Andrew.
Sea level is really “dynamic and chaotic,” says Paul Goddard, a PhD candidate in the University of Arizona’s department of geosciences and primary author of the new study. “This event caused persistent and widespread flooding without out a storm or hurricane.”
Goddard and his coauthors have a couple of theories about how this happened. First, the sea-level spike happened alongside a slowing of the (brace yourself) Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, or AMOC (say “A-mock” if you want cred with the geoscientists). That’s the giant watery conveyor belt that brings warm water north from the equator, and drives cold water south all the way to Antarctica. To make a long story short, when the AMOC weakens — as it did, by 30 percent in 2009-2010 — water piles up along the Northeast Coast.
In the meantime, keep your water wings handy. Those waves lapping peacefully at the beach may soon be swamping your basement.
http://grist.org/climate-energy/sea...&utm_term=Daily%20Feb%2027&utm_campaign=daily
Climate change is a disaster in slow-motion: The global temperature creeps up by fractions-of-a-degree each year, the seas rise inches every decade. Except, apparently, when they do much more.
Exhibit A: In just two years, 2009 and 2010, sea levels along the Atlantic coast north of New York City jumped up by more than 5 inches, according to a paper published this week in the journal Nature Communications. That might not seem like much on its own, but consider that, according to the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global sea levels are rising at a rate of less than a half an inch each year, and that’s causing all sorts of havoc.
For a while now, climate models have projected incidents of “extreme sea-level rise,” when changes in ocean currents and weather patterns cause the oceans to claw their way quickly inland and swamp seaside communities — but this is the first time scientists have documented this actually happening.
The researchers behind the study, from the University of Arizona and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, looked at data from tide gauges up and down the Atlantic coast dating back to 1920. Their conclusion: the 2009-2010 event was “unprecedented during the entire history of the tide gauge records.”
Now, this is one of those cases when we can’t say with any certainty that climate change did this! We can only say that really smart people with really, really powerful computers predict that this is exactly the kind of thing that climate change is going to do, and that these events will get bigger and more frequent as the mercury rises.
But the fact that, with or without our help, Mother Nature can just throw down a quick 5-inch sea-level surge is plenty alarming, especially when you throw that on top of the already well-documented climate-driven rise, and toss in some extra storm surge for good measure. Think of what an extra 5 inches of seawater would have done to New York during Sandy or, god forbid, Miami during Hurricane Andrew.
Sea level is really “dynamic and chaotic,” says Paul Goddard, a PhD candidate in the University of Arizona’s department of geosciences and primary author of the new study. “This event caused persistent and widespread flooding without out a storm or hurricane.”
Goddard and his coauthors have a couple of theories about how this happened. First, the sea-level spike happened alongside a slowing of the (brace yourself) Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, or AMOC (say “A-mock” if you want cred with the geoscientists). That’s the giant watery conveyor belt that brings warm water north from the equator, and drives cold water south all the way to Antarctica. To make a long story short, when the AMOC weakens — as it did, by 30 percent in 2009-2010 — water piles up along the Northeast Coast.
In the meantime, keep your water wings handy. Those waves lapping peacefully at the beach may soon be swamping your basement.
Switzerland has become the first country to formally communicate its contribution to a UN climate change deal: 50% greenhouse gas cuts on 1990 levels by 2030.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...t-country-to-submit-paris-climate-deal-pledge
Released on Friday, the Swiss government says 30% of those cuts will be achieved within the country, with the remaining 20% through carbon markets or other forms of offsets.
“This objective of a 50% reduction in emissions reflects Switzerland’s responsibility for climate warming and the potential cost of emissions reduction measures in Switzerland and abroad over the 2020-2030 period,” says the Swiss communication.
“Switzerland, which is responsible for 0.1% of today’s global greenhouse gas emissions and, based on the structure of its economy, has a low level of emissions (6.4 tonnes per capita per year), will use emissions reduction measures abroad to reduce the cost of emissions reduction measures during the period 2020-2030.”
All major economies have been asked to submit their ‘Intended Nationally Determined Contributions’ before 1 October this year, after which the UN will assess whether the world is on course to avoid dangerous levels of warming.
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...t-country-to-submit-paris-climate-deal-pledge
Released on Friday, the Swiss government says 30% of those cuts will be achieved within the country, with the remaining 20% through carbon markets or other forms of offsets.
“This objective of a 50% reduction in emissions reflects Switzerland’s responsibility for climate warming and the potential cost of emissions reduction measures in Switzerland and abroad over the 2020-2030 period,” says the Swiss communication.
“Switzerland, which is responsible for 0.1% of today’s global greenhouse gas emissions and, based on the structure of its economy, has a low level of emissions (6.4 tonnes per capita per year), will use emissions reduction measures abroad to reduce the cost of emissions reduction measures during the period 2020-2030.”
All major economies have been asked to submit their ‘Intended Nationally Determined Contributions’ before 1 October this year, after which the UN will assess whether the world is on course to avoid dangerous levels of warming.
Is the Government About to Warn America Against Meat?
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-mar...-what-look-upcoming-dietary-guidelines-report
The meat vs. plants showdown: It probably comes as no surprise that Americans eat a diet lacking in fruits and vegetables and full of too many solid fats. In fact, vegetable consumption was on the decline between 2001 and 2010 even as each of us now eat 202.3 pounds of meat a year; a bit less red meat than a few years ago but more poultry than ever before. In the past, the government has warned against overdoing it with red meat and urged people to chow down on lean meats like chicken and fish instead. But this year, for the first time, the committee might caution against overconsumption of all kinds of meat—and not just for health reasons, but also because of meat's environmental footprint. Livestock operations now produce 15 percent of the world's carbon emissions. Eating fewer animal-based foods "is more health promoting and is associated with a lesser environmental impact," the committee suggested in its draft report.
Raising livestock now comprises 15 percent of the world's carbon emissions.
Which of course has ruffled the meat industry. Removing lean meat from healthy diet recommendations is "stunning," read a recent statement by the North American Meat Institute. "The committee's focus on sustainability is questionable because it is not within the committee's expertise."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU#t=81
"CHASING ICE" captures largest glacier calving ever filmed - OFFICIAL VIDEO
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-mar...-what-look-upcoming-dietary-guidelines-report
The meat vs. plants showdown: It probably comes as no surprise that Americans eat a diet lacking in fruits and vegetables and full of too many solid fats. In fact, vegetable consumption was on the decline between 2001 and 2010 even as each of us now eat 202.3 pounds of meat a year; a bit less red meat than a few years ago but more poultry than ever before. In the past, the government has warned against overdoing it with red meat and urged people to chow down on lean meats like chicken and fish instead. But this year, for the first time, the committee might caution against overconsumption of all kinds of meat—and not just for health reasons, but also because of meat's environmental footprint. Livestock operations now produce 15 percent of the world's carbon emissions. Eating fewer animal-based foods "is more health promoting and is associated with a lesser environmental impact," the committee suggested in its draft report.
Raising livestock now comprises 15 percent of the world's carbon emissions.
Which of course has ruffled the meat industry. Removing lean meat from healthy diet recommendations is "stunning," read a recent statement by the North American Meat Institute. "The committee's focus on sustainability is questionable because it is not within the committee's expertise."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hC3VTgIPoGU#t=81
"CHASING ICE" captures largest glacier calving ever filmed - OFFICIAL VIDEO
Last edited:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/27/the-big-melt-antarctica_n_6766290.html?ref=topbar
Glacial Melting In Antarctica Makes Continent The 'Ground Zero Of Global Climate Change'
CAPE LEGOUPIL, Antarctica (AP) — From the ground in this extreme northern part of Antarctica, spectacularly white and blinding ice seems to extend forever. What can't be seen is the battle raging thousands of feet (hundreds of meters) below to re-shape Earth.
Water is eating away at the Antarctic ice, melting it where it hits the oceans. As the ice sheets slowly thaw, water pours into the sea — 130 billion tons of ice (118 billion metric tons) per year for the past decade, according to NASA satellite calculations. That's the weight of more than 356,000 Empire State Buildings, enough ice melt to fill more than 1.3 million Olympic swimming pools. And the melting is accelerating.
In the worst case scenario, Antarctica's melt could push sea levels up 10 feet (3 meters) worldwide in a century or two, recurving heavily populated coastlines.
Parts of Antarctica are melting so rapidly it has become "ground zero of global climate change without a doubt," said Harvard geophysicist Jerry Mitrovica.
Here on the Antarctic peninsula, where the continent is warming the fastest because the land sticks out in the warmer ocean, 49 billion tons of ice (nearly 45 billion metric tons) are lost each year, according to NASA. The water warms from below, causing the ice to retreat on to land, and then the warmer air takes over. Temperatures rose 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius) in the last half century, much faster than Earth's average, said Ricardo Jana, a glaciologist for the Chilean Antarctic Institute.
Glacial Melting In Antarctica Makes Continent The 'Ground Zero Of Global Climate Change'
CAPE LEGOUPIL, Antarctica (AP) — From the ground in this extreme northern part of Antarctica, spectacularly white and blinding ice seems to extend forever. What can't be seen is the battle raging thousands of feet (hundreds of meters) below to re-shape Earth.
Water is eating away at the Antarctic ice, melting it where it hits the oceans. As the ice sheets slowly thaw, water pours into the sea — 130 billion tons of ice (118 billion metric tons) per year for the past decade, according to NASA satellite calculations. That's the weight of more than 356,000 Empire State Buildings, enough ice melt to fill more than 1.3 million Olympic swimming pools. And the melting is accelerating.
In the worst case scenario, Antarctica's melt could push sea levels up 10 feet (3 meters) worldwide in a century or two, recurving heavily populated coastlines.
Parts of Antarctica are melting so rapidly it has become "ground zero of global climate change without a doubt," said Harvard geophysicist Jerry Mitrovica.
Here on the Antarctic peninsula, where the continent is warming the fastest because the land sticks out in the warmer ocean, 49 billion tons of ice (nearly 45 billion metric tons) are lost each year, according to NASA. The water warms from below, causing the ice to retreat on to land, and then the warmer air takes over. Temperatures rose 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius) in the last half century, much faster than Earth's average, said Ricardo Jana, a glaciologist for the Chilean Antarctic Institute.
http://www.livescience.com/45534-west-antarctica-collapse-starts.html
The catastrophic collapse of the massive West Antarctic Ice Sheet is underway, researchers said today (May 12).
The biggest glaciers in West Antarctica are hemorrhaging ice without any way to stem the loss, according to two independent studies. The unstoppable retreat is the likely start of a long-feared domino effect that could cause the entire ice sheet to melt, whether or not greenhouse gas emissions decline.
"These glaciers will keep retreating for decades and even centuries to come and we can't stop it," said lead study author Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at the University of California, Irvine, and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "A large sector of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has passed the point of no return." [Vanishing Glaciers: See Stunning Images of Earth's Melting Ice]
But the rapid retreat seen in the past 40 years means that in the coming decades, sea-level rise will likely exceed this century's sea-level rise projections of 3 feet (90 centimeters) by 2100, issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said Sridhar Anandakrishnan, a glaciologist at Pennsylvania State University, who was not involved in the study.
If all of West Antarctica melts, the collapse is predicted to raise sea level by 11 to 13 feet (3.3 to 4 meters).
The Antarctic Peninsula has been warming rapidly for at least a half-century, and continental West Antarctica has been getting steadily hotter for 30 years or more.
But researchers suspect the ice is melting from below, not from above. Changing wind patterns are believed to be driving warm water up beneath West Antarctica's glaciers, "eating away at their feet," Anandakirshnan said.
From satellite observations such as radar interferometry, Rignot and his colleagues conclude a common cause underlies the retreat of West Antarctica's largest glaciers, including Pine Island Glacier, known for cleaving massive icebergs, and its neighbor, Thwaites Glacier. The others are Haynes, Smith and Kohler glaciers.
"One of the most striking features is they have been reacting almost simultaneously," Rignot said. "We do think this is related to climate warming."
The catastrophic collapse of the massive West Antarctic Ice Sheet is underway, researchers said today (May 12).
The biggest glaciers in West Antarctica are hemorrhaging ice without any way to stem the loss, according to two independent studies. The unstoppable retreat is the likely start of a long-feared domino effect that could cause the entire ice sheet to melt, whether or not greenhouse gas emissions decline.
"These glaciers will keep retreating for decades and even centuries to come and we can't stop it," said lead study author Eric Rignot, a glaciologist at the University of California, Irvine, and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "A large sector of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet has passed the point of no return." [Vanishing Glaciers: See Stunning Images of Earth's Melting Ice]
But the rapid retreat seen in the past 40 years means that in the coming decades, sea-level rise will likely exceed this century's sea-level rise projections of 3 feet (90 centimeters) by 2100, issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said Sridhar Anandakrishnan, a glaciologist at Pennsylvania State University, who was not involved in the study.
If all of West Antarctica melts, the collapse is predicted to raise sea level by 11 to 13 feet (3.3 to 4 meters).
The Antarctic Peninsula has been warming rapidly for at least a half-century, and continental West Antarctica has been getting steadily hotter for 30 years or more.
But researchers suspect the ice is melting from below, not from above. Changing wind patterns are believed to be driving warm water up beneath West Antarctica's glaciers, "eating away at their feet," Anandakirshnan said.
From satellite observations such as radar interferometry, Rignot and his colleagues conclude a common cause underlies the retreat of West Antarctica's largest glaciers, including Pine Island Glacier, known for cleaving massive icebergs, and its neighbor, Thwaites Glacier. The others are Haynes, Smith and Kohler glaciers.
"One of the most striking features is they have been reacting almost simultaneously," Rignot said. "We do think this is related to climate warming."
oldsailor7
Senior Member
The thin end of the wedge.
Alas the 6th ELE is upon us.
Alas the 6th ELE is upon us.
The “Pause” in Global Warming Is Finally Explained
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...pause-in-global-warming-is-finally-explained/
Let’s be clear: The planet is still getting hotter. The so-called pause, or hiatus, in global warming means the rate of temperature rise has slowed. The average global temperature is still going up, but in the past 10 to 15 years it hasn’t been going up as quickly as it was in the decades before.
Although the ongoing increase is trouble, a slower rate is preferable. The question is: Why did the slowdown occur—and how long will it last? We now have an answer. Three well-known climate researchers have combined actual temperature readings from 1880 to 2010 with a slew of climate models and have concluded that the slowdown is caused by the timing of two large ocean cycles, known as the Pacific multidecadal oscillation and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. And their analysis, published online today in Science, suggests that the slowdown will end in the next few decades.
The temperature of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, particularly the upper layers, goes through natural cycles of warmer and cooler, driven by large circulations of water across these and the rest of the world’s seas. Warmer and cooler periods can last several decades. The analysis shows that usually, when the northern Pacific is warming, the northern Atlantic is cooling, and vice versa—offsetting one another in their impact on atmospheric temperatures in the northern hemisphere. But the cycles, and their magnitude, don’t match exactly. For the past decade, the magnitude of northern Pacific cooling has been greater than that of northern Atlantic warming, resulting in a net slowdown in temperature rise, according to an email sent to me by Byron A. Steinman, assistant professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Minnesota in Duluth, who led the new study.
Understanding these patterns matters because they can counteract or accelerate warming due to human activities. The paper concludes by noting that the two ocean oscillations have “offset anthropogenic warming over the past decade.” However, the authors go on to say that, based on the natural cycles over the past 130 years, the offset trend “will likely reverse…adding to anthropogenic warming in the coming decades.” The oscillations have slowed the warming due to human activities for a while, but when that effect inevitably ends the oscillations will instead add to human warming, raising the rate of increase.
So when will the super heat-up begin? The researchers did not design the study to create a precise timeline. But the historical patterns “suggest that right now we’re near the peak negative excursion, and very close to a turning point,” according to an email from Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, and one of the paper’s three authors. Once that happens, Steinman noted, “warming will accelerate as a result.”
Separate work by Mann, presented in a Scientific American article he wrote last April, also indicates that the pause will not last long. Mann calculated that if the world continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, global warming would rise to two degrees Celsius by 2036 (compared with preindustrial levels), crossing a threshold that would harm human civilization. And even if the pause persists for longer than expected, the world would cross the line in 2046. The article includes a monumental graph showing all the details. Mann also published the data sources and formula he used, on Scientific American’s Web site, so anyone could replicate his calculations.
The lesson in all this is that even though the oceans run through natural cycles of warming and cooling, pumping more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the entire system hotter over time. In the past decade the oceans have saved us, to an extent, from rapid atmospheric warming, but when the current ocean effect reverses, our emissions will come back to haunt us.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...pause-in-global-warming-is-finally-explained/
Let’s be clear: The planet is still getting hotter. The so-called pause, or hiatus, in global warming means the rate of temperature rise has slowed. The average global temperature is still going up, but in the past 10 to 15 years it hasn’t been going up as quickly as it was in the decades before.
Although the ongoing increase is trouble, a slower rate is preferable. The question is: Why did the slowdown occur—and how long will it last? We now have an answer. Three well-known climate researchers have combined actual temperature readings from 1880 to 2010 with a slew of climate models and have concluded that the slowdown is caused by the timing of two large ocean cycles, known as the Pacific multidecadal oscillation and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. And their analysis, published online today in Science, suggests that the slowdown will end in the next few decades.
The temperature of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, particularly the upper layers, goes through natural cycles of warmer and cooler, driven by large circulations of water across these and the rest of the world’s seas. Warmer and cooler periods can last several decades. The analysis shows that usually, when the northern Pacific is warming, the northern Atlantic is cooling, and vice versa—offsetting one another in their impact on atmospheric temperatures in the northern hemisphere. But the cycles, and their magnitude, don’t match exactly. For the past decade, the magnitude of northern Pacific cooling has been greater than that of northern Atlantic warming, resulting in a net slowdown in temperature rise, according to an email sent to me by Byron A. Steinman, assistant professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Minnesota in Duluth, who led the new study.
Understanding these patterns matters because they can counteract or accelerate warming due to human activities. The paper concludes by noting that the two ocean oscillations have “offset anthropogenic warming over the past decade.” However, the authors go on to say that, based on the natural cycles over the past 130 years, the offset trend “will likely reverse…adding to anthropogenic warming in the coming decades.” The oscillations have slowed the warming due to human activities for a while, but when that effect inevitably ends the oscillations will instead add to human warming, raising the rate of increase.
So when will the super heat-up begin? The researchers did not design the study to create a precise timeline. But the historical patterns “suggest that right now we’re near the peak negative excursion, and very close to a turning point,” according to an email from Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, and one of the paper’s three authors. Once that happens, Steinman noted, “warming will accelerate as a result.”
Separate work by Mann, presented in a Scientific American article he wrote last April, also indicates that the pause will not last long. Mann calculated that if the world continues to burn fossil fuels at the current rate, global warming would rise to two degrees Celsius by 2036 (compared with preindustrial levels), crossing a threshold that would harm human civilization. And even if the pause persists for longer than expected, the world would cross the line in 2046. The article includes a monumental graph showing all the details. Mann also published the data sources and formula he used, on Scientific American’s Web site, so anyone could replicate his calculations.
The lesson in all this is that even though the oceans run through natural cycles of warming and cooling, pumping more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere makes the entire system hotter over time. In the past decade the oceans have saved us, to an extent, from rapid atmospheric warming, but when the current ocean effect reverses, our emissions will come back to haunt us.
A German study conducted in 2008 concluded that a meat-eater’s diet is responsible for more than seven times as much greenhouse gas emissions as a vegan’s diet. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N.’s Nobel Prize–winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and a vegetarian himself), urges people to “please eat less meat—meat is a very carbon-intensive commodity.”
SamSam
Senior Member
Here's a little song I wrote
You might want to sing it note for note
Don't worry be happy
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making any potentially dangerous or financial decision, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
When making any potentially dangerous or financial decision, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
- Status
Advertisement:
