Global warming milestone about to be passed and there's no going back.

As the records keep tumbling, and after the shocking milestone reached in February, it looks like more bad news coming as it seems we are about to pass another major climate change marker.

www.smh.com.au...

The aptly named Cape Grim monitoring site jointly run by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology will witness the first baseline reading of 400 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, researchers predict.

"Once it's over [400 ppm], it won't go back," said Paul Fraser, dubbed by CSIRO as the Air Man of Cape Grim, and now a retired CSIRO fellow. "It could be within 10 days."

So what is the significance of 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Dr Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at the University of Reading: “This event is a milestone on a road to unprecedented climate change for the human race. The last time the Earth had this much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was more than a million years ago, when modern humans hadn’t even evolved yet.

We already have coral reefs dissolving due to high amount of carbon dioxide in the water causing acidification.

www.gizmodo.com.au...

As if the oceans needed more terrible news, scientists have learned that the coral reefs surrounding the Florida Keys are dissolving. The culprit — ocean acidification — wasn’t expected to start hitting reefs hard for another three decades.

“We don’t have as much time as we previously thought,” oceanographer Chris Langdon of the University of Miami said in a statement. “The reefs are beginning to dissolve away.”

When carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater, it produces acid, causing the pH to drop. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the pH of ocean surfaces worldwide has fallen by about 0.1 units, representing a 30 per cent increase in acidity. The oceans will continue to become more acidic as long as humans keep pumping carbon into the air.

Already we are seeing large scale changes including the huge fires in Alberta, and we've lost 5 Pacific Islands in the Solomon's.

www.theguardian.com...

Five tiny Pacific islands have disappeared due to rising seas and erosion, a discovery thought to be the first scientific confirmation of the impact of climate change on coastlines in the Pacific, according to Australian researchers.

The study is the first that scientifically “confirms the numerous anecdotal accounts from across the Pacific of the dramatic impacts of climate change on coastlines and people,” the researchers wrote in separate commentary on an academic website.

The scientists used aerial and satellite images dating back to 1947 of 33 islands as well as traditional knowledge and radiocarbon dating of trees for their findings.

Of course there are those who will continue to deny climate change until they are blue in the face. Interestingly, it seems that climate change deniers are in the minority these days.



thehill.com...

A new survey finds that 70 percent of Americans believe the climate is changing.

The poll from Monmouth University, released Tuesday, found a stark partisan divide on most issues surrounding climate change, including whether it is happening, how serious it is and what should be done about it.

a reply to: cuckooold

Sorry, I can't accept this theory. I propose a different theory; maybe if we didn't use and pollute the environment with radioactive materials so much, we wouldn't have so many problems. Somehow all of our corporately paid for scientist 'geniuses' lay claim that humans account for the global changes since the industrial age or that 'we haven't been in a scenario like this since 1 million years ago...' and everyone accepts this unanimously. We do not have records for most of the industrialized society that are accurate nor do we have any for the past million years save for core samples and tree rings. C'mon folks, really?!

So we be Baaaaaad Humans and we burn stuff (sorta like what happens in nature) but we are responsible for global calamity in the short timeframe of 100+- years against a 4.5 billion year old planet....

Pfffft.

Climate change is happening but it always has been.

It's still debatable that humans are solely responsible. It's definitely not a good thing with all the industrial pollution, however we don't know enough yet about how our global environmental systems work so we don't really know with certainty what we are looking at.

Some things are cyclical and we in the big picture are still theorizing cause and effects.

You can't cite a few islands coming or going as definitive proof. The same with the arctic and antarctic ice packs. In the last few years the data has been very contradictory. What you didn't include is we gained a few new islands in other locations.

The only thing you can say for sure is that the climate is NOT static, good or bad.

You laid out a nice well done thread, so Thank You!! Loving the pictures!

a reply to: Caver78

Is it debatable that we are putting more co2 in the air?

a reply to: Sremmos80

Deforestation could be a real factor in co2 levels because of the destruction of the rain forests and all the large fires over the last decade alone... And of course all the forestry that has been producing the world's wood supply...
There just is not as much co2 being converted to oxygen...
If this is the real reason then we are in huge trouble because the effects will multiply until balanced again through regrowth...

While this could be a real possibility I still believe it is more likely we are entering a mini ice age that will last around 40 years...

originally posted by: cuckooold
As the records keep tumbling, and after the shocking milestone reached in February, it looks like more bad news coming as it seems we are about to pass another major climate change marker.

www.smh.com.au...

The aptly named Cape Grim monitoring site jointly run by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology will witness the first baseline reading of 400 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, researchers predict.

"Once it's over [400 ppm], it won't go back," said Paul Fraser, dubbed by CSIRO as the Air Man of Cape Grim, and now a retired CSIRO fellow. "It could be within 10 days."

So what is the significance of 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Dr Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at the University of Reading: “This event is a milestone on a road to unprecedented climate change for the human race. The last time the Earth had this much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was more than a million years ago, when modern humans hadn’t even evolved yet.

We already have coral reefs dissolving due to high amount of carbon dioxide in the water causing acidification.

www.gizmodo.com.au...

As if the oceans needed more terrible news, scientists have learned that the coral reefs surrounding the Florida Keys are dissolving. The culprit — ocean acidification — wasn’t expected to start hitting reefs hard for another three decades.

“We don’t have as much time as we previously thought,” oceanographer Chris Langdon of the University of Miami said in a statement. “The reefs are beginning to dissolve away.”

When carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater, it produces acid, causing the pH to drop. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the pH of ocean surfaces worldwide has fallen by about 0.1 units, representing a 30 per cent increase in acidity. The oceans will continue to become more acidic as long as humans keep pumping carbon into the air.

Already we are seeing large scale changes including the huge fires in Alberta, and we've lost 5 Pacific Islands in the Solomon's.

www.theguardian.com...

Five tiny Pacific islands have disappeared due to rising seas and erosion, a discovery thought to be the first scientific confirmation of the impact of climate change on coastlines in the Pacific, according to Australian researchers.

The study is the first that scientifically “confirms the numerous anecdotal accounts from across the Pacific of the dramatic impacts of climate change on coastlines and people,” the researchers wrote in separate commentary on an academic website.

The scientists used aerial and satellite images dating back to 1947 of 33 islands as well as traditional knowledge and radiocarbon dating of trees for their findings.

Of course there are those who will continue to deny climate change until they are blue in the face. Interestingly, it seems that climate change deniers are in the minority these days.

thehill.com...

A new survey finds that 70 percent of Americans believe the climate is changing.

The poll from Monmouth University, released Tuesday, found a stark partisan divide on most issues surrounding climate change, including whether it is happening, how serious it is and what should be done about it.

Five tiny Pacific islands have disappeared due to rising seas and erosion, a discovery thought to be the first scientific confirmation of the impact of climate change on coastlines in the Pacific, according to Australian researchers.

Name of the island Country Land formation year(s)
Hunga Ha'apai Tonga 2014–15, 2009[5]
Jadid Island Yemen 2013[6]
Nishinoshima Japan 2013–15, 1973–74[7]
Yaya Island Russia 2013
Zalzala Koh Pakistan 2013[8]
Sholan Island Yemen 2011[6]
Peer Ghaib, Balochistan Pakistan 2010, 2004[9]
Home Reef Tonga 2006, 1984[10]
Norderoogsand Germany 1999[11]
Kavachi Solomon Islands 1999–2003, 1991, 1986, 1978, 1976, 1969–70, 1965, 1963–64, 1961, 1958, 1952–53[12]
Metis Shoal Tonga 1995, 1979, 1967–68[13]
Fukutoku-Okanoba Japan 1986, 1974–75, 1914, 1904–05[14]
Kuwae Vanuatu 1974, 1971, 1959, 1949, 1948, 1923–25[15]
Surtsey Iceland 1963–67[16]
Ilha Nova (Capelinhos) Portugal 1957–58[17]
Myōjin-shō Japan 1952–53, 1946[18]
Anak Krakatau Indonesia 1927–30[19]
Fonuafo'ou Tonga 1927–28[20]
Banua Wuhu Indonesia 1918–19, 1904[21]
Name of the island Country Land formation year(s)
Hunga Ha'apai Tonga 2014–15, 2009[5]
Jadid Island Yemen 2013[6]
Nishinoshima Japan 2013–15, 1973–74[7]
Yaya Island Russia 2013
Zalzala Koh Pakistan 2013[8]
Sholan Island Yemen 2011[6]
Peer Ghaib, Balochistan Pakistan 2010, 2004[9]
Home Reef Tonga 2006, 1984[10]
Norderoogsand Germany 1999[11]
Kavachi Solomon Islands 1999–2003, 1991, 1986, 1978, 1976, 1969–70, 1965, 1963–64, 1961, 1958, 1952–53[12]
Metis Shoal Tonga 1995, 1979, 1967–68[13]
Fukutoku-Okanoba Japan 1986, 1974–75, 1914, 1904–05[14]
Kuwae Vanuatu 1974, 1971, 1959, 1949, 1948, 1923–25[15]
Surtsey Iceland 1963–67[16]
Ilha Nova (Capelinhos) Portugal 1957–58[17]
Myōjin-shō Japan 1952–53, 1946[18]
Anak Krakatau Indonesia 1927–30[19]
Fonuafo'ou Tonga 1927–28[20]
Banua Wuhu Indonesia 1918–19, 1904[21]

New islands come and go... the hubris and arrogance of the human race remains the same....

a reply to: cuckooold

Even if this is true (which I doubt) there isn't a damn thing we can do. The climate is going to do what it wants with or without us.

Now if you want to tackle a tangible problems like pollution then I am listening, however, I am talking about dumping chemicals in rivers, nuclear waste etc...not naturally occurring gasses.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

True, humans have cut down 80% of the worlds forest, that alone is enough evidence towards higher Co2 levels in the air, there is simply not enough forest to "clean" the air.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Caver78

Is it debatable that we are putting more co2 in the air?

Everything is debatable.

a reply to: notmyrealname

(Facepalm) Please do some basic, basic, research. The vast majority of the islands you listed were volcanic ones that eroded away after eruptions because the sea washed them away faster than new material could be put down.

a reply to: Sremmos80

It's not, LOL!!
We are putting SOME in, but more comes from natural processes and also, like mentioned, deforestation.

Actually if you want to get "pithy" we don't know that some of what humans have done hasn't temporarily forestalled other changes in the climate. No studies really have been done in the reverse.

It's arguable that by creating micro climates we've done some minimal benefit on the local-regional levels.

Rezlooper has done some great threads on Methane which is the real elephant in the room. Fussing about CO2 rise is piddly in comparison.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

...and your point is? Yes they come and go. The fact that humans living on this rock for a very minuscule period of time seem to think that we are the masters of disaster and cause anything on a planetary scale by burning stuff is foolish. Nuclear pollution is far more dangerous than burning coal but somehow no-one is talking about that.

....silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.

a reply to: Mianeye

If global warming and the rise in co2 is infact being caused because of deforestation...
Then I am 100 times more afraid for all mankind than if it is due to pollution...
The Earth is alive... it is stirring from a peaceful slumber... I hope for us all a balance is restored before it wakes up and makes cataclysmic changes to restore itself...

originally posted by: notmyrealname
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

...and your point is? Yes they come and go. The fact that humans living on this rock for a very minuscule period of time seem to think that we are the masters of disaster and cause anything on a planetary scale by burning stuff is foolish. Nuclear pollution is far more dangerous than burning coal but somehow no-one is talking about that.

....silly rabbit, Trix are for kids.

No, hold it right there. You responded to a cite that mentioned rising sea levels overwhelming islands with a list of islands that were born from volcanic eruptions and then eroded below sea level by the waves because they were basically made from volcanic gravel. There was no equivalence whatsoever. Your list was meaningless and don't pretend otherwise.

a reply to: Caver78

It is true the methane release is the bigger threat but it is also caused by the rise in co2 levels attributing to the warming necessary for the melting of the ice caps which have contained the methane...
So co2 is like the ignitor while methane would be the fuel for the fire...

a reply to: cuckooold

I read through your article but there is something I don't understand and that is the loss of the tiny Solomon Islands.
I live near a sandbank and have been coming to the beach for over 60 years and we have seen no increase in the shore line here - which surely we should have done with properties built on this sandbank during this time. If the sea has rising around the Solomans why hasn't it risen around the uK?

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Caver78

It is true the methane release is the bigger threat but it is also caused by the rise in co2 levels attributing to the warming necessary for the melting of the ice caps which have contained the methane...
So co2 is like the ignitor while methane would be the fuel for the fire...

Sadly methane release is already happening in Siberia. There is also some degree of worry about methane hydrate deposits off the coast of Norway destabilising.

a reply to: cuckooold

NASA’s global temperature data is measured from a 1951-1980 baseline,

See anything wrong with this?

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: cuckooold

I read through your article but there is something I don't understand and that is the loss of the tiny Solomon Islands.
I live near a sandbank and have been coming to the beach for over 60 years and we have seen no increase in the shore line here - which surely we should have done with properties built on this sandbank during this time. If the sea has rising around the Solomans why hasn't it risen around the uK?

This article goes into some detail. I've taken a couple of excerpts, but it is worth reading the whole article.

e360.yale.edu...

What’s true for temperature, it turns out, is also true for another frequently invoked consequence of global warming. Sea level, according to the best current projections, could rise by about a meter by 2100, in large part due to melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. But that figure, too, is just a global average. In some places — Scotland, Iceland, and Alaska for example — it could be significantly less in the centuries to come. In others, like much of the eastern United States, it could be significantly more.

If the idea of local differences in sea level comes as a surprise, it’s probably because the experts themselves are only now beginning to fully realize what might cause such differences, and how significant they might be.

It’s even measurable, despite the fact that the melting of the ice sheets has barely begun. Even when you correct for other effects, says Mitrovica, you can still see that Europe’s sea level rise is less than you’d expect. “It’s profoundly puzzling,” he says, “until you realize you’re seeing the gravitational signal of Greenland melting.”

When he started looking at regional effects, Mitrovica recalls, some climate-change deniers were noting that sea-level rise was happening at different rates in different regions, arguing that this proved there was no global trend, and thus no global warming. That was already a bogus argument, but now that he and others have begun investigating the gorilla in the living room, it’s even more absurd. The science is so straightforward, he says, that “if you saw that sea level was rising uniformly around the world, it would be proof that the big ice sheets are not melting.”

It is called weather and climate . It has always been called that and will always be . For humankind to be so arrogant they believe they could harm this world one iota......too many checks and balances. And ELE events.