DiscoStu Posted May 11, 2016 Five islands have disappeared in the Pacific's Solomon Islands due to rising sea levels and coastal erosion, according to an Australian study that could provide valuable insights for future research. A further six reef islands have been severely eroded in the remote area of the Solomons, the study said, with one experiencing some 10 houses being swept into the sea between 2011 and 2014. "At least 11 islands across the northern Solomon Islands have either totally disappeared over recent decades or are currently experiencing severe erosion," the study published in Environmental Research Letters said. "Shoreline recession at two sites has destroyed villages that have existed since at least 1935, leading to community relocations." The scientists said the five that had vanished were all vegetated reef islands up to five hectares (12 acres) that were occasionally used by fishermen but not populated. "They were not just little sand islands," leader author Simon Albert told AFP. It is feared that the rise in sea levels will cause widespread erosion and inundation of low-lying atolls in the Pacific. Albert, a senior research fellow at the University of Queensland, said the Solomons was considered a sea-level hotspot because rises there are almost three times higher than the global average. The researchers looked at 33 islands using aerial and satellite imagery from 1947 to 2014, combined with historical insight from local knowledge. They found that rates of shoreline recession were substantially higher in areas exposed to high wave energy, indicating a "synergistic interaction" between sea-level rise and waves, which Albert said could prove useful for future study. Those islands which were exposed to higher wave energy—in addition to sea-level rise—were found to have a greatly accelerated loss compared with the more sheltered islands. "This provides a bit of an insight into the future," he said. "There's these global trends that are happening but the local responses can be very, very localised." For now, some communities in the Solomons are already adapting to the changed conditions. "In addition to these village relocations, Taro, the capital of Choiseul Province is set to become the first provincial capital globally to relocate residents and services due to the threat of sea-level rise," the study said. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-05-sea-level-islands-solomons.html#jCp Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waterboy 2.0 Posted May 16, 2016 Quote Confirmed: Southern hemisphere CO2 level rises above symbolic 400 ppm milestone Date May 16, 2016 - 9:58AM Peter Hannam Environment Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald Major CO2 milestone reached Carbon dioxide continues to increase in the atmosphere with a major milestone of 400 parts per million of CO2 recorded in the Southern Hemisphere according CSIRO's Dr David Etheridge. Poll finds climate policy a vote winner Leading climate scientist sacked at sea April joins parade of record global temperatures A significant marker of rising global greenhouse gas emissions has been passed, with a key monitoring site on Tasmania's north-west tip recording atmospheric carbon-dioxide exceeding 400 parts per million for the first time. As foreshadowed by Fairfax Media last week, a baseline reading at the Cape Grim station that exceeded the 400-ppm mark of the primary gas driving global warming was imminent. Cape Grim, one of the world's most important monitoring stations for gauging changes in the atmosphere. Photo: Auscape As it turned out, "the unfortunate milestone" was reached on Tuesday May 10 at 8am, local time, said Paul Krummel, who heads the CSIRO team analysing data from the most important site in the southern hemisphere. (See chart below.) "It's a bit sooner than we expected," Mr Krummel told Fairfax Media. "It just rocketed up there." Australian emissions are on the increase, particularly in the electricity sector. Photo: Michele Mossop Atmospheric readings from Cape Grim, along with two stations in Hawaii and Alaska, are closely watched as they date back decades and closely track a range of pollutants from ozone-depleting chemicals to the various greenhouse gases resulting from burning fossil fuels and clearing forests. Mr Krummel said that while mostly symbolic, the 400-ppm reading "highlights the problem of rising emissions, which are increasing more rapidly than they used to be". A report out earlier this year from the World Meteorological Organization noted atmospheric readings of CO2 at the Mauna Loa site in Hawaii rose 3.05 ppm in 2015 alone – the biggest increase in the 56 years of research. Melting moments: A polar bear off the coast of Svalbard, Norway. Photo: Steven Kazlowski The recent surge in CO2 levels was not unexpected because of the giant El Nino event now breaking up in the Pacific. In El Nino years, global temperatures get a kick higher and droughts tend to be worse. As a result, vegetation take out less CO2 from the atmosphere. CSIRO's Mr Krummel said the El Nino influence was evident in Cape Grim's reading with barely a dip in the past year as might otherwise be expected in spring. "This year, it's just plateaued and now it's taken off again," he said, adding the site was "probably one of the last places on earth" to remain below 400 ppm. Sites in the northern hemisphere exceeded 400 ppm from 2012 onwards. But as the region has greater seasonal variation – mostly because there is more terrestrial vegetation – CO2 concentrations dropped back below that mark each spring. Once Cape Grim gets past a short period with CO2 levels gyrating around 400 ppm, it will need a huge global effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions to push the level back down. "It's not going to go back below 400 ppm for a very long time unless we get very good at mitigation," Mr Krummel said.Global CO2 levels were running at roughly 280 ppm up until about 1850 when they started to take off. (See chart below). Climate scientists, such as David Karoly at Melbourne University, note that when other greenhouse gases, such as methane, are included, the situation is even bleaker. The so-called carbon dioxide-equivalent level that takes in the full global warming impact is now about 485 ppm. Both 2014 and 2015 were record hot years globally in data going back about 130 years. With the effect of a strong El Nino overlaying long-term trends, this year is likely to be even hotter after a scorching start. Ed Hawkins, a climate scientist at the UK's University of Reading, has constructed the following animation showing how the world has warmed in the past 166 years. Many regions of the world are experiencing unusual warmth for May, with parts of Alaska expected to be 15 degrees warmer than average. Even Sydney is running about 5 degrees above average so far for May and Australia on the whole is headed for close to its warmest autumn on record. The Cape Grim site, meanwhile, celebrated its 40th anniversary in March with a cloud over its future because of the CSIRO job cuts. While management has promised to maintain the facility that it runs in cooperation with the Bureau of Meteorology, the number of CSIRO staff analysing the gases collected at the site is expected to be cut by about one-third from the current tally of about 30 researchers. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/confirmed-southern-hemisphere-co2-level-rises-above-symbolic-400-ppm-milestone-20160515-govfq7.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderIdeal Posted May 27, 2016 http://www.nature.com/news/cloud-seeding-surprise-could-improve-climate-predictions-1.19971 This new one says trees are found to release a cloudseeding aerosol 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
woof woof woof Posted June 23, 2016 been a while since I've been on the forum.... still keeping track on how it is all going to shit in great detail hehehe ;-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderIdeal Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) So I wont provide links or even an opinion because mine would be worthless, but stuff like this latest "hottest month"story....NOAA is being quite widely called out, and has been for years, for taking data sets and for lack of a neutral word, fudging them. What gives? Edited October 19, 2016 by ThunderIdeal Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Change Posted October 20, 2016 This video series isnt for the purpose of generating extra discussion, its more for if your currently confused about the what the hell is going on and want a simple and eazy to understand overveiw of the topic. I wish someone showed this to me a few years ago, so ill post in on in case anyone else can benefit from it. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderIdeal Posted October 22, 2016 Good vids, tedious at times in its coverage of who said what but I guess thats for the best. I learnt some junk but it didnt answer my particular question during any of the parts when I was awake. What I turned up in a quick search before asking here was something about adjusting older readings lower because they used to take temp readings in the arvo and newer readings are done in the morning. I know something like that got attention sometime in Australia when all our old data was adjusted down some degrees. First look here, and theyre actually claiming second hottest September but nonetheless (I have seen stories claiming hottest) https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/assessing-global-climate-september-2016 Why are they showing that map and not this one? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201609 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sallubrious Posted October 24, 2016 (edited) I have to confess, I stumbled across this after watching a vid Responsible Choice posted in the youtube vids thread, it was one the mini previews that appeared after his vid finished. Edited October 24, 2016 by Sallubrious 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderIdeal Posted January 9, 2017 Tenured climate professor resigns. Also, Ben Davidson (a denier) of suspicious0bservers has been predicting earth quakes with solar activity with incredible accuracy this past year. Solar activity influences earth. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Curb Posted January 12, 2017 (edited) this is the opinion i hold: 'climate change' as a problem that government has to step in for will ONLY EVER affect me and you, never the corporations (unless we elect a real government). no investment in green energy, make the little guys suffer and count watts making 10% savings when really trying hard, meanwhile getting fucked monetarily. i will state this like fact, even though i havent looked into it that much because ive seen it happen with my eyes and felt the effects of it (ice-fall at summer in a northern desert after midday). CLIMATE CHANGE, sorry, let me clarify: man-made climate change is majority caused by geo-engineering, cloud seeding, and budget airlines. the sky is where climate change happens so i think its where we should all be looking when we try to mandate government to do something. Its as simple as NOT altering the weather or stratospheric makeup. sure, the weather will be a bit crazy for a few years, though it will be as it always has: NATURE KNOWS BEST solar power towers (elemental sodium) NOT solar panels better designed wind power building of new supercities which incorporate building into the ground, off-grid power generation, fractal city planning, self governance and a return to natural and common law feel free to call me crazy EDIT: alan savory proved something to me about ground cover being insulation, biodiversity (or rather BIOMASS) is so important to reverse desertification. its a cool video if you have 20 minutes. another awesome one is greg lawton - greening the deserts. Edited January 12, 2017 by Curb Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderIdeal Posted February 6, 2017 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html NOAA leak 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderIdeal Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) So there you have it Warming may be real But we know for certain that scientists are full of shit Renember when you were ten years old laughing at Christian scientists doing science in reverse? Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’ Anyway.... Behold: Terrible leaders Edited February 6, 2017 by ThunderIdeal 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Change Posted February 6, 2017 Online records show the highest recorded temperature in my local area is 44.6C Today my thermometer peaked @ 45.7C No need to worry about scientist manipulating the data, just record your own 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderIdeal Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) You arent that clueless so i'll assume you're suffering from heat stroke. You need to cool down your bod. Make sure your air conditioner and ice machine is off since appliances contribute to global warming Edited February 6, 2017 by ThunderIdeal 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nothinghead Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) A good reason to be skeptical of claims made by the NOAA, but a misleading article overall. Scientists who study climate change are not nearly as interested in "hottest year on record" claims and "warming pause" claims in isolation than the general public are. That kind of sound-bitey, easily digestible news has its use in alerting people who aren't invested enough to read broadly and deeply to the seriousness of climate change. But it absolutely should not be swaying delegates to a forum as important as COP21 either way on the issue. They should have a far, far better understanding of climate change than would be indicated if this allegedly faked data influenced their decisions in any significant way. I understand that it does have influence on politicians and other non-experts. But to be fair, if these people making important decisions can be so easily duped because of their lack of knowledge on the issues, they shouldn't have a voice on these questions in the first place. These types of studies need to be understood as part of a complex of issues, not reacted to as self-enclosed artifacts. Even if, when the data is verified and the report issued (currently there is no contention against the data, only the way in which it was handled - where's the contradicting evidence?), there is evidence of worst-case scenario manipulation, the stakes are merely that climate change is taking place more slowly than some previously believed. What's the upshot of that? That governments and corporations get to sit on their arses a little longer before taking climate change seriously? That we can deal with more frequent and dramatic weather events for a few more years? That we can squeeze in some extra extinctions before slowing our use of fossil fuels, better regulating manufacturing, and so on? That might be fine for the rich people at the top making these decisions, but not so great for poor people everywhere, West Africans, Bangladeshis, Filipinos, Pacific Islanders, countless species of other plants and animals, and so on. All this aside, it looks like the paper was accurate after all. Edited February 6, 2017 by hashslingr 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderIdeal Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) but your link is old. Now we have a NOAA scientist referring to the earlier (2015) paper that their methods were shitty and they are still working on the fix. This seems to eggface the 2016 biz for "confirming" how legit the 2015 paper was The pause is important because the anthropomorphic argument practically hinges on it. This is important and we'll be hearing more about it. The article isnt misleading. It can be misconstrued - not the articles fault. Your post misleading. Edited February 6, 2017 by ThunderIdeal Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nothinghead Posted February 6, 2017 It doesn't eggface the claims that the paper's data was manipulated if a whistleblower comes along afteward. They're both talking about the 2015 paper, by the way. The article I linked claims that the adjustments made to the data were legitimate. However, you seem to have missed most the the content of my post. Whether the Independent or the Daily Mail is correct in its allegations about the paper the evidence for anthropogenic climate change absolutely does not hinge on the pause argument. Anyone basing their judgement about climate change on a single aspect of it, or study on it, is going to come to a deeply flawed conclusion about it. The article you linked doesn't even claim that - even the Daily Mail is only bold enough to state that the paper had an impact on policy. In fact, the article you linked admits that all that is at stake here is "lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderIdeal Posted February 6, 2017 (edited) "new research published in the journal Science Advances supports previous studies that find scientists have been underestimating the rise in ocean temperatures for decades." 2016 right? Or so I assume. I know it refers to 2015, so called pausebuster. No, anthropomorphic doesnt hinge entirely on the pause hence I threw in "practically" to soften the statement. The pause is clearly a big deal, when a paper appeared to debunk it that was a big deal. So 2016 paper claims their research vindicates the methods used for 2015, THEN the guy in charge of NOAA scientific rigour says "insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause" Id say there could be egg on their face. im glad you challenge me though because now I see given that 2015 appears to have been something of a fiasco per the description, maybe they accidentally produced meaningful results in their alleged quest to fudge, if so then 2016 is off the hook for backing them up at the same time though NOAA is in the process of revising cooler, so NOAA seems to admit their error currently not meaning to take my ball and go home, but im about done discussing it until the allegations have a chance to get passed around Edited February 6, 2017 by ThunderIdeal Bloody touchscreen Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sallubrious Posted February 6, 2017 Online records show the highest recorded temperature in my local area is 44.6C Today my thermometer peaked @ 45.7C No need to worry about scientist manipulating the data, just record your own It's been nudging 46 degrees here too a few times this year. Official BOM data is saying 43 for nearby areas so I don't know where they keep their thermometers. One of the only things I watch MSM news for is the weather reports & they seem rather quiet on the big picture about what's driving all this weather. When we're in El nino they harp on about that but aren't we supposed to be mid way through the ENSO cycle ? It's the first year I've seen an established Opuntia lose turgor and then get sunburnt because the pads have all drooped and then decide to abort 2/3 of itself to survive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
immanuel Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) I'm personally still having serious difficulty with my left-brain sort of functioning in that it is still very difficult to concentrate for extended periods so assuming is generally through right-brain style approaches to explain it as I can. But regarding the climate change stuff, well I believe what we are looking at is sort of more of a half-truth caught up in layers of falsehoods. I think the right framework to approach this with is that they can and do influence weather patterning, and likewise counterparts such as tectonic movements, temperature, the water table as previously shown and then the next bit is that particular influence ties directly into space energies and currents and galactic systems. As an example black holes generally represent a dissipation of energies, but can be utilised with through vibratory upshifts. The next issue is that they use this data to control the population, through overlaying it on places where the Earth changes are actually the result of an evolution of our planet and human species, so they have method here to destroy planetary changes that are of our benefit. I hope that sheds some light here. Inevitably in this situation we all have periods of the dark night and come to terms with things that can really hurt, this applies to greater creational beings too. I think it's important to remember the intention of your soul and that even when we are wrong about we can still make right of it. Either way, the Earth has a serious problem that needs to be addressed, so best to focus there. I think science should address the nature of greater creation first, and the enormous influx that it is having on our planet, in order to understand climate change. Edited February 7, 2017 by manu Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-RC- Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) Courage, is that you? Edited February 7, 2017 by Responsible Choice wrong name, sorry Change ;) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Change Posted February 7, 2017 Manu and i are not the same person if thats what your asking 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-RC- Posted February 7, 2017 ^ Sorry man, I was thinking about a name change when I typed it. I meant Courage. My bad 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
immanuel Posted February 7, 2017 Courage, is that you? Yup. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderIdeal Posted February 7, 2017 First time youve openly admitted it, to my knowledge/recollection Why the hydra? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites