Off Topic. Renewable Energy

The warmers say our govt is doing nothing.
Things have been changing for the better for years.
Lead out of fuel,paint, pencils and if the loonies have there way out of peniss too..
for example. Lot of the atmosphere has been cleaned up.
Get Asian countries to catch up warming might slow down.

Was up near Cooktown a while ago. The plastic on the beach was huge. There was a clean up going on at the time and after reading the barcodes it was all coming from Asia.

The protesters should be aiming their protests that way instead of trying to shut down
Aus.

Started something here Adrian. Not quite about how renewable renewable energy really is..

I'm with pablop with what I have done.

J

Regardless of who's more in the right or wrong here, from the begging of mans industrial revolution, till the present time & as population growth world wide increase in size, so does human over-consumption. This in turn does have an impact on the earth, for how can it not? One only has to see the number of species gone extinct over the last century alone, to realise that yes, we humans are partly to blame.
Through science or stats, we all can believe whom or what we want, but no matter how small, large or as some might say, insignificant amount of man made CO2 is released into the earths atmosphere & even though man might not be the main contributor of such emissions, as compared to the massive amounts, naturally released through natures climatic evolutionary processes/changes over time, there's no denying we humans, are not contributing to some extent or degree, CO2 emission into the atmosphere, the leading cause of the Greenhouse Effect, in turn contributing to changes on the earths climate.
Now as for who's to gain the most by way of profits gained, from the introduction of laws or money spent on the reduction of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, well someones loss will always be another's gain, no?  Sadly even through wars & the death of many an innocent person, profits are constantly being made.
Order, Order in the court fellas. If we can't discuss things in a civil manner (you know like the politicians do) I'll be forced to take Draconian Action

Cheers Kon.  

Spot on kon, I'm actually enjoying this topic and I'm learning stuff too, I'll double that motion kon,please keep it sybil.

cheers moredeep

Kon, your attitude is sensible, logical, and shows a level of education sadly lacking from some posters here.

Kon61gold wrote:Regardless of who's more in the right or wrong here, from the begging of mans industrial revolution, till the present time & as population growth world wide increase in size, so does human over-consumption. This in turn does have an impact on the earth, for how can it not? One only has to see the number of species gone extinct over the last century alone, to realise that yes, we humans are partly to blame.
Through science or stats, we all can believe whom or what we want, but no matter how small, large or as some might say, insignificant amount of man made CO2 is released into the earths atmosphere & even though man might not be the main contributor of such emissions, as compared to the massive amounts, naturally released through natures climatic evolutionary processes/changes over time, there's no denying we humans, are not contributing to some extent or degree, CO2 emission into the atmosphere, the leading cause of the Greenhouse Effect, in turn contributing to changes on the earths climate.
Now as for who's to gain the most by way of profits gained, from the introduction of laws or money spent on the reduction of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, well someones loss will always be another's gain, no?  Sadly even through wars & the death of many an innocent person, profits are constantly being made.
Order, Order in the court fellas. If we can't discuss things in a civil manner (you know like the politicians do) I'll be forced to take Draconian Action      

Cheers Kon.  

Good post! But the rise in atmospheric C02  is now predominantly coming from the  burning of fossil fuels.The evidence for this is the change in the isotopic ratio of atmospheric C02 which is becoming more enriched in C12- the lighter of the C isotopes. If anyone wants a further explanation of this i am happy to explain. Their is other evidence as well

Planetcare, I am not well educated in the sciences, but if the rise in atmospheric CO2 is now predominantly coming from the burning of fossil fuels as stated by highly respected & renowned men/women across the world, educated in their fields of science regarding climate change, then who am I to state else wise. If I cant trust in the integrity, of these highly educated/skilled & experienced men & women of the sciences, who then can I place my trust in? Certainly not my local which doctor.  
Shame, that much of what is stated & brought forth by these men/women of the sciences as being factually/true, only to have their words/submissions drowned out or suppressed, by government bureaucracies with a different self interest at hand.

Cheers Kon.

Alan WA wrote:The warmers say our govt is doing nothing.
Things have been changing for the better for years.
Lead out of fuel,paint, pencils and if the loonies have there way out of peniss too..
for example. Lot of the atmosphere has been cleaned up.
Get Asian countries to catch up warming might slow down.

Was up near Cooktown a while ago. The plastic on the beach was huge. There was a clean up going on at the time and after reading the barcodes it was all coming from Asia.

The protesters should be aiming their protests that way instead of trying to shut down
Aus.

Started something here Adrian. Not quite about how renewable renewable energy really is..

I'm with pablop with what I have done.

J

Yes the topic is proving to be of interest to most of us even though it has side slipped a bit.
It is clear that we as prospectors, detectorists and fossickers have a strong interest in our environment and the freedom to move within it.
contrary to many Greens who seem to think all we want to do bulldoze the trees and dig up the ground looking for gold etc..
For myself the bush, the deserts,the mountains represent my heartland and to knowingly do anything to destroy that is beyond my comprehension.
Yet here we are as a species, deliberately for nothing more than financial gain, stripping our forest of jungles of wildlife and their habitats, polluting our oceans, destroying our rivers, constantly at war with and killing each other for nothing other than power control and money.

One thing that is for certain is that if we do eventually wipe ourselves out due to overpopulation, war, starvation or disease which very likely if we continue along the current path, is that the earth and nature will repair itself. (without us).

Yesterday was only jesting of course that my bedroom will flood.
Woke to breaking news this morning from the experts who predict the sea level will rise 10 metres by the year 2050...….
Now we really should be getting worried.

Bit of light reading, did you realise your farts only linger for 10 years?


https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/05/15/new-zealands-farmers-chance-climate-leaders/

Nightjar wrote:Yesterday was only jesting of course that my bedroom will flood.
Woke to breaking news this morning from the experts who predict the sea level will rise 10 metres by the year 2050...….
Now we really should be getting worried.

Bit of light reading, did you realise your farts only linger for 10 years?


https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/05/15/new-zealands-farmers-chance-climate-leaders/

Hey Peter, that's only a reasonable 333.33mm per year, soon you'll be able to go fishing from your front yard, how good is that.

cheers dave

As I've stated in previous post "WE ARE RABBITS IN A PADDOCK" .
We'll breed up to a point then we soil our nest, disease will set in and we will die back to a manageable population.
Would we be holding this discussion if the worlds population was say a stable 3 billion people?
What sort of conversation will be taking place if and when it reaches 10 or 15 billion ??
We now have a crazy way of thinking in that we have ageing populations in many countries and that we need to breed more young ones to look after the old ones
unfortunately modern medicines which are backed by big pharmaceutical company's that are making big bucks keeping us old farts alive. And believe me; I'm coming from a health industry perspective.Trying to keep people in there 90's alive who are struggling with life by pumping them full of last line antibiotics is cruel.

As a species "homo sapiens"[homo-greedy] we are probably in our first cycle of "RABBITS IN A PADDOCK" going the way of previous hominoids? Will disease/climate/war bring us back to a sensible and manageable population,I don't know.Hopefully the next cycle of homo sapiens [ homo-not so greedy]will be smarter and kinder to each other.

cheers moredeep

Nightjar wrote:f
Woke to breaking news this morning from the experts who predict the sea level will rise 10 metres by the year 2050...….
Now we really should be getting worried.

Could you please provide the source of this breaking news.

I am in full agreement with moredeep. We must somehow get off this Ponzie scheme of breeding more and more people. Just in Australia it was said some years ago that our population should be no more than 25 to 30 million but here we are charging blindly toward 30 million in only a few more years. In the meantime our quality of live for those living in cities is going rapidly downhill.

More people mean more trouble both for the planet and the people. We should forget perpetual growth both in our economy and population and learn how to get along with a static population. It can be done but corporations, even down to local government levels rabidly resist the idea.

As for planetcare tell him to do his own research, he is always wanting others to do it for him so he can come up with some link to throw at you to prove you wrong. Don't help him out he is a climate change dinosaur.

[quote="granite2"
As for planetcare tell him to do his own research, he is always wanting others to do it for him so he can come up with some link to throw at you to prove you wrong. Don't help him out he is a climate change dinosaur. [/quote]
You are the one that needs to do some research because you have proved that you have little or no knowledge of the science of AG climate change.
I challenge you or anybody else here to have a civil and rational debate on the  facts and the science underpinning AGW.
Are you up  for it?
If anyone has any  questions on the topic then  post them and i will do my best to honestly answer them  based on the very best climate science.
Its just unfortunate  that i can't post links here because then all you good folk here could go to  the peer reviewed climate journal articles and other sites, read them and make up your own mind.

Nightjar wrote:Yesterday was only jesting of course that my bedroom will flood.
Woke to breaking news this morning from the experts who predict the sea level will rise 10 metres by the year 2050...….
Now we really should be getting worried.

The  IPCC, is not claiming that the sea level could rise by 6m in 2050 and nor are any other  climate scientists or groups. With respect  I think your breaking news  is a figment of your imagination!

But planetcare would you read anything we found for you. You obviously did not watch that interview on sea water levels in Sydney Harbour or if you did you dismissed it as Irrelevant because it didn't fit your agenda despite being an interview with a BOM scientist. You probably dismissed it because it was an interview on Sky News with Andrew Bolt who most climate changers despise so why should we bother.

And we are having a civil and rational debate.

As for Climate Science, I am no climate scientist but I can read historic data and compare it to the rubbish we are being fed today. Like the hottest summer on record, the biggest fires the longest drought on record all these claims are wrong and historic records prove it.

Then we have the wild predictions that the rivers won't run the dams will never again fill and snow will fail to fall enough to support another snow season - all proven wrong. I could go on for pages on wild predictions that never came close to being true, all made by the so-called climate scientists.

As for global warming, it may be warming but I am yet to be convinced it is Co2 as that is yet only a theory that climate scientists themselves agree on. Our dynamic planet is changing every day and has been forever and will continue to do so for as long as it exists.

What I would like to see is global warming supporters leading the way by going off grid and never again buying anything made by coal or oil, which is pretty much everything. That would convince me that they actually believe in what they are saying.

granite2 wrote:But planetcare would you read anything we found for you. You obviously did not watch that interview on sea water levels in Sydney Harbour or if you did you dismissed it as Irrelevant because it didn't fit your agenda despite being an interview with a BOM scientist. You probably dismissed it because it was an interview on Sky News with Andrew Bolt who most climate changers despise so why should we bother.

For a start you do not base MSL on one tide gauge at ONE location!If you go to the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) site you can get the data for  F  Denison and other tide gauges at other locations.For F Dension it shows a statistically significant (at the 95% confidence level) rise in MSL since 1886!

[quote="granite2"

As for global warming, it may be warming but I am yet to be convinced it is Co2 as that is yet only a theory that climate scientists themselves agree on. Our dynamic planet is changing every day and has been forever and will continue to do so for as long as it exists.
[/quote]
If C02 is not causing the warming then what is? The theory of greenhouse induced global warming makes a number of predictions all of which have been verified by evidence.

Tell me then why there have been many times higher levels of Co2 than now, even during the last ice age?
This is a historical verifiable fact, not a prediction based on modelling that has proven to be unreliable.

Computers are all the same, put rubbish in and you'll get rubbish out but historical facts remain as always, fact.

And I notice you haven't challenged me on those predictions that went so wrong, all based on modelling. If you haven't an answer on those predictions then why are we bothering to worry about all those other predictions, such as the world will end by 2030 or that we can decarbonise this country by 2030 as the climate activists insist we must before we all die. To even lower emissions by 50% by 2030 is absolutely impossible but the labour party insists we must. And I assume they are relying on modelling by all the world's eminent climate scientists.

As for sea levels, I have always thought that water finds its own level, even overe the entire earth. It will have fluctuations due to many factors but the mean sea level must always be the same everywhere.

You can throw all the science at me you like but while historic facts are at odds with the predicted outcomes of the last 50 years you cannot convince me or any of us that refuse to rely on modelled data.

granite2 wrote:Tell me then why there have been many times higher levels of Co2 than now, even during the last ice age?

Sorry but this is just made up by you to suit your narrative! What geological period/epoch are you talking about and what was the solar output at the time? Lets see your evidence!

granite2 wrote:Tell me then why there have been many times higher levels of Co2 than now, even during the last ice age?

And I notice you haven't challenged me on those predictions that went so wrong, all based on modelling.

Climate models have actually done a remarkably good job of predicting climate change (Hansen et al. 2006; Marotzke and Firster 2015). I’m sure that if you dig through the literature, you can find some models somewhere that have been wrong, but the biggest models that most governments and scientists cite have been largely correct. If you want to see this illustrated, Skeptical Science did a nice job of visually comparing the IPCC predictions with the observed warming as well as the failed predictions of climate change deniers. Nevertheless, as a scientist my preference is always the peer-reviewed literature, so in addition to the two papers that I cited at the start of this section, you can also read Frame and Stone (2012) which compared the IPCC’s 1990 prediction with the current warming and found that it was very accurate. Similarly, Rahmstorf et al. (2012) looked at the predictions from the third and fourth IPCC models, and found that the observed trends matched the models. Additionally, the figures that you often see comparing the predictions with the observations often used disparate methodologies, which result in serious biases. Once you correct for that problem, the agreement between the models and the observed warming is much better than what many climate change deniers would have you believe (Cowtan et al. 2015; also, see #22 for evidence that many of the predictions other than increasing temperatures are already coming true).

These are hypothetical data that illustrate the fact that whether or not a model worked should be evaluated based on whether or not the observed data fell within the 95% confidence interval of the model.
Part of the problem here stems from people either misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting how predictive models work. Many people have the unrealistic expectation that the observed data need to be a near perfect match for the prediction line, but that’s not actually how things work. For example, take a look at the hypothetical data above. If I asked you whether or not the model’s predictions came true, you would likely say that they didn’t, but in actuality, they did. You see, when scientists use statistics, whether it is making a prediction, stating a mean, etc., we never expect the true value to exactly match our predictions/estimates. Rather, we report a central value and calculate confidence intervals around that central value. This is the case because there is always variation in the data, and there will always be lots of factors that affect it. So models predict a range of values that are denoted by the confidence intervals. As a result, when you look at a figure like the one above, you should not be seeing whether or not the observed line perfectly matches the predicted line. Rather, you should be seeing whether or not the observed line falls within the 95% confidence intervals for the predicted line. When we apply this to climate change models, we see that in some cases, the observed temperatures are below the central prediction line, but they are still within the 95% confidence intervals, which means that the models were reasonably accurate. This is a really important point. If someone is showing you a comparison between a model and an observation, but they don’t include confidence intervals, you should extremely skeptical, because those confidence intervals are absolutely essential.
Additionally, it is worth noting that many of the models made several predictions based on different levels of greenhouse gas emissions, so you always have to make sure that you are comparing the observed warming with the predicted warming given our rate of emissions. In other words, if you compare the worst case scenario lines with the observed warming, you find a very poor match, but that is because the worst case greenhouse emissions didn’t occur, so that comparison is invalid. Also, realize that these models are affected by natural factors that we can’t predict. For example, our predictions about the effects of greenhouse gasses may be spot on, but if there are more volcanic eruptions than expected, that will affect the overall trend.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, realize that the models are simply predicting future climate change. The fact that we are currently causing the climate to change is not in any way based on the models in question . So even if all the models were wrong, that would not in any way shape or form discredit the fact that we are changing our planet’s climate. Rather, it would simply mean that we don’t have a good idea of how those changes will affect the future.
from 25 myths and bad arguments about climate change
google it as i cannot post links.

Just like so many people in the global climate change scam you try and blind everyone with science. At first it was global warming, then when that didn't fit your narrative it became climate change, now it is climate emergency. What will be the next label used to fit the changing "facts,"

granite2 wrote:Just like so many people in the global climate change scam you try and blind everyone with science. At first it was global warming, then when that didn't fit your narrative it became climate change, now it is climate emergency. What will be the next label used to fit the changing "facts,"

Please have the courtesy to try and answer my previous question to you.What other basis other than the very best science should we use to make informed decisions?
If you don't believe in science and the scientific method then be honest enough to tell everbody.

I don't believe climate scientists because in the past their predictions have all been wrong. I have yet to see one prediction they have made come true. Their models have been wrong, sometimes so far wrong they were laughable.

Maybe we should be more concerned about how much water is escaping the planet into space than the increasing carbon dioxide  levels.
    But in ref to the CO2 levels; Could it possibly be due to the fact that we have denuded the planet of forests and covered what remained with tar and concrete and  metal. This would have the effect of increasing the carbon dioxide levels because the plant life that previously occupied the cleared areas is no longer there to use the CO2 and so the naturally created carbon dioxide from volcanic and other natural earth chemical reactions will increase many times over and the more we expand across the planet the less CO2 will be taken up and on and on it goes. It is just a thought and not based on so called scientific investigation n stuff. So feel free ta shoot the notion down in flames with proven facts.

Approx half the mass/weight of a tree is carbon dioxide that has been removed from the atmosphere and retained in the tree/plant roots and leaves etc as carbon.  Does this carbon get converted to CO2 when the tree burns or is it released into the air as carbon dust that eventually falls back to earth??
    When a tree burns there is a hell of a lot of carbon ash left behind on the ground and hanging in the air, so clearly not all of the carbon gets changed to Carbon dioxide.

granite2 wrote:I don't believe climate scientists because in the past their predictions have all been wrong. I have yet to see one prediction they have made come true. Their models have been wrong, sometimes so far wrong they were laughable.

Again you are wrong! Models have  made a number of predictions and at last count 17 of those have been confirmed  by evidence!
here a recent paper showing how good climate models really are.
Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures
Kevin Cowtan1, Zeke Hausfather2, Ed Hawkins3, Peter Jacobs4,Michael E. Mann5, Sonya K. Miller5,
Byron A. Steinman6, Martin B. Stolpe7, and Robert G. Way8
1Department of Chemistry, University of York, York, UK, 2Energy and Resources Group, University of California, Berkeley,
California, USA, 3National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Department ofMeteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK,
4Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA, 5Department of
Meteorology and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania,
USA, 6Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Large Lakes Observatory, University of Minnesota, Duluth,
Duluth, Minnesota, USA, 7Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, 8Department of
Geography, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Abstract
The level of agreement between climate model simulations and observed surface temperature
change is a topic of scientific and policy concern. While the Earth system continues to accumulate energy
due to anthropogenic and other radiative forcings, estimates of recent surface temperature evolution fall
at the lower end of climate model projections. Global mean temperatures from climate model simulations
are typically calculated using surface air temperatures, while the corresponding observations are based on
a blend of air and sea surface temperatures. This work quantifies a systematic bias in model-observation
comparisons arising from differential warming rates between sea surface temperatures and surface air
temperatures over oceans. A further bias arises from the treatment of temperatures in regions where the
sea ice boundary has changed. Applying the methodology of the HadCRUT4 record to climate model
temperature fields accounts for 38% of the discrepancy in trend between models and observations over the
period 1975–2014.

The greenhouse theory of global warming put forward by  scientists has been confirmed by a variety of evidence  particularly since the satellite era.
I am still wanting for an answer to my question in a previous post.
just to remind you
   granite2 wrote:
   Tell me then why there have been many times higher levels of Co2 than now, even during the last ice age?

Sorry but this is just made up by you to suit your narrative! What geological period/epoch are you talking about and what was the solar output at the time? Lets see your evidence!

adrian ss wrote:Maybe we should be more concerned about how much water is escaping the planet into space than the increasing carbon dioxide  levels.
    But in ref to the CO2 levels; Could it possibly be due to the fact that we have denuded the planet of forests and covered what remained with tar and concrete and  metal. This would have the effect of increasing the carbon dioxide levels because the plant life that previously occupied the cleared areas is no longer there to use the CO2 and so the naturally created carbon dioxide from volcanic and other natural earth chemical reactions will increase many times over and the more we expand across the planet the less CO2 will be taken up and on and on it goes. It is just a thought and not based on so called scientific investigation n stuff. So feel free ta shoot the notion down in flames with proven facts.

Approx half the mass/weight of a tree is carbon dioxide that has been removed from the atmosphere and retained in the tree/plant roots and leaves etc as carbon.  Does this carbon get converted to CO2 when the tree burns or is it released into the air as carbon dust that eventually falls back to earth??
    When a tree burns there is a hell of a lot of carbon ash left behind on the ground and hanging in the air, so clearly not all of the carbon gets changed to Carbon dioxide.

Loss of vegetation and land clearing does add C02 to the atmosphere. But the major contribution to the rise of atmospheric C02 is the burning of fossil fuels.Fossil fuels and  volcanic C02 each have a characteristic isotopic signature (C13/C12). The isotopic signature of atmospheric C02  is moving year by year  closer to that of fossils fuels which shows that they are major contributor  to the rise of atmospheric  C02 which has an  atmospheric resident time of tens of decades compared to water vapor (a powerful greenhouse gas which reinforces the C02 greenhouse effect) which has a very short atmospheric residence time of maybe a few days.

planetcare wrote:

Nightjar wrote:f
Woke to breaking news this morning from the experts who predict the sea level will rise 10 metres by the year 2050...….
Now we really should be getting worried.

Could you please provide the source of this breaking news.

0700 hrs news on Curtin Radio, 101.1FM Western Australia. 30/09/2019

BTW Planetcare, which planet are you from? You are going to burn up on your return home???

Nightjar wrote:

planetcare wrote:

Nightjar wrote:f
Woke to breaking news this morning from the experts who predict the sea level will rise 10 metres by the year 2050...….
Now we really should be getting worried.

Could you please provide the source of this breaking news.

0700 hrs news on Curtin Radio, 101.1FM Western Australia. 30/09/2019

BTW Planetcare, which planet are you from? You are going to burn up on your return home???

Well Curtin radio has got it wrong! No climate scientist  or the IPCC are making such a claim!What the IPCC said was that severe weather events would become more common by 2050!!
Give me time and i will find the relevant  info from the IPCC's special report and post them here.

IPCC PRESS RELEASE
25 September 2019
Choices made now are critical for the future of our ocean and cryosphere
MONACO, Sept 25 – The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report highlights the urgency of prioritizing timely, ambitious and coordinated action to address unprecedented and enduring changes in the ocean and cryosphere.
The report reveals the benefits of ambitious and effective adaptation for sustainable development and, conversely, the escalating costs and risks of delayed action.
The ocean and the cryosphere – the frozen parts of the planet – play a critical role for life on Earth. A total of 670 million people in high mountain regions and 680 million people in low-lying coastal zones depend directly on these systems. Four million people live permanently in the Arctic region, and small island developing states are home to 65 million people.
Global warming has already reached 1°C above the pre-industrial level, due to past and current greenhouse gas emissions. There is overwhelming evidence that this is resulting in profound consequences for ecosystems and people. The ocean is warmer, more acidic and less productive. Melting glaciers and ice sheets are causing sea level rise, and coastal extreme events are becoming more severe.
The IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, approved on 24 September 2019 by the 195 IPCC member governments, provides new evidence for the benefits of limiting global warming to the lowest possible level – in line with the goal that governments set themselves in the 2015 Paris Agreement. Urgently reducing greenhouse gas emissions limits the scale of ocean and cryosphere changes. Ecosystems and the livelihoods that depend on them can be preserved.
“The open sea, the Arctic, the Antarctic and the high mountains may seem far away to many people,” said Hoesung Lee, Chair of the IPCC. “But we depend on them and are influenced by them directly and indirectly in many ways – for weather and climate, for food and water, for energy, trade, transport, recreation and tourism, for health and wellbeing, for culture and identity.”
“If we reduce emissions sharply, consequences for people and their livelihoods will still be challenging, but potentially more manageable for those who are most vulnerable,” Lee said. “We increase our ability to build resilience and there will be more benefits for sustainable development.”
Knowledge assessed in the report outlines climate-related risks and challenges that people around the world are exposed to today and that future generations will face. It presents options to adapt to changes that can no longer be avoided, manage related risks and build resilience for a sustainable future. The assessment shows that adaptation depends on the capacity of individuals and communities and the resources available to them. - 2 -

More than 100 authors from 36 countries assessed the latest scientific literature related to the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate for the report, referencing about 7,000 scientific publications.
The IPCC Special Report is a key scientific input for world leaders gathering in forthcoming climate and environment negotiations, such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference (COP25) in Chile in December
“The world’s ocean and cryosphere have been ‘taking the heat’ from climate change for decades, and consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe,” said Ko Barrett, Vice-Chair of the IPCC. “The rapid changes to the ocean and the frozen parts of our planet are forcing people from coastal cities to remote Arctic communities to fundamentally alter their ways of life,” she added.
“By understanding the causes of these changes and the resulting impacts, and by evaluating options that are available, we can strengthen our ability to adapt,” she said. “The Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate provides the knowledge that facilitates these kinds of decisions.”
Major changes in high mountains affecting downstream communities
People in mountain regions are increasingly exposed to hazards and changes in water availability, the report said.
Glaciers, snow, ice and permafrost are declining and will continue to do so. This is projected to increase hazards for people, for example through landslides, avalanches, rockfalls and floods.
Smaller glaciers found for example in Europe, eastern Africa, the tropical Andes and Indonesia are projected to lose more than 80% of their current ice mass by 2100 under high emission scenarios. The retreat of the high mountain cryosphere will continue to adversely affect recreational activities, tourism, and cultural assets.
As mountain glaciers retreat, they are also altering water availability and quality downstream, with implications for many sectors such as agriculture and hydropower.
“Changes in water availability will not just affect people in these high mountain regions, but also communities much further downstream,” said Panmao Zhai, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.
“Limiting warming would help them adapt to changes in water supplies in mountain regions and beyond, and limit risks related to mountain hazards,” he said. “Integrated water management and transboundary cooperation provides opportunities to address impacts of these changes in water resources.”
Melting ice, rising seas
Glaciers and ice sheets in polar and mountain regions are losing mass, contributing to an increasing rate of sea level rise, together with expansion of the warmer ocean.
While sea level has risen globally by around 15 cm during the 20th century, it is currently rising more than twice as fast – 3.6 mm per year – and accelerating, the report showed.
Sea level will continue to rise for centuries. It could reach around 30-60 cm by 2100 even if greenhouse gas emissions are sharply reduced and global warming is limited to well below 2°C, but around 60-110 cm if greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase strongly.
“In recent decades the rate of sea level rise has accelerated, due to growing water inputs from ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, in addition to the contribution of meltwater from glaciers and - 3 -

the expansion of warmer sea waters,” said Valérie Masson-Delmotte, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group I.
“This new assessment has also revised upwards the projected contribution of the Antarctic ice sheet to sea level rise by 2100 in the case of high emissions of greenhouse gases,” she said. “The wide range of sea level projections for 2100 and beyond is related to how ice sheets will react to warming, especially in Antarctica, with major uncertainties still remaining.”
More frequent extreme sea level events
Sea level rise will increase the frequency of extreme sea level events, which occur for example during high tides and intense storms. Indications are that with any degree of additional warming, events that occurred once per century in the past will occur every year by mid-century in many regions, increasing risks for many low-lying coastal cities and small islands.
Without major investments in adaptation, they would be exposed to escalating flood risks, the report shows. Some island nations are likely to become uninhabitable due to climate-related ocean and cryosphere change, the report said, but habitability thresholds remain extremely difficult to assess.
Increases in tropical cyclone winds and rainfall are exacerbating extreme sea level events and coastal hazards. Hazards will be further be intensified by an increase in the average intensity, magnitude of storm surge and precipitation rates of tropical cyclones, especially if greenhouse gas emissions remain high.
“Various adaptation approaches are already being implemented, often in response to flooding events, and the report highlights the diversity of options available for each context to develop integrated responses anticipating the full scale of future sea level rise,” said Masson-Delmotte.
Changing ocean ecosystems
Warming and changes in ocean chemistry are already disrupting species throughout the ocean food web, with impacts on marine ecosystems and people that depend on them, the report said.
To date, the ocean has taken up more than 90% of the excess heat in the climate system. By 2100, the ocean will take up 2 to 4 times more heat than between 1970 and the present if global warming is limited to 2°C, and up to 5 to 7 times more at higher emissions. Ocean warming reduces mixing between water layers and, as a consequence, the supply of oxygen and nutrients for marine life.
Marine heatwaves have doubled in frequency since 1982 and are increasing in intensity. They are projected to further increase in frequency, duration, extent and intensity. Their frequency will be 20 times higher at 2°C warming, compared to pre-industrial levels. They would occur 50 times more often if emissions continue to increase strongly.
The ocean has taken up between 20 to 30% of human-induced carbon dioxide emissions since the 1980s, causing ocean acidification. Continued carbon uptake by the ocean by 2100 will exacerbate ocean acidification.
Ocean warming and acidification, loss of oxygen and changes in nutrient supplies, are already affecting the distribution and abundance of marine life in coastal areas, in the open ocean and at the sea floor.
Shifts in the distribution of fish populations have reduced the global catch potential. In the future, some regions, notably tropical oceans, will see further decreases, but there will be increases in others, such as the Arctic. Communities that depend highly on seafood may face risks to nutritional health and food security. - 4 -

“Cutting greenhouse gas emissions will limit impacts on ocean ecosystems that provide us with food, support our health and shape our cultures,” said Hans-Otto Pörtner, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II. “Reducing other pressures such as pollution will further help marine life deal with changes in their environment, while enabling a more resilient ocean.”
“Policy frameworks, for example for fisheries management and marine-protected areas, offer opportunities for communities to adapt to changes and minimize risks for our livelihoods,” he added.
Declining Arctic sea ice, thawing permafrost
The extent of Arctic sea ice is declining in every month of the year, and it is getting thinner. If global warming is stabilized at 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the Arctic ocean would only be ice-free in September – the month with the least ice – once in every hundred years. For global warming of 2°C, this would occur up to one year in three.
Some people living in the Arctic, especially indigenous peoples, have already adjusted their traveling and hunting activities to the seasonality and safety of land, ice and snow conditions, and some coastal communities have planned for relocation. Their success in adapting depends on funding, capacities, and institutional support, the report shows.
Permafrost ground that has been frozen for many years is warming and thawing and widespread permafrost thaw is projected to occur in the 21st century. Even if global warming is limited to well below 2°C, around 25% of the near-surface (3-4 meter depth) permafrost will thaw by 2100. If greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase strongly, there is a potential that around 70% near-surface permafrost could be lost.
Arctic and boreal permafrost hold large amounts of organic carbon, almost twice the carbon in the atmosphere, and have the potential to significantly increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere if they thaw. It is unclear whether there is already a net release of carbon dioxide or methane due to the ongoing thaw of the Arctic permafrost. In the future, increased plant growth can increase the storage of carbon in soils and offset carbon release from permafrost thaw, but not at the scale of large changes on the long term.
Wildfires are disturbing ecosystems in most tundra and boreal as well as mountain regions.
Knowledge for urgent action
The report finds that strongly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and carefully managing the use of natural resources would make it possible to preserve the ocean and cryosphere as a source of opportunities that support adaptation to future changes, limit risks to livelihoods and offer multiple additional societal benefits.
“We will only be able to keep global warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels if we effect unprecedented transitions in all aspects of society, including energy, land and ecosystems, urban and infrastructure as well as industry. The ambitious climate policies and emissions reductions required to deliver the Paris Agreement will also protect the ocean and cryosphere – and ultimately sustain all life on Earth,” said Debra Roberts, Co-Chair of IPCC Working Group II.
SROCC provides the best available scientific knowledge to empower governments and communities to take action, embedding that scientific knowledge on unavoidable change and plausible futures into their own context, to limit the scale of risks and climate impacts.
The report gives evidence of the benefits of combining scientific with local and indigenous knowledge to develop suitable options to manage climate change risks and enhance resilience. This is the first IPCC report that highlights the importance of education to enhance climate change, ocean and cryosphere literacy. - 5 -
Nowhere in this press release  or the report does the IPCC claim that sea levels will rise by 10 meters by 2050! Its a media beat up!!!

planetcare wrote:

adrian ss wrote:Maybe we should be more concerned about how much water is escaping the planet into space than the increasing carbon dioxide  levels.
    But in ref to the CO2 levels; Could it possibly be due to the fact that we have denuded the planet of forests and covered what remained with tar and concrete and  metal. This would have the effect of increasing the carbon dioxide levels because the plant life that previously occupied the cleared areas is no longer there to use the CO2 and so the naturally created carbon dioxide from volcanic and other natural earth chemical reactions will increase many times over and the more we expand across the planet the less CO2 will be taken up and on and on it goes. It is just a thought and not based on so called scientific investigation n stuff. So feel free ta shoot the notion down in flames with proven facts.

Approx half the mass/weight of a tree is carbon dioxide that has been removed from the atmosphere and retained in the tree/plant roots and leaves etc as carbon.  Does this carbon get converted to CO2 when the tree burns or is it released into the air as carbon dust that eventually falls back to earth??
    When a tree burns there is a hell of a lot of carbon ash left behind on the ground and hanging in the air, so clearly not all of the carbon gets changed to Carbon dioxide.

Loss of vegetation and land clearing does add C02 to the atmosphere. But the major contribution to the rise of atmospheric C02 is the burning of fossil fuels.Fossil fuels and  volcanic C02 each have a characteristic isotopic signature (C13/C14). The isotopic signature of atmospheric C02  is moving year by year  closer to that of fossils fuels which shows that they are major contributor  to the rise of atmospheric  C02 which has an  atmospheric resident time of tens of decades compared to water vapor (a powerful greenhouse gas which reinforces the C02 greenhouse effect) which has a very short atmospheric residence time of maybe a few days.

Sounds plausible to me.

So if the C14/C13 is moving closer to that of fossil fuels, what would be causing this? Could this be as I said, due to the land clearing and increasing spread of cities across the surface of the earth causing even more natural CO2 to remain in the atmosphere.
At what altitude are the CO2 levels measured.
Countries like Australia with population 23,000,000 produce very little CO2 compared to China India/Middle East and the USA that have populations in the hundreds of millions. These countries use enormous quantities of fossil fuels.
Why would the Middle East or China cut back on coal and oil? The Middle East survives on oil sales.
In Australia we have huge uranium deposits that can be used to produce and supply very very clean energy yet we do not utilise it because the Greens think the nuclear power stations would go into meltdown and wipe us all out by atomic radiation poisoning. There are nuclear power stations throughout most of Europe China and Japan and Russia and England that have been in use for more that 60 years.. The world is still here.