On the one hand,
a dangerous change in ocean circulation seemed unlikely in the next century or two.
Not exact matches
«The best scientists
in the world are all telling us that our activities are
changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we'll continue to see rising
oceans; longer, hotter heat waves;
dangerous droughts and floods; and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict and hunger around the globe,» Obama added.
Built originally as a rigid non-floating jetty for ferrying tourists and locals out to snorkel and scuba dive the Great Barrier Reef one important thing to consider at the time was not planned for and that was that the Palm Cove beach faces south east and the
change in tide levels made it difficult to board passengers with a rising and descending
ocean making it quite
dangerous so nowadays the jetty is a mecca for fishing enthusiasts all year round and both day and night.
It is becoming increasingly clear that marine mammals are sentinels of potentially
dangerous environmental
changes in the
ocean environment.
However, this
in itself is not enough to define what level of warming is «
dangerous,» especially since the projections of actual impacts for any level of warming are highly uncertain, and depend on further factors such as how quickly these levels are reached (so how long ecosystems and society have had to respond), and what other
changes are associated with them (eg: carbon dioxide concentration, since this affects plant photosynthesis and water use efficiency, and
ocean acidification).
This target must be pursued on a timescale of decades, as paleoclimate and ongoing
changes, and the
ocean response time, suggest that it would be foolhardy to allow CO2 to stay
in the
dangerous zone for centuries.
The best scientists
in the world are all telling us that our activities are
changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we'll continue to see rising
oceans, longer, hotter heat waves,
dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe.
«The best scientists
in the world are all telling us that our activities are
changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we'll continue to see rising
oceans, longer, hotter heat waves,
dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe,» Obama said.
Despite the fact that the film delineates a few impacts of an Earth - wide temperature boost anticipated by researchers, for example climbing
ocean levels, more
dangerous storms, and disturbance of sea ebbs and flows and climate designs, it portrays these occasions incident a great deal more quickly and intensely than is recognized logically possible, and the hypothesis that a superstorm will make quick worldwide environmental
change does not show up
in the investigative writing.
He and 21 young people between the ages of 8 and 19 are currently suing the federal government for promoting «the use of fossil fuels, thus increasing the concentration of CO2 emissions
in the atmosphere to unsafe levels and creating the
dangerous climate
change and
ocean acidification that we face today.»
In summary, so little is known abut the deeper 50 % of the
oceans and their floors that it is
dangerous science to state very much at all about mechanisms affecting sea level
change.
Some of the highlights of the first day were the intervention of Lewis Pugh, UN Patron of the
Oceans, live from the Antarctica who analysed the unprecedented speed of climate
change in the polar regions, pollution of the waters and the
dangerous sea level rise.
RealClimate is wonderful, and an excellent source of reliable information.As I've said before, methane is an extremely
dangerous component to global warming.Comment # 20 is correct.There is a sharp melting point to frozen methane.A huge increase
in the release of methane could happen within the next 50 years.At what point
in the Earth's temperature rise and the rise of co2 would a huge methane melt occur?No one has answered that definitive issue.If I ask you all at what point would huge amounts of extra methane start melting, i.e at what temperature rise of the
ocean near the Artic methane ice deposits would the methane melt, or at what point
in the rise of co2 concentrations
in the atmosphere would the methane melt, I believe that no one could currently tell me the actual answer as to where the sharp melting point exists.Of course, once that tipping point has been reached, and billions of tons of methane outgass from what had been locked stores of methane, locked away for an eternity, it is exactly the same as the burning of stored fossil fuels which have been stored for an eternity as well.And even though methane does not have as long a life as co2, while it is around
in the air it can cause other tipping points, i.e. permafrost melting, to arrive much sooner.I will reiterate what I've said before on this and other sites.Methane is a hugely underreported, underestimated risk.How about RealClimate attempts to model exactly what would happen to other tipping points, such as the melting permafrost, if indeed a huge increase
in the melting of the methal hydrate ice WERE to occur within the next 50 years.My amateur guess is that the huge, albeit temporary, increase
in methane over even three or four decades might push other relevent tipping points to arrive much, much, sooner than they normally would, thereby vastly incresing negative feedback mechanisms.We KNOW that quick, huge,
changes occured
in the Earth's climate
in the past.See other relevent posts
in the past from Realclimate.Climate often does not
change slowly, but undergoes huge, quick,
changes periodically, due to negative feedbacks accumulating, and tipping the climate to a quick
change.Why should the danger from huge potential methane releases be vievwed with any less trepidation?