CCW – Extinction: It’s not just for Polar Bears anymore

Okay, so this one is a bit of a tear-jerker and I usually like to avoid mixing sentimentality with environmentalism, but it is very informative and interesting if sad. It is greenman3610’s Climate Crock of the Week from about three weeks ago and as usual well worth watching.


I tend to be skeptical about anthropomorphizing our fellow earthlings, but I’ll be damned if that wasn’t a very affectionate mama walrus hugging her baby! If walruses weren’t so ugly they just might top polar bears in terms of public concern…

59 thoughts on “CCW – Extinction: It’s not just for Polar Bears anymore

  1. Skip,

    If i where to accuse anyone here of being a mindless believer it would be you, at least everyone else here has an opinion about something. You just sit there and fire off cheap shots.

    Adelaidy,

    Now you are starting to sound like Tim “the drought will last forever” Flannery. Did you watch QandA last night, poor old TF got all his drought predictions wrong because he did not count on a shift in the Indian Di Pole and a strong La Nina.

    Seriously, there will be another El Nino but while the PDO is in its -ve phase and will be for the next 20 or so years they will be quite weak and the La Nina will dominate.

    Let me ask you, if Al Gores prediction of an ice free Arctic summer by 2013 falls flat on its face will you re evaluate your own predictions?

    Like

  2. Chris s.,

    I have reviewed the literature on SLR and it shows that while there have been decadal variation the overall SLR has not varied from the long term trend. Cazenave, et al, 2008 shows that accelerated thermal expansion component of SLR ended in 2003 and at this time cannot be determined if the accelerated rate was just decadal variation or not. New studies show that the ice loss measurements in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are being over estimated, the actual ice loss is only half what is being predicted by GRACE.

    All of that said, please show where tide surges have increased due to the current global warming vs the long term SLR which has been going on for thousands of years.

    Like

  3. First, apologies for being off thread but I really want to clarify something with Vernon.

    I’ll keep following the discussion about the relationship between AGW and tidal flows, Vernon, but I was hoping you would help me out with another subject.

    As a refresher, we had the following exchange on the GMU Investigating thread:

    . . . North and the panel agreed with Wegman’s findings. –Vernon

    To which I responded”

    Vernon:

    Which of the Wegman “findings” did the North panel “agree with”?

    (Hint: Read their executive summary–not McIntyre]–Skip

    To which you retorted:

    Skip,

    (Hint: read North’s transcript from his testimony to congress.)

    And I have read far more of it than you ever have, Vernon. That is certain. Since you did respond to my subsequent post (GMU Investigating #17) i am forced to assume that you’re embarrassed because you talked smack and now you can’t back it up.

    If you want to disabuse me of my smug impression then answer this question:

    What would North’s testimony before Congress tell me that was substantively different from the NAS report on the hockey stick?

    Like

  4. Vernon -this Cazenave et al? Present-day sea level rise: A synthesis in Comptes Rendus Geosciences.

    The one that states “…whereas the sea level continues to rise, although at a reduced rate compared to the previous decade (2.5 mm/yr versus 3.1 mm/yr)”

    Continues to rise.

    I’m sure, as you’ve reviewed the literature, that you’ve read Milne et al in Nature Geoscience (seeing as you’ve reached relatively obscure journals such as Comptes (impact factor 0.931) Nature Geoscience (impact factor 8.108) should be high on your list of reading material) 2009 who state:

    “Global mean sea-level change has increased from a few centimetres per century over recent millennia to a few tens of centimetres per century in recent decades. This tenfold increase in the rate of rise can be attributed to climate change through the melting of land ice and the thermal expansion of ocean water. As the present warming trend is expected to continue, global mean sea level will continue to rise.”

    Milne et al. cite Cazenave et al 2008 so they have read it, but do not agree with their (and your) assertion. I think you may need to read a little more before stating such things so categorically.

    So, again, abc is easy as 123:

    1) Sea Level is rising due to changing climate (Milne et al. and many others).
    2) Rising sea level is known to affect tides (e.g. deJong & deJong)
    3) Climate change can lead to changing tides (e.g. Pye & Blott 2008*, Suursaar et al. 2010**)

    * Pye & Blott 2008 Decadal-scale variation in dune erosion and accretion rates: An investigation of the significance of changing storm tide frequency and magnitude on the Sefton coast, UK GEOMORPHOLOGY 102^

    Abstract: “An increase in the Fate of mean sea-level rise at both Liverpool and Heysham is evident since 1990 … The incidence of extreme high tides shows an identifiable relationship with the lunar nodal tidal cycle, but the evidence indicates that meteorological forcing has also had a significant effect.

    **Suursuur et al. 2010 Wind and wave storms, storm surges and sea level rise along the Estonian coast of the Baltic Sea in MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND ECOLOGICAL HAZARDS II Book Series: WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment Volume: 127

    Abstract: “Winter changes in atmospheric circulation above Northern Europe are among the most prominent regional manifestations of global climate change … The paper presents a statistical analysis of sea level data from tide gauges during 1899-2008, an analysis of wind data from coastal stations during 1966-2007, and a corresponding wave hindcast study. The results show a positive trend both in local storminess and storm surge height.”

    ^Geomorphology – impact factor 2.119 so you’ve reviewed that too right?

    Like

  5. skip, Vernon’s probably off doing some reading, it seems he’s not managed to review all the literature on SLR after all.

    Looking forward to a response. Or will he do a crakar?

    Like

  6. Vernon, you referenced Cazenave earlier in this thread, I’m sure you’ll be interested in her latest (h/t Hank Roberts):

    Anny Cazenave and William Llovel (2010)
    Contemporary Sea Level Rise
    Annual Review of Marine Science
    Vol. 2: 145-173
    Abstract: “…We show that for the 1993–2007 time span, the sum of climate-related contributions (2.85 ± 0.35 mm year−1) is only slightly less than altimetry-based sea level rise (3.3 ± 0.4 mm year−1): 30% of the observed rate of rise is due to ocean thermal expansion and 55% results from land ice melt. Recent acceleration in glacier melting and ice mass loss from the ice sheets increases the latter contribution up to 80% for the past five years. We also review the main causes of regional variability in sea level trends: The dominant contribution results from nonuniform changes in ocean thermal expansion.”

    http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-marine-120308-081105?journalCode=marine

    How are you getting on with the rest of your reading?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s