May 12, 2015 - FEEM Lecture: "Arctic Amplification, Climate Change, Global Warming"
Economy | Information | History | Online | Facts | World | Global | Money
FEEM Lecture by Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics, University of Cambridge: "Arctic Amplification, Climate Change, Global Warming. New Challenges from the Top of the World" The continuous and progressive transformations related to global warming in the Arctic are posing new challenges which require appropriate reflection as well as innovative and efficient solutions. The melting of the Arctic ice started over 60 years ago, but its quick acceleration in the last decade brings about a wide range of dramatic consequences at economic, social and environmental level that in turn have geostrategic implications on a world scale. What a few years ago was considered mainly a local problem is nowadays showing its full potential in transforming consolidated geopolitical relations: the melting of the Arctic ice - which is actually faster than predicted - may lead to conflicts in terms of navigation along new shipping routes, access to local resources and the subsistence of indigenous and local populations. While looking for scientific and technological solutions, it is now urgent to also identify a new international governance that may support the implementation of an Arctic cooperation management system at a world level. Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Physics at the University of Cambridge, in the Lecture "Arctic Amplification, Climate Change, Global Warming. New Challenges from the Top of the World" will discuss these topics from a privileged point of view: leader of over 40 polar expeditions from the '70s until today, Professor Wadhams is in fact one of the most renowned international experts in the field. Presenting the results of over 40 years of research to an audience of experts, scholars and researchers, he will provide a unique perspective on the relationship between global warming in the Arctic and geopolitical dynamics, along with new solutions to adequately address the issues at stake. More information at: http://www.feem.it/getpage.aspx?id=7396&sez=Events&padre=81
Comments
-
Even at 400 PPM CO2, it is Still one of the lowest CO2 concentrations in the whole of Earth's history (and LIFE FLOURISHED). Speaking in Geological time periods only 2 other short periods in history has CO2 been this low. 99% of Earth time has seen NO polar ice caps and much higher CO2 levels (and LIFE FLOURISHED). For humans to live in an advanced civilized culture we need energy, so lets stop complaining about CO2 and lets start working on ways to Live with it (in reality only those that choose to live next to the Sea will be severely impacted in the short term, other than changing weather patterns which will need to be addressed and worked around).
-
None of the sequestration ideas work at 10-petagrams carbon into the sky last year, 3.05-ppm gained in a single year ... non-starter until emissions lower significant to the planet not our interpretation of data from out-gassing CO2 by the oceans, and, as they readjust CO2 remains constant for centuries.
That tipping-point was below 320-ppm my take, close enough to Pleistocene variation to get away with it and by 335-ppm a lost cause from accelerated globalization, aka modern colonialism-cum-nationalism under the new-feudalism to ship it to the slave-nation for mfg then to the haves-nation to cash in mentality took over.
It's a problem when we entered a geologic excursion from a huge carbon perturbation proven by the oceans acidifying 10-times faster than a mass-extinction, laugh it off, eh?
Saving the Arctic sea-ice is the Last Stand of modern "civilization" now, good luck on that for your kids, eh? -
why do these guys never mention animal agriculture it is worse then fossil fuels....
-
Save Porter Ranch, Facebook.
-
+kim weaver you are becoming incoherent. This is no surprise .I imagine seeing your cult of pseudo science being attacked from all sides is very disturbing.the passage of time has been cruel to the cult.Too many lies and bending of the data have been exposed.
-
Thank you very much for uploading this lecture, absolutely fascinating, and well executed , though would have been better if areas were highlighted (colour?)on maps and diagrams Peter referenced in order throughout. I think another issue for the future will be the static global divisions man has created, as the planetary systems are constantly evolving, and people will need to move more, thus creating more tension - like Europe now...
-
KEY word here is crops. Agriculture needs stable weather patterns to remain constant in production. Impact is drought, bizarre weather. Atmosphere Imbalance = unpredictable future for our children.
-
Graph at 38:21 predicts no summer sea ice in the Arctic. Previous graphs predicted this summer 2015, now extended to 2017. This is a graph using least squares. Least squares has meaning and works only on dependent variables. Let us look at the variables of this graph to see if the function y = f(x) holds true for least squares where y is a function of x. X is time and Y is sea ice volume. Okay, this graph proves ice is made by time. Well, this is interesting physics. I was told ice was made by cold temperatures below 0 C, varying a bit with salinity of the water.
So, this graph is statistically invalid. Ice is not a function of time, and we cannot go back in time to stop sea ice loss. Ice is a function of climate in the Arctic. Is the x-axis ever CO2? If it is presumed CO2 is linked to Arctic sea ice, the graph must be x is CO2 and y is sea ice volume. Where is this graph? Correct. It does not exist. Why? Because there is no correlation.
Graphs of x and y that and independent cannot be set to a least squares line or parabola or any other function as the fit has no meaning. They must be dependent variables.
Here is a similar example. You want to trade in silver futures. You get out Excel and fit a trend line to silver prices. Then you buy, buy, buy because you think that silver prices are a function of time. Is this true? No, silver price is due to supply, demand, and government manipulation related to currencies vs precious metals. Therefore, you will go broke using this approach. Now, if you understand why you cannot predict the market with trend lines of time, why do you suddenly agree that climate is a function of time, and these curves predict your future?
All NOAA trends predicting mass death, doom, and Armageddon are based on climate versus time for two reasons. First the trend can at various times show downward trends to support an agenda. Second, NOAA has no idea what drives climate, so all they do is make time series of independent variables not dependent, predictive variables. These graphs have zero statistical, scientific, and social value. Babble on.
Lastly the graph shows the minima during two weeks out of the year. In two weeks, the ice rebounds. This is not a graph of the end of Arctic sea ice by any means. -
Deforestation is the greatest threat to the Earths biosphere not Co2 .
-
+kim weaver if you think willie soon is an idiot then you are not open to reason and i am wasting my time replying to you you have a group think and feeble mind and i must leave you to keep working for the global elite my sympathies to you you are not alone you have al gore and all his cronies to love you
-
I'm obliged to repeat my correct comment because it's been fouled by those fake non-responses they call "Look Squirrel !" or "Strawman" or something. Here it is:
At 8:31 (60-90N graph) Prof. Peter Wadhams says "total amount of warming in the Arctic over that whole period has been something like 3 degrees" yet the very graph he shows clearly has a trend from ~-0.8 at 1900 to ~+1.3 at 2005, a warming of 2.1 degrees, just by eye balling without digitizing and making an LSQ fit trend line, which is 2.5x the global MST increase of 0.85 degrees just in the range like climate scientists say. Peter is way too grossly imprecise there. However, Arctic region is typically considered 70-90N (sometimes with an ocean bulge lower) not 60-90N, so he's showing 222% of the typical Arctic region and the lower latitude 122% of that will likely have experienced slightly less warming than the 70-90N Arctic region typically considered.
Per Jason Box at Economist Arctic Summit 2015 and many others, Arctic region has presently warmed ~2.4 degrees relative to 1880-1990 period (based on my logical analysis of Arctic region also warming faster during those early decades when measurements there were not available) which is 2.8x the global MST increase of 0.85 degrees. Arctic region has not warmed 5 degrees as incorrectly stated and unsubstantiated by entity "laura theodora" below. It just occurred to me that entity "laura theodora" might be using (ugh! bleech! retch!) Fahrenheit degrees without so stating. Don't do that. How about one or two of you getting off your lazy arses and doing actual worthwhile analysis instead of always leaving that to me and simply babbling yourselves ? Is there no one else ? (doing my Brad Pitt bit). -
This way they are produced in order farther to cheat people. He will be enough them to believe them just like this. Almost the entire Holocene was warmer than it is now and it is a truth.
-
philippe you are a condescending ignoramus the sun governs climate change both warming and cooling we are entering a solar grand minimum a 206 year cycle we are heading into alittle ice age now check the work of the astrophysicists dr habibbulo abdussamatov or john l casey or dr willie soon all explain it is the sun and clouds are the main mechanism by which the sun effects the changes ref. henrick svensmark
-
Great presentation with tons of information. Pretty damn scary. My opinion is we won't be able to do much about this. The low lying countries will flood, see ya later Miami and New Orleans. The poorest will die by the billions. Uhg. Well collapse won't be pretty, but it is inevitable.
-
b.s.
-
another paid for advert so they can charge you more tax
-
Denial of science is so cute. People that barely passed high school chemistry and haven't learn anything about climate change other than on websites entitled "global warming hoax" or "carbon tax" are trying to reassure themselves in the comment sections of Youtube.
Boy are you guys going to be in for a rough awakening in a couple of decades.
Then they'll point fingers at the current president for their predicament and pray to their non existing gods.
Even if the effects of mass pollution aren't felt in your lifetime, do you think having a garbage island the size of TEXAS in the middle of the Pacific ocean is OK? Humans only have one planet, just so you know. -
So an obvious question is how much would the world warm if particulate atmospheric pollution (mainly from Asia) ceased tomorrow. How long would it take the air to clear and how much effect would this have on world temperature.
-
'I can understand big fossil fuel henchmen pushing the denial thing in the U.S (we will get to them eventually) What I don't understand is the averge 'joe dirt' defending them or even arguing the case! just forget the term Climate change' look into that small mind and realise that if we have the means to prevent pollution and usher in finally an afordable method of energy why the heck don't we?' Every one Internationally realises your big fossil corps would sell you out in a second,why can't you realise that there?
0m 0sLenght
123Rating