Climate Change - General Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2017, 06:21 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
"Antarctica’s collapse has the potential to inundate coastal cities across the globe. If that ice sheet were to disintegrate, it could raise the level of the sea by more than 160 feet — a potential apocalypse, depending on exactly how fast it happened. Recent research suggests that if society burns all the fossil fuels known to exist, the collapse of the ice sheet will become inevitable."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017...p=cur&_r=0

My comment: Of course, this would most likely be a slow-motion disaster, since the worst case scenario for the end of this century is now estimated to be 6 feet of sea level rise.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2017, 09:43 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(19-05-2017 06:21 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  6 feet of sea level rise.

6 ft average sea level rise corresponds to a fuck-load of water though. I imagine quite a few islands will be drowned. As well as all kinds of extreme weather events will become more common. Few more Hurricane Sandy type events in the US, maybe your politicians will realise that there's a problem.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
20-05-2017, 10:11 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(20-05-2017 09:43 AM)morondog Wrote:  6 ft average sea level rise corresponds to a fuck-load of water though. I imagine quite a few islands will be drowned. As well as all kinds of extreme weather events will become more common. Few more Hurricane Sandy type events in the US, maybe your politicians will realise that there's a problem.

Since so many of our Republicans do not believe in "big government," they can hardly acknowledge the existence of problems which government regulations can help to solve. That is why American politics is now considered by many to be "post-factual." It's a sad state of affairs when someone as ignorant as Donald Trump can receive the votes of 46% of Americans. When America would rather listen to someone like him than face realities, we are no longer the nation we once were.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2017, 10:53 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(19-05-2017 06:21 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  "Antarctica’s collapse has the potential to inundate coastal cities across the globe. If that ice sheet were to disintegrate, it could raise the level of the sea by more than 160 feet — a potential apocalypse, depending on exactly how fast it happened. Recent research suggests that if society burns all the fossil fuels known to exist, the collapse of the ice sheet will become inevitable."

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017...p=cur&_r=0

My comment: Of course, this would most likely be a slow-motion disaster, since the worst case scenario for the end of this century is now estimated to be 6 feet of sea level rise.

But if you go back to the 1970's the prediction was 2 to 3 meters before the end of that century. Whatever happened to that? ANd if they were that far off then what makes anyone BELIEVE that this years prediction is any more valid?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2017, 11:04 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(19-05-2017 11:34 AM)morondog Wrote:  Walter if you really are a scientist you must be a piss-poor one. You clearly don't understand scientific method.

I am not a scientist either, I built houses for decades, and am now retired living in a third world country. But if science's predictions don't come true it is bad science. Right or not? SO when they predicted in the 1970's that the sea level would go up 2 to 3 meters before the end of the 20th century and it didn't shouldn't that make them realize something was wrong with their models? Now I have no way of measuring the CO2 in the air, though i can taste the pollution on my tongue here in Medellin Colombia, but if the CO2 levels are up to what they were 2000 years ago (as I read recently) then let's talk about what the Romans did to cause their pollution and how they got it to back off.
OK?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2017, 11:09 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
I don't know how much comfort there is in this, but although the state-level here in Texas is denial, at the local level they are doing quite a bit. There were quite a few areas here in the Dallas level that regularly flooded (and our levee system was shit), but post-Katrina and Sandy, they've put tons of work into drainage and the levees ...we just had the wettest year in recorded history, and there was less flooding than there ever was 15 years ago.

I suspect it's the same at the local levels all over, as local officials have to answer to their constituents when the shit hits the fan.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grauwyler's post
20-05-2017, 11:19 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(15-05-2017 02:32 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  "Alaska’s soils are taking far longer to freeze over as winter approaches than in previous decades, resulting in a surge in carbon dioxide emissions that could portend a much faster rate of global warming than scientists had previously estimated, according to new research."



http://www.climatecentral.org/news/slow-...ign=buffer

Tell me once again in what years has the Alaska soil started to freeze in mid May? Is it really yet unfroze since last winter?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2017, 11:22 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(20-05-2017 10:53 AM)Born Again Pagan Wrote:  But if you go back to the 1970's the prediction was 2 to 3 meters before the end of that century. Whatever happened to that? ANd if they were that far off then what makes anyone BELIEVE that this years prediction is any more valid?

To be fair, there were alarmists about all sorts of stuff back then just like now; that they existed didn't necessarily make it a "consensus" within the scientific community. My college level science in the 80's didn't teach that at all ...only that "some scientists" claimed that it could come to pass, but more data was needed. I certainly don't remember any broad support at my admittedly slightly more conservative university (NTSU/UNT ...which most Texans would consider liberal as shit). Hell, in the earlier 90's my physics prof thought that the ozone depletion (slightly before the refrigerant changeover took place) was poor science, although he was concerned about rising CO2 levels even back then.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grauwyler's post
20-05-2017, 12:58 PM (This post was last modified: 20-05-2017 01:02 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
Couple of things to throw out there.

A failed hypothesis doesn't mean it failed because of "bad science." Failed predictions about extraordinarily high rates of sea level rise indicate an overestimation of both temperature rise and ice volume loss. Probably because getting good estimates for ice volume loss are difficult (especially back in the 70's). Even surface area of ice would have been more difficult than today (satellites have been hugely instrumental in getting better and more complete data). Measuring ice volume still requires ground-truthing the ice volume (can be done using thermometers built out of fiber optic cable for instance). Estimates of CO2 increase as well as the corresponding temperature increase have also gotten better not only for recent/current trends, but paleoclimate trends. Thus allowing us to better assess the natural range of temperature fluctuations through geologic time. The advent of stable isotope geochemistry has been hugely important in looking at ancient temperature trends and their linkage to global carbon cycle perturbations.

Yes, it's clearly true that the earth has existed in warmer periods. And those warmer periods correspond to periods of elevated CO2 (much higher than today). Corroborating our concerns at present. It's also true that humans have lived at times with elevated CO2 concentrations and in a warmer world. But the major concern is the RATE of change. As far as we can tell, the rate of CO2 increase, the corresponding temperature increase and ocean acidification and ice melt, are greater than any other time in earth history. And this includes climate change events that resulted in mass extinctions (like the end-Permian).

So what makes today's predictions better than those of 40 years ago? Better data. Better data collection methods. Better data analysis (statistics and computation). And better paleoclimatic data too.

As to what did ancient humans do to induce climate change? They too modified the global carbon cycle through removal of forests, agriculture, fishing, hunting, etc. But the magnitude of effect that humans 2,000 years ago had is substantially less than today in pretty much every way. Meaning that natural climate variability played a greater role then than now.

Side note: this is one of the reasons I hate the use of the word "natural" in these discussions. Humans are part of nature, not separate from it. So the effects we are having are on natural systems. It's not like we are doing anything special (new) really. It's the act that no single species has ever exerted this magnitude of change on the earth's climates

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
20-05-2017, 01:11 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(20-05-2017 11:04 AM)Born Again Pagan Wrote:  
(19-05-2017 11:34 AM)morondog Wrote:  Walter if you really are a scientist you must be a piss-poor one. You clearly don't understand scientific method.

I am not a scientist either, I built houses for decades, and am now retired living in a third world country. But if science's predictions don't come true it is bad science. Right or not? SO when they predicted in the 1970's that the sea level would go up 2 to 3 meters before the end of the 20th century and it didn't shouldn't that make them realize something was wrong with their models? Now I have no way of measuring the CO2 in the air, though i can taste the pollution on my tongue here in Medellin Colombia, but if the CO2 levels are up to what they were 2000 years ago (as I read recently) then let's talk about what the Romans did to cause their pollution and how they got it to back off.
OK?

Howabout you cite a study rather than something you heard, and how about you be an expert on building houses, and not an expert on climate science, since you just admitted you don't have the qualifications? I mean, if I came along and told you how to build houses you'd be pissed right? Why the hell do you think it's OK to tell climate scientists (I am not one) that they're doing a lousy job, when you know nothing of what they do?

If I asked you to build a house and you quoted me a price far in excess of what it really cost, and then built it and told me "oh, it was much less than I expected" then you'd be right to be suspicious. BUT. Science is not at all like building houses. We are dealing with the *unknown*. When you build a house you know basically what a brick does and how it works right? The same is not true of the climate. It's difficult to study. A prediction made 40 years ago turning out not to be true is pretty routine in science.

What we do know:
1. Carbon dioxide does cause global warming.
2. Carbon dioxide levels are now far in excess of what they have been at any time in history, including the time of the Romans.
3. This is solely due to man's activities in the 20th century, releasing centuries of stored carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.

4. It is a FACT that since the 1860's or so (the time when reliable temperature data started to be collected widely), the global average temperature has gone up by approx 1.87 degrees (if I recall correctly).
5. It is a FACT that the ice caps at the poles are smaller than they once were, and that the arctic sea ice is less in extent every year, to the point that some people think that there may be no arctic sea ice even in *winter*, in the near future (I don't know the period off hand).
6. It is a fact that due to the increased levels of Carbon dioxide in the ocean, the acidity of the ocean has increased to the extent that the great barrier reef is dying and probably cannot be saved.

These facts can all be easily confirmed even by simply reading the wikipedia page on climate change.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like morondog's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: