Climate Change - General Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-03-2017, 05:37 AM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2017 05:44 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(14-03-2017 06:22 PM)Jay Vogelsong Wrote:  
(14-03-2017 05:32 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Our efforts to reduce carbon emissions have a one to two hundred year lag. That's the window of irreversible change ahead of us. After then it will come down to what tipping points we hit along the way. We may hit a runaway point that puts the climate into a new equilibrium that we can't tip back. Every year we fail to act adds a year to the window of irreversible change.

By "tipping points" I assume you mean positive feedback loops, like unfreezing the methane in the oceans and permafrost -- ?

Could you explain what you mean by "Our efforts to reduce carbon emissions have a one to two hundred year lag"? Do you mean the effects lag that far behind the carbon release? I didn't think it was that high. Do you have a reference?

Yes, and also things like changing albedo due to the loss of ice. Another is that the ocean is currently absorbing most of the increased gases and heat, but we really don't know how long that will continue.

Here's a stepping off point for carbon dioxide persistence in the atmosphere: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
17-03-2017, 07:50 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(16-03-2017 02:20 PM)Kaneda Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 12:31 PM)onlinebiker Wrote:  You don't need to cut them off - just snip the cords......

Can you elaborate on that one?


Too subtle, eh???


Snip ,= vasectomy.

You don't need to cut them off........


It's a population control joke....


Tongue

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
17-03-2017, 07:53 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
If we do survive all of this, I can foresee a strict population enforcement to keep us below a billion.

I really don't know what population would be at balance with nature, but fewer is better.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
17-03-2017, 08:37 AM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2017 08:46 AM by Thoreauvian.)
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
About Trump's proposed budget: "Climate change research will be completely dropped from the Environmental Protection Agency, as will clean energy research at the Department of Energy."

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141384/t...er-science

OMB Director Mick Mulvaney said fighting climate change is a rip-off. "We're not spending money on that anymore. We consider that to be a waste of your money."

They don't get it. What we spend now will save us much more later.

Angry
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
17-03-2017, 09:10 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(17-03-2017 05:37 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Here's a stepping off point for carbon dioxide persistence in the atmosphere: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

From your article: "Dissolution of CO2 into the oceans is fast but the problem is that the top of the ocean is “getting full” and the bottleneck is thus the transfer of carbon from surface waters to the deep ocean. This transfer largely occurs by the slow ocean basin circulation and turn over. This turnover takes 500-1000ish years. Therefore a time scale for CO2 warming potential out as far as 500 years is entirely reasonable (See IPCC 4th Assessment Report Section 2.10)."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2017, 06:46 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
Although many people still don't believe in anthropogenic climate change (ACC), and think the science is too complex and unreliable, there are only two simple premises to the ACC argument:

1) Human activity is pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere "at an increasing rate not seen throughout the history of human existence, and at a much greater rate than has ever been produced by natural processes".

2) "The mainstay of global warming research is the greenhouse effect that was first recognized in the laboratory in the 19th century, can be reproduced in the lab today, and has been witnessed on other planets as well as modeled here on our own planet."

Quotes from http://www.greenvilleonline.com/story/op.../99318188/

The first premise is measurable. The second premise is physics. If both are true, then people are changing the climate.

Of course, the extent and possible impacts of such ACC are subject to study and speculation, but there should be no confusion that ACC is actually happening.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2017, 07:05 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(17-03-2017 08:37 AM)Jay Vogelsong Wrote:  About Trump's proposed budget: "Climate change research will be completely dropped from the Environmental Protection Agency, as will clean energy research at the Department of Energy."

And NASA's Earth observation programs are taking a big hit under Trump's budget. This is a scary one for climate scientists because while other entities do Earth observation all of them together don't do it as comprehensively as NASA. NASA's data is also more accessible than the data produced produced by other organizations. SO it will become much harder for researchers to get their hands on the data they need.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Popeye's Pappy's post
18-03-2017, 08:51 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(18-03-2017 07:05 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  And NASA's Earth observation programs are taking a big hit under Trump's budget. This is a scary one for climate scientists because while other entities do Earth observation all of them together don't do it as comprehensively as NASA. NASA's data is also more accessible than the data produced produced by other organizations. SO it will become much harder for researchers to get their hands on the data they need.

The good news is we have so much good information already that it will take years for us to catch up with what we already know. However, considering the scale and importance of the problem, we still need as much current information as we can get.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-03-2017, 01:04 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(18-03-2017 08:51 AM)Jay Vogelsong Wrote:  
(18-03-2017 07:05 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  And NASA's Earth observation programs are taking a big hit under Trump's budget. This is a scary one for climate scientists because while other entities do Earth observation all of them together don't do it as comprehensively as NASA. NASA's data is also more accessible than the data produced produced by other organizations. SO it will become much harder for researchers to get their hands on the data they need.

The good news is we have so much good information already that it will take years for us to catch up with what we already know. However, considering the scale and importance of the problem, we still need as much current information as we can get.

I disagree. The more data we collect the better off we will be because we can't improve the models that forecast future climate trends without new data. Data collected over the next few years and decades would greatly improve our ability to mitigate the problems we will face in the future.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Popeye's Pappy's post
18-03-2017, 01:54 PM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
From what little I have read and watched recently, it seems that the Ice sheets that cover a large percent of the planet reflect the suns rays/energy.

Losing these will raise sea levels and water will absorb the suns energy and warm the oceans.

The latest episode of VICE (Season 5, Episode 3) covers permafrost. As areas melt it releases methane/greenhouse gases and erodes the land in large sinkholes. If the land erodes under populated areas it will displace them. One russian scientist looked to the past and has suggested, and is implementing repopulating large areas with more wildlife/animals to strip the areas of forests and vegetation in the hopes that the large, now lighter toned areas will reflect heat away from the planet. Some NASA scientists were in agreement.

A few years ago the most preserved, almost perfect Wolly Mammoth trunk was discovered in some ice. The plan apparently is to collect DNA from it and genetically engineer a Wooly Mammoth with Elephants and introduce them to help strip the vegetation.

More info here

Personally, I think that whilst there is currently no profit to be made from saving the planet, Climate Change will just increase and get worse to the point of no return.

I feel so much, and yet I feel nothing.
I am a rock, I am the sky, the birds and the trees and everything beyond.
I am the wind, in the fields in which I roar. I am the water, in which I drown.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes bemore's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: