So, why is no one talking about Global Warming with two "100 year" hurricanes ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-11-2012, 02:53 AM
RE: So, why is no one talking about Global Warming with two "100 year" hurricanes ?
(31-10-2012 11:22 PM)Janus Wrote:  Why talk about the obvious?
Maybe if we don't talk about it it will go away...
Because there's of course fuck all we can do about it except adapt to a changing situation: move to higher ground. Yes, that means abandoning all our mega cities... before the end of this century!
That'll shake up humanity.

I am not a fan of crowds at all. If they all abandon the huge cities I would be on my way in as they were all leaving.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 10:26 AM
RE: So, why is no one talking about Global Warming with two "100 year" hurricanes ?
North pole ice shrinking, south pole ice growing. Sandy was a cat 1 hurricane when it hit (at least it was when my power went out) so not really some freak of nature. Sandy was strong and hit at high tide. It happens.

Am I in favor of lowering the shit we throw in the atmosphere, YES. It simply can't be good in the long run. Have global warming trends leveled off, appears to be so but again trends are hard to understand since our models have not been successful in predicting future trends.

Population growth needs to be slowed as we try to catch up with developing sustainable food and resources.

So go ahead call me an idiot or whatever for not buying into the end of the world predictions. However, just like a god, I am open to the possibility that material anthropogenic warming exists. Want to help convince me? Show me a study where the prominent greenhouse gas (CO2 primarily) levels in the atmosphere have been shown to be the major leading indicator of warming trends. I am willing to listen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 11:09 AM
RE: So, why is no one talking about Global Warming with two "100 year" hurricanes ?
(01-11-2012 10:26 AM)devilsadvoc8 Wrote:  North pole ice shrinking, south pole ice growing. Sandy was a cat 1 hurricane when it hit (at least it was when my power went out) so not really some freak of nature. Sandy was strong and hit at high tide. It happens.

Am I in favor of lowering the shit we throw in the atmosphere, YES. It simply can't be good in the long run. Have global warming trends leveled off, appears to be so but again trends are hard to understand since our models have not been successful in predicting future trends.

Population growth needs to be slowed as we try to catch up with developing sustainable food and resources.

So go ahead call me an idiot or whatever for not buying into the end of the world predictions. However, just like a god, I am open to the possibility that material anthropogenic warming exists. Want to help convince me? Show me a study where the prominent greenhouse gas (CO2 primarily) levels in the atmosphere have been shown to be the major leading indicator of warming trends. I am willing to listen.

Just because two things are happening, doesn't mean its happening at the same rate. I can be boiling water on my stove, and making ice cubes in the freezer. You would have to be Drooling to automatically assume the phase changes are happening at the same rate.

Predict what trends? Climate change isn't like predicting the weather... it takes a long ass time for a trend to be evident. I always find it funny when some idiot, especially the media, sees some snow or something and tries to dismiss climate change.

Child limit laws need to be established globally. This would indeed solve every problem we face today!

So you are open to an obvious fact existing? The fact exists whether your open to it or not, unlike god. God only exists if you are open to the idea he exists, and even then he only exists in that idea.


Ok, I can do that easily.
http://www.universetoday.com/34534/is-me...st-planet/

Welcome to the environmentally aware club!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Diablo666's post
01-11-2012, 01:36 PM
RE: So, why is no one talking about Global Warming with two "100 year" hurricanes ?
Allow me to interject my opinion on the matter, I have done a good bit to try and educate myself on the matter after all.

Let's look at 3 events in Earth history for simplicity's sake. 1) The end of the Permian 2) 45-50 Ma during the Eocene and 3) Modern (last 100,000 years or so)

1) At the end of the Permian was the single largest mass extinction ever to befall our planet. Something on the order of 96% of all known marine species went extinct at this boundary. Needless to say, a good portion of research has focused on this interval of time looking for potential trigger and kill mechanisms that would explain the suddenness and severity of this extinction event. Although there is no actual consensus, you will be hard pressed to find a paleoclimatologist or paleontologist who no longer thinks that it is unrelated to the Siberian traps.

Irregardless, whatever the event was caused the Earth to switch from a dominantly Icehouse climate to a dominantly Greenhouse one.

Let's look at number 2
45-50 Million years ago two events seemed to occur simultaneously. The collision of India with Eurasia and the subsequent glaciation of Antarctica. The evidence suggests glaciation could have began as early as 45 Ma, but it may have been shortly thereafter. A good question to ask is are these events related? Coincident? What impacts would the collision of one piece of continental lithosphere with another have on global climates? If any?

And number 3, Modern trends
This record is primarily reflected in the ice core record because we have ice that is several hundred thousand years old. Ice is great for 2 things, one is to directly measure the quantity of gases in the atmosphere at the time of ice formation. You can test that by putting water in your freezer and observing how it freezes. Because ice is less dense that water, the first bit of ice forms at the surface, effectively trapping the dissolved gases into the water. As it continues to freeze from the outside in (because of the temperature gradient on the outsides of whatever container you are using) the gas begins to concentrate in the center. Which is why you get nice crystal clear ice on the outside, and white ice on the inside. And because the concentrations of gases in water are in equilibrium with those in the atmosphere, a direct measure of the concentrations of gases in those air pockets gives you the concentrations in the air. The other great thing about it is the Oxygen record (specifically stable isotopes of oxygen in the water molecules). I won't go into detail as to how it works, but the ratio of heavy oxygen (O18) to light oxygen (O16) is temperature dependent. So you have an independent measure of CO2 concentrations and temperature.

Now, I have cherry-picked these three time slices not because they are the only 3 that demonstrate my point, but because they are either A) the most significant B) the most familiar and/or C) fairly easy to follow.

What connects these 3 events? Significant changes in the CO2 concentrations of Earth's atmosphere and Ocean.

At the end of the Permian, was the eruption of the Siberian Traps. If you look at a geologic map of the region they erupted into (if you can find a good one) you will notice that the flood basalts erupted into layers of coal. This means 2 things, 1) the eruption of these basalts is accompanied by large amounts of CO2 outgassing and 2) the burning of massive amounts of coal (as evidenced by charcoal too in the rock record). The basalts erupt, release concentrations of CO2 into the atmosphere that is associated with A) the transition from Icehouse to Greenhouse climate where all evidence for glaciation disappears B) independent indicators of temperature increases (best evidence is in the marine record) C) and lastly what appears to be selection pressure against organisms that are considered hypercalcifiers (not just ones that make their shells out of calcite but do so in a way that is highly pH sensitive).

That last point is important. The first 2 appear to be good correlations between CO2 outgassing and temperature increase (which would have also destablized methane clathrates in marine sediments further contributing to the greenhouse gas increase) but the last point is crucial. Go grab a soda. It has CO2 dissolved into to make it fizzy. It is also acidic. The acid is carbonic acid, and it is the result of elevated concentrations of CO2 in the liquid. So, as CO2 concentrations go up rapidly, more CO2 gets dissolved into the water and the pH goes down. If this happens slow enough, then the ocean can buffer itself. The result of a decreasing pH meant that anything making its shell out of calcite would find it more difficult to secrete a calcium carbonate shell and those already alive would shows signs of dissolution. And, that is congruent with the selection pressure we see at the boundary where those that are the most pH sensitive, don't make it.

The second event is the direct opposite. How you ask? Easy little bird, I'll feed your appetite for knowledge.

What happened as India slammed into Eurasia was the uplift of the Himalyas. As it turns out, the uplift of any rock body will result in increased chemical weathering rates of the newly exposed and uplifted rock. The chemical weathering of this rock is the result of slightly acidic rainwater dissolving and altering the continental material now exposed. During this reaction, 2 moles of CO2 are needed and one is consumed in the reaction. What that means is that chemical weathering draws down CO2. The timing of glaciation then? It is tied to the exposure of newly exposed rock that is being weathered and drawing down CO2. The result is decreasing temperatures globally (oxygen isotope record again) and the glaciation of Antarctica.

So, in the modern. What do we see happening? The reversal of the Eocene event where ice sheets are melting and CO2 is going up. What is scary about this is that the rate at which CO2 is being released is greater than that of the Siberian Traps. What that means is that not only is temperature going to change (not in a unidirectional way because melting of ice sheets will lower water temperatures in the short term before the system is buffered) but that the oceans are not equilibrating with respect to pH because it is occurring at a rate that exceeds the speed of the buffer reactions.

So, that is bad news if you make your shell out of CaCO3 (clams, corals, snails, forams, diatoms, etc) or if you are a cold-water/cold-air dependent organism.

Will some organisms flourish? Absolutely. The marine realm will expand as sea level increases. The tropical band will widen and all its inhabitants will enjoy a larger ecosystem. But water currents will change. That affects climate circulation. That affects moisture distribution. That means some areas that are arid may receive more rainfall (I'm looking at you Africa) and some may receive less (I'm looking at you US Midwest). Some areas that currently receive rain, may become arid and some may experience increased rainfall and flooding.

We try to model it, but it is not a simple system, no matter what anyone tells you (even sea level won't rise globally but that is another topic for another thread). So, yes...it will occur no matter what, but that doesn't mean we just go "oh well, fuck it." The reason we can't afford to do that is because if we maintain status quo, some farmlands will become useless. Some will still be usable, but the crops grown there need to become either more or less dependent upon water or more/less susceptible to frosts. Urbanization of coastal areas needs to stop. Not just because they may become inundated, but because they rely upon aquifers that are at an ever increasing risk of being tainted with salt-water and therefore unusable.

We need better farmland management. We need better water conservation policies. We need better urban development policies. We need better energy policies (for other reasons too). And these aren't things to just let our kids worry about, these things are coming in the next few decades.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
01-11-2012, 11:37 PM
RE: So, why is no one talking about Global Warming with two "100 year" hurricanes ?
Well said!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-11-2012, 11:39 PM (This post was last modified: 01-11-2012 11:44 PM by Janus.)
RE: So, why is no one talking about Global Warming with two "100 year" hurricanes ?
(01-11-2012 02:53 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  
(31-10-2012 11:22 PM)Janus Wrote:  Why talk about the obvious?
Maybe if we don't talk about it it will go away...
Because there's of course fuck all we can do about it except adapt to a changing situation: move to higher ground. Yes, that means abandoning all our mega cities... before the end of this century!
That'll shake up humanity.

I am not a fan of crowds at all. If they all abandon the huge cities I would be on my way in as they were all leaving.

Bring a boat!
Have you seen the movie Waterworld? That's what lower Manhattan or New Orleans' French Quarter, and a radius of a hundred miles around, will be like!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2012, 12:27 AM (This post was last modified: 02-11-2012 12:35 AM by Diablo666.)
RE: So, why is no one talking about Global Warming with two "100 year" hurricanes ?
(01-11-2012 01:36 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  We need better farmland management. We need better water conservation policies. We need better urban development policies. We need better energy policies (for other reasons too). And these aren't things to just let our kids worry about, these things are coming in the next few decades.

Child limit laws.
1 child per couple. It would take at most a century for the population to shrink from 7 billion to roughly 2 billion.

All the above problems you described are solved, and many more.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2012, 03:17 AM
Re: So, why is no one talking about Global Warming with two "100 year" hurricanes ?
(02-11-2012 12:27 AM)Diablo666 Wrote:  
(01-11-2012 01:36 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  We need better farmland management. We need better water conservation policies. We need better urban development policies. We need better energy policies (for other reasons too). And these aren't things to just let our kids worry about, these things are coming in the next few decades.

Child limit laws.
1 child per couple. It would take at most a century for the population to shrink from 7 billion to roughly 2 billion.

All the above problems you described are solved, and many more.

You could Johnathan Swift it up too and that would help... Most think your idea is more reasonable even though they think it's unreasonable.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2012, 07:50 AM
RE: So, why is no one talking about Global Warming with two "100 year" hurricanes ?
Your math sounds off by quite a lot and your suggestion would have to be implemented globally in a highly divisive International Community. Good luck getting every country to buy into that.

Let's look at the math
7,000,000,000 with an average life span of ~70 years (I am being kind here using a low ball figure for developed nations)
So, in 75 years, we will have lost next to none of the original 7,000,000,000 and will still have added (let's say only half of the population is adult and only 10% of that reproduces) at least 350,000,000 new people a year.

Limiting births alone can't account for a population decrease of any magnitude great enough to quell our population concerns. Growth is exponential but loss (using only a decreased birth rate) isn't. It would take a population crash due to widespread illness or disease to drop the population by any appreciable amount.

There is no simple solution to a complex problem. So trying to fix it in one fell swoop is irrational, illogical, and irresponsible.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-11-2012, 11:32 AM
RE: So, why is no one talking about Global Warming with two "100 year" hurricanes ?
(30-10-2012 09:47 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Why are people allowed to build on beaches that are obviously going to get flooded ?
According to John Stoussel, the federal government encourages it.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: