15Likes
February 13th, 2012, 11:48 AM
NASA revealed satellite data to show how world sea levels actually dropped in 2011. I cannot stop laughing.
Remember, it is a good thing to laugh when positive news is a surprise. The good news here is that the need for whiteknuckled panic so loved by Al Gore and Michael Moore et. al. is just a ruse. The global warming scientists and proponents really do not know what they are talking about. They can only speculate.
Do not know what they are talking about? From someone who is apparently ignorant of the difference between climate and weather? (Or the many other factors affecting sea level)
I'll stick with the climate scientists who do, it turns out, know what they are talking about.
And how about providing references to your sources so we can check the accuracy of your information...
Link for the data and trend line. They don't mention Michael Mann: NASA satellites detect pothole on road to higher seas
Summary: extra evaporation from warmer surface waters in the Pacific mostly rained out over land last year (recall the floods in so many places?), and hasn't made it back into the ocean (yet).
The sea level has dropped several times in the past thirty years or so, amid its general upward climb. It kind of goes up and down along with its general trends and cycles if any - like it was part of the real physical universe, almost.
So where do you think the water went?satellite data ... show how world sea levels actually dropped in 2011. I cannot stop laughing.
Maybe not so funny for some of these people.
January 2011 Rio de Janeiro floods and mudslides - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Morganza Floodway after Five Days of Flow : Image of the Day
Brisbane floods: Before and after (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
NASA: it rained so hard the oceans fell | The Vancouver Observer
http://capitalclimate.blogspot.com.a...-rainfall.html
Pakistan's flood victims save what they can | Reuters
or this collection of items for January alone. Wunder Blog Archive : Weather Underground
I think 'it rained so hard the oceans fell' covers it pretty well.
deleted duplicate
Sea level has almost recovered back to the trend line.
As is standard procedure for climate deniers the actual climate processes influencing the ups and downs are ignored when there's a 'down' that can be spun into 'evidence' that suits their misinformation agenda.
Like ignoring ENSO when looking at the 'downs' (or reduction in 'up') for recent Surface temperatures or upper ocean heat content, the influence of actual climate processes involved in the ups and downs of sea levels are consistently ignored and overlooked by them in their attempt to convince the ignorant (themselves first and foremost) that climate science ignores and overlooks natural climate processes.
Even now, when the evidence for human induced climate change is overwhelming, climate science continues to improve human understanding of climate processes. Truly impressive human achievements! The capacity of some to distort and misrepresent those achievements is almost as remarkable - impressively ignoble.
Lynx Fox - you consistently come up with appropriate, relevant and up to date data. Thanks Lynx.
It doesn't matter if scientists speculate about sea level or not, that is not the only factor we should be concerned about when it comes to climate change, you got to be stupid to think that everything is fine like it was in the past
Like these folks say above - it depends on the size of the data sample.
Ever heard a politician declare that "although unemployment figures rose last month - the general trend is down"
That time never existed either...the difference is this time we understand the reasons and have a good idea how to prevent or mitigate some of the problems.Originally Posted by risto
People that want to debunk global warming must focus on the Ice cores, the ice cores (and the gas bubbles they contain) are the smoking gun correlating CO2 concentration to temperature. A skeptic must either show serious flaws with the methodology employed, or believe in a mass conspiracy where scientists are manipulating (or just making up) there data.
A lot of people denying climate change do seem to believe in exactly that.
Why on Earth would someone be concerned only about sea levels? I know that Sea Levels are a major issue, but I also know that disease is a great concern. I know some Danish scientist said that, but I'm not sure who exactly. A good example is that here in my home state of Minnesota, last year was the worst year for lime disease cases, spread through deer ticks. I also am concerned that with this absurd amount of rain we're getting atm, we're going to have a major mosquito infestation this year.
EddyBear, AGW has multiple cosequences beyond sea level rise, although sea level rise and loss of permanent ice are strong indicators that change is occurring. Most consequences will take many decades up to centuries to be fully realised and will be effectively irreversible. Amongst the 'lesser' consequences are spread of range of disease carrying mosquitos and other parasites.
For a look at some of the impacts on human health by McMichael et al "Climate Change and Human Health: Risks and Responses"
Because apart from crop failures, this is the biggie. People tend to forget when they talk about remote tropical islands going under the waves that New York is at the same level - and it has subway and tunnel systems.Why on Earth would someone be concerned only about sea levels?
Multiply that by the number of major port cities in the world, and their populations, and you're talking humongous $$$$$s.
The question remains: why on Earth would someone be concerned only about sea levels? Your explanation is not a good one for that, unless their concern is superficial and unthinking.
I think you just answered your own question...
I'm a tad conlicted:
The archaeologist in me wants to see a return of the glaciers, and concomitant sea level drop of 2-300 feet, as i suspect that there are ancient cities (circa 12000 ybp) out near the margins of the continantal shelves. Meanwhile, the ecologist in me wants to see the last of the icecaps melted, and the end of this ice age. We have inherited the earth, let us make of it a better place.
There seems to have been a general trend towards rising sea levels and I can't see this being any more a statistical blip. The idea that we may start to see the reimergence of long lost islands seems, unfortunately, unlikely.
Any interpretations of what sea levels are doing based upon a purely statistical approach will be inferior to those based on understanding of the physical phenomena involved. Rising ocean heat content and increased discharge of glacier and ice sheet ice and melt mean rising sea levels. There are some large uncertainties about how much rise and how fast but no reason to think what's occurred so far is a statistical blip.
Let the Dutch know if Sea Levels are dropping. They have just finished spending about 5 Billion Euros ( over 30 years ) fortifying their Coastal defences against the North Sea. westwind
Now that's quite interesting and suggests to me that the Dutch seem to think that the 2011 fall in sea levels is only a blip and that in general the trend will continue for rising sea levels, as I can't see them spending the additional €5 billion otherwise.
'twasn't islands that held my curiousity. More likely, I'd be interested in the higher ground along ancient river deltas circa 12,000ybp. Seems unlikely indeed.
Go global warming. Melt the ice caps. Kill the evil frost giants. Seriously, sell your ocean front property, and move upland 80 meters.
Not such a wondrous idea for continuing agriculture as we know it. Frosts do a great job of physically breaking up soils. More importantly, they're the reason we don't get completely wiped out by certain agricultural pests. The damage the lack of cold is doing to America's great pine forests by letting pine beetles reproduce 2 or more times a year and not killing them in the winter is not a model we want to follow in the agricultural sphere.Kill the evil frost giants
That would requre moving about 75% of the earth's population and abandoning entire countries.
So, now would be a good time to start?That would requre moving about 75% of the earth's population and abandoning entire countries.
As the younger generations would say, "my bad"
Ofttimes I tend a tad too much toward metaphor. For future reference, the frost giants are the glaciers. You were talking about the frost pixies of a temperate climate, and they are usually welcome. It's the big guys who have marched from the poles dozens of times, killing everything in their paths. Hatred and fear of the glaciers was in my ancestors blood.
as/re "the pine beetles", there was a polin study done of a Wisconsin pond's sedements that found a change from pine forest to oak within a century. When one species vacates a niche, others move in to capitalize on the resource. So far. "global warming" (poorly named imho) has been mostly confined to atmospheric warming, which is why we see the most dramatic changes at higher latitudes and altitudes. A massive hardwood forest in the rockies doesn't seem to be a bad thing to me, as i prefer hardwoods. Instead of moaning and complaining, if people would venture forth and replant something that would survive, we'd all be a lot better off. One of my favorite seargents in the army chastised our leutenant by saying " lead from in front", ..."sir".
No it's completely unrealistic.So, now would be a good time to start?That would requre moving about 75% of the earth's population and abandoning entire countries.
Perhaps, nothing is beyond the human capacity to adapt to our ever changing world. Perhaps it has been that adaptability that has guided our evolution for thousands or millions of generations of our forebears. Perhaps having the ability to know in advance that an action will likely be necessary 1-2-3 generations down the road is precisely that which sets us apart as a species. Better to light a candle than curse the darkness. Better to plan to move now than suffer the probable fate of our glacial time ancestors circa 10-12,000 ybp.No it's completely unrealistic.So, now would be a good time to start?That would requre moving about 75% of the earth's population and abandoning entire countries.
"Unrealistic" is the negative and leads to doing nothing in the face of change. My own ancestors have traveled and survived many terrains and many glaciations so that I might be here reaping the benefit of their determination, and adaptation. Should I now say that I am a lesser descendent destined for extinction? Is that any way to repay an ancestral debt?
Time and again, the ice caps have melted, and (maybe this time with our help) they will do so again. Add in our knowledge, and sedement cores, and we should be able to know where our descendents will be above the flood. "Unrealistic" is for quitters. Don't throw your mind and talents away on such defeat. You are much too valuable an intellect for that waste.
Now that's really, really wrong."global warming" (poorly named imho) has been mostly confined to atmospheric warming,
About 90% of the 'excess' heat has gone into the oceans. The atmosphere will tell us when it either can't take in that heat any more or it comes roaring out. A big El Nino is just a taste of what such a 'roaring' will mean for atmospheric temperatures.
See Church 2011 Revisiting the Earth's sea-level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008
And this graphic http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=46 tells us what that paper amounts to for balance of heating of oceans versus land/atmosphere/ice.
You realize that, if the glaciers melt, there will be less land to go around, right? I'd like to see them grow.As the younger generations would say, "my bad"
Ofttimes I tend a tad too much toward metaphor. For future reference, the frost giants are the glaciers. You were talking about the frost pixies of a temperate climate, and they are usually welcome. It's the big guys who have marched from the poles dozens of times, killing everything in their paths. Hatred and fear of the glaciers was in my ancestors blood.
as/re "the pine beetles", there was a polin study done of a Wisconsin pond's sedements that found a change from pine forest to oak within a century. When one species vacates a niche, others move in to capitalize on the resource. So far. "global warming" (poorly named imho) has been mostly confined to atmospheric warming, which is why we see the most dramatic changes at higher latitudes and altitudes. A massive hardwood forest in the rockies doesn't seem to be a bad thing to me, as i prefer hardwoods. Instead of moaning and complaining, if people would venture forth and replant something that would survive, we'd all be a lot better off. One of my favorite seargents in the army chastised our leutenant by saying " lead from in front", ..."sir".
As for the OP, is it possible that sea levels might drop if more water is becoming vapor due to increased heating? Sure, the ice caps will melt, but that's likely to take some time. We might expect there will be a delay, if for no other reason than because the outer surface of the ice has to be exposed to the air in layers. Can't expect all the predictions will necessarily happen simultaneously.
That didn't work out so well for Queensland, Brazil, Pakistan a couple of years ago did it.is it possible that sea levels might drop if more water is becoming vapor due to increased heating?
Why did sea level fall in 2010?
The big problem with water vapour is that it condenses out. If the water keeps on evaporating, the water just keeps right on falling. As drenching, drowning downpours, not the good, steady rain that farmers like. Remember there's a lot more ocean surface evaporating than there is land surface. The ocean isn't much disturbed by heavier, faster rain falling back onto it. The same can't be said for land surfaces.
No offense, Sculptor, but it seems like you're being too optimistic to be realistic, and clinging on to ancestral beliefs too much to be realistic.
Crop failures lead to massive food shortages, and massive world hunger problems. Billions of people starve. An ever-growing population becomes displaced. Billions of people become refugees, flooding to the remaining land-masses and countries available. Political, social, and economic discourse put a significant damper on surviving nations, possibly going as far as to cause both civil and world wars. Honestly, we don't want our icecaps to melt, regardless of the fact that they tear apart of a landscape. Besides, being from Minnesota, I'm glad the glaciers tore apart the landscape; all these glacial lakes and all the other glacial traits are beautiful, clean, and lively.
Although, I entirely agree that human adaptability, new technology, and persistence will pull through, and that we should get started preparing for it. We'll expect another "green revolution," we'll expect new building measures (I'm looking forward to the day where underwater housing is not only affordable, but commonplace.) We may have a population crash, but we will go on surviving. We will efficiently turn salt water into drinking water. Most importantly, if we put forth good stocking programs, we can repopulate and then manage our oceans newly-expanded oceans with edible, seemingly endless amounts of fish.
We'll survive, definitely, but it sounds too much like you're downplaying threat, and even praising bad news when bad news is still bad news.
Hey, who said anything about the whole plant? Maybe it was just a suggestion for the members of this forum. (Obviously, the most important people to be saved.)That would requre moving about 75% of the earth's population and abandoning entire countries.
I think if all the ice goes we'll see a 90m rise in sea level. I've sketched in the approximate position of the 90m line on the following photo. As you can see I shall have a very deep anchorage about 100 yds from my front door. I don't need to move. (I can also restore the ruined castle - marked with a yellow arrow - for defensive purposes against all you bastards who haven't planned ahead.)
Sea Level.jpg
Jeez yer good lady-------
In another post(another thread?) I had marveled at the tremendous heat sink capability of our oceans, wherein, i mentioned the adjustment of the thermocline and the slow progress of the deep ocean currents, and the likely change in the locations of the upwelling of their nutrients. And ancillary to that, warmer seas hurry the melting of the arctic ice, and the southern ice shelves, and, most likely, the greenland ice cap also. It has been said that with the extra gasses that we have already introduced into the atmosphere, we have created a centuries worth of unused change. If that be true, then we should see results within our lifetimes even if we found a way to stop today(I'd put the odds and millions to one).
as/re Farming, I'm much more concerned that the massive use of irrigation on our high plains will result in buildup of disolved mineral salts(in some places, the level of great ogallala aquafer has been lowered by over 250 feet), eventually leading to one of the worlds greatest growing regions becoming worthless-----unless yourcan wash away some of those salts. So far, the usa is still the worlds largest exporter of food(for which,we use massive amounts of petro-chemicals).drenching, drowning downpours
I'm reasonably optomistic that our energy sources will change within a generation or 2. Look to the past, petroleum replaced whale oil for lighting the night(and saved the whales from extinction), coal replaced the use of the forests for heating fuel, etc... We are a multigenerational learning species, And as we exhaust one fuel, we will find another (for better or worse?).
Keep a keen mind coupled to an optomistic spirit, and there is little that we can not overcome. As i have stated before, we are but children learning to play with our "new toy" (world). as/re your links, One caveat, anytime someone tries to sell you a climate idea, and restricts the data shown to a few decades, keep your wallet in your pocket. Look closely at the data from tens of thousands to millions of years, and make your own decisions.
Last edited by sculptor; June 23rd, 2012 at 08:37 AM.
As/re ancestors, I'm reminded of the phrase: "Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat their mistakes"
And, perhaps we differ in that i do not see it as a threat, nor as bad news. Where some see problems, i think that we should all see soultions. I see the "threats, and bad news" as changing circumstances to which we needs bend our minds and use our intellects to better husband this earth which we have inherited.
By that logic, we should continue hunting witches, lest we want a witch problem.As/re ancestors, I'm reminded of the phrase: "Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat their mistakes"
And, perhaps we differ in that i do not see it as a threat, nor as bad news. Where some see problems, i think that we should all see soultions. I see the "threats, and bad news" as changing circumstances to which we needs bend our minds and use our intellects to better husband this earth which we have inherited.
That's all I really wanna say, though. Many ancient cultures were advanced in many ways, but primitive in many ways as well. Fearing a glacier, and wishing the "evil giant" to disappear, just because some people of the past disliked them, isn't that good of an idea.
I'm not so much asking about what happens if more evaporates, because you're definitely right that it would mostly condense, but trying to look into what happens when the atmosphere begins permanently retaining more. Apparently, the added water retention due to a very small change in temperature creates a feedback effect, where the additional humidity creates an addition to the greenhouse effect of its own, which in turn heats the air more, which in turn causes more moisture to be retained.... which in turn adds to the greenhouse effect....etc. Of course the feedback effect terminates at some point before the Earth boils, but we still should expect a larger amount of moisture to be permanently retained by the air.
The main question is whether it's enough to cause sea levels to drop.
As a direct effect--very little. Meteorology often uses the term precipitable water to indicate how much water vapor a column of water contains--the range is 0 to about 6 cm, that high number seen only under very deep nearly saturated conditions such as during India's monsoon. Even worse case scenarios of say 5 degree C temperature increase of global man-made warming would only raise that by a cm or so--not much compared to the amount of sea level rise we'll see from melting and thermal expansion.The main question is whether it's enough to cause sea levels to drop.
Doubtful.The main question is whether it's enough to cause sea levels to drop.
If we're in the nightmare scenario where temperatures are continually rising so that humidity is constantly rising ...... errrrrrk .... we won't get the kind of 'transfer' of water from ocean to land that shows so clearly in the GRACE map in this item, Why did sea level fall in 2010?
We'd be stuck with deluges, downpours and floods occurring often enough that the land surface waters would just be like a continuous conveyor belt for water back to the ocean. You'd barely have drawn up the specs to replace a bridge or a road washed away a couple of years ago and another flood will come down and change all your 10, 20, 50 year estimates for high water/rainfall levels - again. Because the land surfaces, wetlands and other water storages wouldn't get a chance to discharge their previous highest load. The land areas affected could be just as soaked and flooded as those in 2010, but it would no longer be much of a difference from previous conditions - so no net transfer of water. Just more and more of it circulating.
Designing stormwater and sewage systems to cope with this would be another kind of awful.
Speaking of design, engineering and all that tedious stuff, just came across this item
7 Cities About to Sink | U.S. News Travel
In every case here, the problem isn't initially sea level rise. It's a combination of lack of foresight, over-optimism and downright silliness in allowing large conurbations to not just start, but to get bigger and heavier, and then simultaneously to suck out the fluids and remove the natural support mechanisms (mangroves, wetlands, etc) that maintained the whole shebang in the first place.
Sea level rise will just accelerate and exacerbate problems that should never have been allowed to get so bad anyway.
During the last interglacial(the eemian) sea levels rose to about another 6 meters, and this was with all the sea ice melted, most of greenland, and some of antarctica.
Probalastic estimates should eventually put us in that ballpark. Block glacier ice melts slowly, and would need another 5 degrees to have a significant impact, and that's most likely a longer than 10,000 years melting at the 5 degrees. If we see a global heat gain of 8 degrees, then the timeframe shortens significantly. The melt speed also rather depends on where the rain falls, as rain above 40 degreesF will increase melt speed faster than temperature rise alone.
100 degreesF herein Iowa today, "but I feel fine"
We split off and moved the broader political discussion to the political sub-forum. Reopened.
cool
thanx
Back on topic.
For those who are really interested in sea level rise, how it's happened so far, how it's calculated and all the rest of it, spend half an hour with Jerry Mitrovica Jerry Mitrovica, Harvard University - YouTubeDuring the last interglacial(the eemian) sea levels rose to about another 6 meters, and this was with all the sea ice melted, most of greenland, and some of antarctica.
When you get near the end, you'll find that the 6 metre SLR estimate is no longer considered accurate for modern circumstances. It's now 6.5 to 8 metres.
if you buy the gravitational thing
then the gravitational anomolies charts/maps are interesting, and show a strong positive anomoly south east of greenland and running down the mid-atlantic ridge.
As the seas have a normal height from mean sea level variation of 150 meters, with the arctic ocean being normally lower than the global mean, I wonder how that would enter the mix. and, in ten thousand years, if/when we have more melt(greenlands current melt is approaching .01% per year) will the current sea "levels" change where the highs and lows are located?
The short answer is yes. As ice melts off the poles their gravitational effect on the world's oceans will also decrease which will means sea level will rise a bit less at high latitudes.
There was a few article about it a few years ago....Uneven sea level rise likely, study finds - US news - Environment - LiveScience - msnbc.com
recapping
during the eemian fersure, and most likely during 3 of the 4 last interglacials, the west antarctic ice sheet melted as did at least 2/3 of the greenland ice cap.
true?
Concomittant to the above the sea levels rose at-least another 6-9 meters from present sea level.
true?
And with lower polar gravity, the seas' bulges migrate toward the equator>
true?
This then should have the effect of slowing(ever so slightly) the speed of the earth's spin.
true?
(untoward)Which should allow the seas to move poleward. And impart less energy to the moon, allowing it to slow it's departure from the earth.
true.
Now, into this mix, we add the currently accepted claims to anthropogenic global warming/climate change. Assuming a real "climate change" and adding this to the "normal" climates and sea level rises of the recent interglacial temperatures and sea levels.
Then we should expect higher sea levels than the preceeding interglacials?
(imagining a whole fleet of gondoleers showing the next centuries tourists where the old capitals and coastal cities used to be)
I have read that CO2 concentrations below 600 ppm may have been the tipping point that brought on this current ice age.
Are there enough stored hydrocarbons (oil, coal, gas, etc.) to achieve and maintain that level of concentration for another 10-20 thousand years?
Assuming that within climatic norms, we should see at least the levels of the eemian without agw, Is anyone planning anything like rebuilding the cities and docks 6-9 meters higher up(more if they really believe in AGW)? Or, are the leaders, (like children) standing and shaking their fists at the normal climate hoping to stave off the normal inevitable? Are we to suffer the loss of our civilization centers because these damned fools think they can control the climate?
On a lighter note:
here is a link showing what greenland would look like without it's ice cap:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nd_bedrock.jpg
life is a trip and many a foresight is but an aparition, an illusion of an oasis created by reflections within the atmosphere of certainty and doubt.
Yes.Are there enough stored hydrocarbons (oil, coal, gas, etc.) to achieve and maintain that level of concentration for another 10-20 thousand years?
But that's not the real problem. The real problem is all the other carbon sources that progressively come into play as the system reaches certain 'tipping points'.
Forests. We think of the Amazon as a great air conditioner for the planet in a similar way to the poles and as a major carbon sink. But twice in the last decade, the Amazon forests have released rather than absorbed carbon due to drought. Should that start happening every couple of years we've got more of a problem. The North American continent has major forests all the way to Alaska, as they die off because of beetles they are releasing their carbon. When they burn during drought and heat, they release the rest.
Soils. Hold massive amounts of carbon. They've already lost a great deal due to farming methods. More frequent, more extensive droughts and floods will remove even more.
Permafrost, peat bogs and the like. As these melt and dry out, we are now talking gigantic injections of more CO2 into the atmosphere.
Methane clathrates are held in place only by freezing conditions under icy waters. As the waters warm, these clathrates will also release their load of carbon compound gases. Some people call it the clathrate gun, but some recent research has showed it's not quite such a sudden, unstoppable process - but afaics that's not much of a comfort.
We're already 'controlling' the climate. (If you regard sitting in the runaway car's driver's seat and refusing to use the gears or the brakes because it's 'natural' to let gravity run its course as .... control.)Are we to suffer the loss of our civilization centers because these damned fools think they can control the climate?
Our persistence in burning fossils for simple activities like warmth and travel when we have had heaps of other choices has disrupted the earth's geological cycling of carbon. In oil alone we use 3 million years' worth of fossil sequestration each and every year.
We exhausted Europe's forests for heating and related uses of wood. Discovered the wonders of coal for heating and to drive turbines for power. We went after the seals and the whales for oil for lighting - the seals have recovered a bit. The whales may never recover from that onslaught. Now we're reduced to blowing up the mountains that are the source of streams of drinking water to get at more coal (in Virginia and a couple of other places).
Not only have we had the knowledge and the capacity to get much of this power from other sources for a century or more, how arrogant and selfish of us to burn fossils. What makes us so special that we get to use up and destroy irreplaceable stuff that our grandchildren and their grandchildren could use to better effect - or even for the same purposes?
For adelady. The fact is adelady these are quality Postes that you are submitting to all the Members of The Science Forum. I will not annoy you by announcing every time I read your research, I just want to make sure Members are paying attention to your efforts. Keep up Quality information inputs like this and Meteor Wayne will have to recognize your merit and award smilies. westwind.
You missed my points.
A) we do not control the climate. Maybe, we(as a species) have accidentally learned how to manipulate the gas pedal(so to speak), adding energy into the mix(by releasing stored energy), but we ain't no where near being "in control". So, we can look to the past and see what has happened many times before, and adjust our thinking to more closely be in accord with nature. --- don't worry about the forest, as the climate changes, niches change, and tree species move to higher altitudes and latitudes during warming trends, and back again during cooling trends. As do croplands. And, as a default, whenever possible, plant a tree, then care for it until it can survive on it's own.
B) even a cursory glance at the charts of global climate for the past 5 million or 65 million years should be enough to know that unless the sun increases it's output and climate forcing, the earth is incapable of breaking out of this ice age on it's own. Maybe that's where we come in?
So, can we really acheive and maintain the necessary greenhouse components for an atmosphere that stops the next glacial phase of this ice age by using the energy which the earth has stored for the past millions of years? And. if so, for how long?
C) I think that we just need to understand what nature's past and current science are telling us, and make informed decisions.
Nobody cares about more than a million years ago. There weren't any humans then and we wouldn't have survived in those climatic circumstances if we'd been there.glance at the charts of global climate for the past 5 million or 65 million years
What science tells us is that the reason we've been so successful up until now is that we hit the jackpot in terms of stable climate over the last 10000 years. We don't want to 'break out of this ice age'. The current inter-glacial is what has allowed us to develop agriculture - reliable seasons, the right rainfall falling on the right regions of the land surface at the right times to promote growth and predictable maturity of grass seeds.we just need to understand what nature's past and current science are telling us, and make informed decisions.
Even if the current changes in temperature and precipitation regimes across the land surface had been initiated by the sun, for instance, we'd still have to look at ways to reduce, ameliorate or counteract the effects. (Unless we're willing to stand back and watch as a couple of billion people die in droughts, floods, famines and wars.)
If we can blow up mountains or gigantic holes in the ground to get at fossils, we can blow up mountains or gigantic holes in the ground to expose the minerals that can absorb rather than release CO2. It won't fully match our releases of sequestered CO2, but it'd give a bit of a kick along to geological re-sequestration.
We've already done it. No need to do any more.So, can we really acheive and maintain the necessary greenhouse components for an atmosphere that stops the next glacial phase of this ice age
Earth's next ice age could be delayed by global warming, research finds | Metro.co.uk
Global Warming and Predictions of an Impending Ice Age
jeez woman, you seem to be a tad narrow minded as/re the climate, and our effect on it.
genus HOMO has been around for at-least 2.4 million years--------coincidentally(?) just about the same time frame for the reglaciation of the northern latitudes. Was the new species a reaction to radical climate change?
as/re nobody cares about "more than a million years ago" ..It is the same earth, and we are the same species. Only fools and the intentionally ignorant don't care. Hitlers generals chose to ignore the rasputitsa and it cost them a couple armies and a war.
Only by studying the past can we hope to understand our coevolutionary biom. Willful ignorance is a really bad choice.
Before you wanna fuck with nature, you should make every effort to understand nature.
Last edited by sculptor; July 4th, 2012 at 06:41 PM.
Homo is the genus, not the species.
Thanks, I'll amend
Dear sculptor. Is your Post to adelady so important a refute that you have to resought to a cruder expression of conveyance to get points across.? You cannot be annoyed at a contrary view of Past and Future Climate conditions. Just use your considerable skill with the English Language to heap scorn on adelady if you will, in the rules of the game, your opinion can be forcibly expresses and may even be corrective, but show respect for adeladys contributions to The Science Forum. westwind.
'Nobody cares' in much the same way as 'nobody cares' about the fact that this particular example of rocky real estate will keep on spinning around whether we're on it or not, whether any life at all is on it or not. We might say we care for the planet, but it's not really true. We care for the planet as a life support system for ourselves and the living things we're interested in.nobody cares about "more than a million years ago" ..It is the same earth, and we are the same species.
'we are the same species' in a genetic sense maybe. But what is it that sets us apart from all our primate cousins and the rest of the animals of the world? It's our capacity to teach each other and our children and to organise larger and larger social groups. To learn how to grow our food rather than just rely on what we can find. Which is why modern gorillas and mongooses now live in much the same way as they did 200000 years ago when we emerged as a separate identifiable species. But we don't. (We were not around in our current form before then. Our closer cousins and predecessors were, but they weren't us.) We are more than our DNA. We are societies and cities and industries and art galleries - none of which could exist without agriculture as we know it.
And as for the climate, you have to go back a good bit longer than 2 million years to find the same concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere as we are now living with. About 15 million years. And there wasn't anything like us around then. Nor was there any wheat, rice, corn or barley. And we can't survive without those.
You might be willing to gamble the whole of the world's agriculture on the remote possibility that we can feed ourselves from crops that can't succeed in unpredictable, unreliable climates, but I've never seen the attraction of any gambling. Let alone a gamble where we're playing with several billion people's lives.
Or was your comment about 2-4 million years ago a desire to return to something more 'natural' when the world population of a species like ours would be less than a million or two.
The point in the study of the past climates is to understand what may have seemed chaotic and unreliable, but indeed followed discernable patterns. with components that we are understanding more everytime someone examins a new ice core, or deep sea core, or the iron rich australian rocks from an ancient ocean, etc.etc.. 15 million years ago, the antarctic was ice free, and about 50 million years ago the earth was experiencing the eocene optimum.You might be willing to gamble the whole of the world's agriculture on the remote possibility that we can feed ourselves from crops that can't succeed in unpredictable, unreliable climates.
Ignorance may indeed be bliss, but knowledge is power, and as we have inherited this co-evolutionary biom and have the power to destroy certain places within it (see mohinjo daro and our "dustbowl"), it is our responsibility to know and understand the biom and do what it needs to help us help it help us. You, me, our species, the trees and birds and fish and all life are all in this together, and it is we who hold the responsibility to assure it's continuation. Eschewing current fads for the long term.
Forget the assumed "we" as inEvery action is an individual responsibility--I care. I plant trees, and dig frog ponds, and do whatever I think may help us and other species to continue to exist. I am often wrong, but with each mistake, i gain better insights. And have developed a certainty that if the greater "WE" would put forth the effort, we can make of this biom a better place for "all god's children"(including all life). (personally, hearing/reading the voices without seeing the actions annoys the hell out-a-me)We might say we care for the planet, but it's not really true. We care for the planet as a life support system for ourselves and the living things we're interested in.
I have also learned that people who react from fear are usually wrong, and ofttimes dangerous. So I always recommend examining one's predispositions and fears----(perhaps, sometimes, a bit crudely--but with a sincere heart). Long ago, I said that the most dangerous thing i had ever witnessed was a man on the verge of panic---you couldn't tell what he was gonna do next, but it would be damned fast, powerful, and blind to the consequences.
That's what paleoclimatologists do.seemed chaotic and unreliable, but indeed followed discernable patterns
And what they tell us is that those previous patterns were distinctly uncongenial to life as we know it and to us in particular. We wouldn't have survived snowball earth (not much did), nor could we have lived in the climate of the dinosaur age. Nor would its botany or biology have supported us - there weren't any fruits or grasses back then.
We do have the knowledge and the capacity to live more appropriately without giving up much in the way of a modern lifestyle. In fact, my view of a 'modern' carbon neutral or negative lifestyle is more like The Jetsons (minus the flying cars, plus a garden) than the ye olde live like great-grandma approach.
Yeah. I just love those magazines with articles about being a 'green consumer'. Your new coffee table should be made from bamboo, not from precious wood. Really? How about rethinking the whole idea of buying yet another coffee table. Your new bedlinen should be made from organic cotton. Nup. Try to find good quality bath and bed linen made from hemp or flax - they'll last so long you'll be able to hand them on to your children as family heirlooms.personally, hearing/reading the voices without seeing the actions annoys the hell out-a-me
The natural check on humidity is cloud condensate nuclei AKA dust. Moisture then consolidates into heavier droplets and rains out. Your correctly described feedback effect terminates after warming extracts more dust from part of the biosphere, through fires and desertification.
Humans have worked hard to reduce this dust by greening large areas of dry lands with crops, fighting natural forest fires, and ironically, reducing the particulate component (not CO2) of our emissions. Last century's northern hemisphere temperature ups and downs correlate perfectly with changes in anthropic emission i.e. coal, gas, post-war boom, 1960's Clean Air Acts, etc. Now we have a dust-starved/vapour-laden atmosphere with average cloud cover continuing to decline; the scant addition of particles from jet engines is often sufficient to form clouds. That particles in the atmosphere ("air pollution") might not be all bad, is blasphemy to environmentalists since the movement was really born in opposition to the smog that once blanketed cities. So we will continue to fight the Earth's natural check on excess humidity (and to some extent warming), in the name of the Environment.
Do you have a citation for that? I'm reasonably familiar with some of the better known climate literature, but I don't recall anything along these lines. (And I lost my very long list of not-yet-read references when my computer crashed a few weeks ago, so I don't really have any guidance on this.)Now we have a dust-starved/vapour-laden atmosphere with average cloud cover continuing to decline
Kojak, perhaps you were referring to freeing nuclei? Condensation Nuclei are plentiful and sufficient in most places up to the tropopause. Either way, even if oversaturated the atmosphere are current temperatures isn't enough to noticeably effect sea level.
I wouldn't stick by any one paper. There's gross consensus but the numbers differ greatly, and most are prefaced with complaints about the sketchy data they had to use. Aerosol concentration over the last centuries was recorded only anecdotally, for example cities having "pea soup" smog or regions that were smokey from forest fires every summer. Humidity though quantified, was taken with ever-changing instruments calibrated just for local weather forecast. Cloud cover observations were variable and subjective until good satellite pictures were available. One area where clouds increased slightly or remained constant were in ship based observations. I'm suspicious that was skewed by (then unknown) ship tracks, exhaust-seeded clouds now plainly seen by satellite above our major shipping routes.
I'm not suggesting human manipulation of cloud (albedo) is causing warming. Rather, warming is caused mainly by the greenhouse gas CO2, and would have progressed more rapidly and steadily if not for the varying qualities and quantities of aerosol produced over the course of industrialization.
Oh, OK. You're just talking about aerosols. That stuff I do know.
I know the problems with the high cloud retains IR, low clouds reflect sunlight stuff - 1. how do you measure it in the first place, 2. how do you model it for changes in gases, land use, ice cover.
The really big argument in this area at the moment is between Kevin Trenberth's main argument and James Hansen's. Hansen suspects that we've underestimated the temperature-dampening effects of aerosols and that when the big Asian countries clean up their skies that we're going to get a nasty surprise when greenhouse gases get the chance to do their thing unimpeded. Trenberth's view is that there's a whole lot of unmeasured heating already in the oceans and we're in for a nasty surprise when it shows up in atmospheric temperatures.
Either way, we're in for a nasty surprise.
So we talk about clouds and what happens? .......
New research special - cloud papers 2010-2011
More papers to read than you can poke a stick at.
Wow. Thanks.
| « Monitoring Ozone and Solar Radiation. ( Australia ). | Increasing biodiversity? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
