Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 112
Like Tree26Likes

Thread: Doomsayers AND optimists both need to rethink approach to climate change.

  1. #1 Doomsayers AND optimists both need to rethink approach to climate change. 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Try this article on for size.

    A handful of excerpts to get the little grey cells warmed up.

    1. If we stop greenhouse gas emissions, won't the climate naturally go back to the way it was before?
    2. Isn't there "warming in the pipeline" that will continue to heat up the planet no matter what we do?

    The correct answer to both questions is "no".

    ..... So, does this mean that some of the
    climate change we have experienced so far would go into reverse, allowing, for example, the Arctic sea ice to freeze over again? Unfortunately, no.

    ..... There is bad news and good news in this. The bad news is that,
    once we have caused some warming, we can’t go back, ....... The good news is that, once we stop emissions, further warming will immediately cease; we are not on an unstoppable path to oblivion. The future is not out of our hands.Global warming is stoppable, even if it is not reversible.

    .... The most important distinction to grasp, though, is that the inertia is not inherent in the physics and chemistry of the planet’s climate system, but rather in our inability to change our behaviour rapidly enough.
    This last quote is followed by a table showing just how difficult this "behaviour" change really is. It's all about infrastructure - from housing to transport to power generation. I'm keeping this one because it's a really useful reminder of what needs doing, what needs changing, how big the task really is.

    The summary.
    • The warming we have caused by our emissions of carbon cannot be undone.

    • The additional future warming we will experience will be a result of our current and future emissions.

    • The inertia in the climate system is not natural, but human.

    • Emissions avoided today mean less warming tomorrow, and forever.
    That last emphasis is mine. It really is true, every little bit helps.

    The item is here. Global Warming: Not Reversible, But Stoppable
    The paper it's based on is here. Damon Matthews - Geography, Planning and Environment - Concordia University - Montreal, Quebec, Canada (Scroll down to 2013 publications)


    Edit: Watch where you have your cursor on screen when you're reading Skeptical Science articles. They have a dandy little widget that brings up definitions and explanations for terms used if the cursor rests on them. But if you're familiar with the language or not interested on following up every little detail it can be a bit irritating. So keep the cursor off to the margins if you're bothered by it.


    Last edited by adelady; April 22nd, 2013 at 11:10 PM.
    Flick Montana and Neverfly like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    By placing satellites in a La Grange orbit between the earth and sun could deflect some of the heat away from the earth thereby allowing humans to "adjust " the amounts of either more or less heat that they need here on earth.


    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    By placing satellites in a La Grange orbit between the earth and sun could deflect some of the heat away from the earth thereby allowing humans to "adjust " the amounts of either more or less heat that they need here on earth.
    That's just one possible method of geo-engineering, most of which are far cheaper than trying to cut CO2 enough to make any difference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,691
    At 1.5 million km (L1) from Earth - FOUR times the distance to the Moon - how much sunlight is it going to deflect?
    How large would it have to be to be worthwhile?
    How large could we make it?
    Last edited by Dywyddyr; April 23rd, 2013 at 03:54 PM.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Malignant Pimple shlunka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Dogbox in front of Dywyddyr's house.
    Posts
    1,784
    I've been doing my part by throwing a few ice cube trays a week into the nearby creek.
    "MODERATOR NOTE : We don't entertain trolls here, not even in the trash can. Banned." -Markus Hanke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    We can put mirrors between the Sun and Earth but we are totally incapable of deploying low emissions technologies here on Earth? I'm very dubious that these 'simple' solutions are anything but ways to justify avoiding dealing with the actual problem in any timely manner. This particular 'solution' dodges the problem that the problem goes way beyond just the planet's heat balance - unmitigated ocean pH change is real cause for legitimate doomsaying on it's own.

    Personally I don't think the climate and emissions problem has ever been beyond our technological abilities, but the minimum necessary is treated as optional by dismissing or denying the seriousness of the consequences of failure to do so.
    Neverfly and Bad Robot like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by shlunka View Post
    I've been doing my part by throwing a few ice cube trays a week into the nearby creek.
    Sad that the transference of heat is not so simple.

    I recall a futurama episode where, in 1,000 years, Terrans have answered the Global Warming issue not by halting greenhouse gasses, but by dropping a huge ice cube into the middle of the ocean.
    All was fine until it got so hot, the ice melted before they could position it.
    Maybe if our homes did not have air conditioning, we might be more open to doing something about the trend.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    That's just one possible method of geo-engineering, most of which are far cheaper than trying to cut CO2 enough to make any difference.
    If I wanted to be like my granny, I'd say A stitch in time saves nine. Or, more likely, I'd repeat what the economists say, it costs far, far less to reduce emissions now than
    a) cutting them later
    b) dealing with the effects later
    c) trying to do both at once later.

    Remember the biggest economic impact won't be on individuals directly. Surprisingly enough, the biggest elephant in the room is not the almighty incomes of the fossil companies, even though they're the biggest economic players in the world. It's the fact that their current assets, fossil holdings and the processing plants, will suffer the 'asbestos effect' (maybe the buggy whip effect) when their time comes. All the massive net worth of those companies will simply evaporate when nobody wants to buy their products or their raw materials.

    Whether it's the asbestos effect - products too dangerous to use - or the buggy whip effect - products outdated and unwanted - it will have the same impact on asset values. The biggest stockpile of buggy whips and the largest asbestos mine in the world both had their economic value wiped out when their time came. The same will happen to fossil companies. Eventually. They could have chosen to do it sensibly, gradually, maybe even gracefully bowed out. They've chosen the other path, so it will be ugly. But it will happen.
    Flick Montana and Bad Robot like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    The same will happen to fossil companies. Eventually. They could have chosen to do it sensibly, gradually, maybe even gracefully bowed out. They've chosen the other path, so it will be ugly. But it will happen.
    Given current infrastructure and reliability, how could they have done it gracefully? Personally, I think it was doomed all along.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    invest your minds where they have some value
    learn to understand and live with climate change
    then share that knowledge

    hand wringing based on prognostications based on incomplete knowledge and modeling systems
    is as useless as tits on a boar

    look at intigrating the divergent models
    all have some value
    by looking at the good information from each
    and looking for what has not been forseen
    we may actually find something approximating real knowledge of our shared co-evolutionary biom
    know it's feedback and dampening potentials
    find out what really leads up to an ice age and what leads us out of one
    kick the jams out
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    I have no idea what you just said. It looked something like, "Who cares. Don't bother. Just deal with it."
    I'm not sure. There was a boar with breasts and something about models (I think they should have the breasts...) some movie about a traveling mammoth, cat and sloth and some jam.

    Maybe you could try again?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    naw
    i don't care what everybody in the whole world says

    you really ain't that dense
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    you really ain't that dense
    No, I really am. I can only read structured English for some reason. Preferably with at least a High School level of grammar, syntax and diction.

    Good spelling helps, too.
    Paleoichneum and PumaMan like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    you really ain't that dense
    No, I really am. I can only read structured English for some reason. Preferably with at least a High School level of grammar, syntax and diction.

    Good spelling helps, too.
    I have been trying to get him to ACTUALLY use the English language structure for almost a year now. I see no reason to even bother with someone who thinks they sound smarter by making pseudo-poetry out of their posts.
    Last edited by Paleoichneum; April 24th, 2013 at 01:14 AM.
    PumaMan likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    invest your minds where they have some value
    learn to understand and live with climate change
    then share that knowledge

    hand wringing based on prognostications based on incomplete knowledge and modeling systems
    is as useless as tits on a boar

    look at intigrating the divergent models
    all have some value
    by looking at the good information from each
    and looking for what has not been forseen
    we may actually find something approximating real knowledge of our shared co-evolutionary biom
    know it's feedback and dampening potentials
    find out what really leads up to an ice age and what leads us out of one
    kick the jams out
    If your not going to bother employing the communication system that is utilized here on the forum, GO ELSEWHERE.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    I see no reason to even both with someone that thinks they sounds smarter by making pseudo-poetry out of there posts.
    I do not understand you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    I see no reason to even both with someone that thinks they sounds smarter by making pseudo-poetry out of there posts.
    I do not understand you.
    Yikes, I shouldn't try posting after a long day at work!
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    There was no way I could let that one slide... But at least you didn't try to make it into a poem.

    On topic: This issue was caused by more than just Climate Change.
    Warming contributed to higher waters, but the loss of northern glaciers reduced weight on the northern American plate, tipping a southern portion down is it rose, relieved of its burden.
    White, the retiree who tried to save the last remaining house on Holland Island was inspired by a gravestone of a young girl buried there: "Forget me not, is all I ask."

    Saving the land became an obsession for White- a battle that he was doomed to lose. He spent over $150,000 and lost a great deal, including the house, the island, excavator and a bobcat.

    I do not know the name on the tombstone... and yet, that simple marker means a bit more than just the person who requested it. It is a marker for much more than that and we all should remember, even if only a bit:
    http://sometimes-interesting.com/201...olland-island/

    http://www.dianawest.net/Home/tabid/...nd-Island.aspx
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    117
    the 3 idiots strikes on everything lol. i mean 1.neverfly 2 .shlunka and 3.dywuddyr
    i look at every topic on these site and u comment bullshit on everything you see. wthf .get away idiots
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    sokohila. Check your messages.

    Take that message as a polite, private warning. But a warning nevertheless.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    ... The good news is that, once we stop emissions, further warming will immediately cease; we are not on an unstoppable path to oblivion. The future is not out of our hands.Global warming is stoppable, even if it is not reversible.

    This is a good news ? For one it is false. Stopping emissions does not remove CO2 form the atmosphere, it will still be there for 30-90 year further warming the atmosphere.

    ....
    The most important distinction to grasp, though, is that the inertia is not inherent in the physics and chemistry of the planet’s climate system, but rather in our inability to change our behaviour rapidly enough.
    Thank you for finally come to term with that simple fact. The solution is not likely to be a technological patch.

    The title of the OP is very good, and could start a new conversation because:
    -Doomsayer can quit about trying to raise awareness that a catastrophe is coming. It is quite known by specialist that we pass the point of no return in the early 70'.
    The mistake have been made, the toy is broken, and nobody can fix it.
    -Optimist can no more hide behind unicorn or any other corn, like one full of mighty scientist that are going to save the earth with a blue light.

    Like Sculptor said, in a very understandable way, unless you are patented trolls with licences to non-sense, there are not ONE only reaction that will prevail.
    Using guess based on what-not is not, in my view, not a sensible thing to do. Even though, I welcome every one to proceed in non-nonsensical technological scenario.

    Meanwhile, soft landing of a cancerous civilization is no an option. The body will collapse no matter what.
    Soft earthed people, which a little respect for this marvel of random selection that is our environment, may not agree, and will try to save the most that can be saved.
    They will run into a brick of wall, constituted of 7 billions people flailing around to survive while running out of the very resources that were suppose to last forever (and burning coal like hell)

    Winter is coming, err I mean Selection is coming.

    I may entertain some thoughts about how to vaguely organize the downfall, but first you'll have to make the case that is is possible to organize such a debacle, while running out of the fuel (literally) of our economy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Stopping emissions does not remove CO2 form the atmosphere, it will still be there for 30-90 yearfurther warming the atmosphere.
    It's there for a lot longer than that. If you look at the graphs in the linked items, you'll see that.

    The take away message from the posts linked is that every. single. kilo. of emissions that we can avoid now is worth the effort. And some of it is either no effort or money saving or both.

    Hotel rooms are a classic example. Whatever it might cost to implement a system of turning off air conditioning in unoccupied rooms would pay for itself in very few years, if not months in some cases. Similar things apply to many residences with insulation and/or double glazing - the more extreme your climate, the more effect you get for each little improvement and the more money you're likely to save sooner.

    We are in for an awful time, and many people will die who wouldn't have if we'd got our act together 30 years ago. But we can prevent even more unnecessary deaths. The old analogy of a car crash still applies - even if you can't avoid a crash altogether, you should still put the brakes on to reduce the worst effects of the unavoidable collision.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    It's there for a lot longer than that. If you look at the graphs in the linked items, you'll see that.
    Ho yes that is true. I have my own sources, but they are of the doomsday type:
    ForcageRadiatif.jpg

    The take away message from the posts linked is that every. single. kilo. of emissions that we can avoid now is worth the effort. And some of it is either no effort or money saving or both.
    Here again, that is quite undisputable, from a scientific perspective which ignore something called "the economy" which is base on a paradigm which is the opposite: "it is worth all the effort to burn now more energy, at the cheapest cost, to grow something called profit".
    What I am afraid, is that once you enter "future" in the equation of other "welfare", probably by government intervention, you'll soon enough discover you are a "communist" or something even worse, and in the end, counter productive.

    Hotel rooms are a classic example. Whatever it might cost to implement a system of turning off air conditioning in unoccupied rooms would pay for itself in very few years, if not months in some cases. Similar things apply to many residences with insulation and/or double glazing - the more extreme your climate, the more effect you get for each little improvement and the more money you're likely to save sooner.
    Money cannot be saved, but this is another story.
    Here again a perfect example. The real solution being "outlaw air conditioning", and forbid people to live in freezing countries... Are you going to support that ?
    I myself will not support a new "green" industry that will need that much Giga tons of CO2 to build new modern insulation material.

    We are in for an awful time, and many people will die who wouldn't have if we'd got our act together 30 years ago.
    Yes again, and People will be dead of starving before the ice will have melted. Because every food calories is fed by 7 to 10 calories of fossil fuel (liquid).
    We can do nothing, except to eat less, and to regrow of local food chain in a hurry (that means to be officially an outlaw, because all this processes are now corporatiz'ed and patented).

    But we can prevent even more unnecessary deaths. The old analogy of a car crash still applies - even if you can't avoid a crash altogether, you should still put the brakes on to reduce the worst effects of the unavoidable collision.
    But than again is easy to do. Just stop breeding, and stop consuming. Easiest thing to do. Will it happens ?

    I am not playing devils advocate. This thread belong to the political section. Because like you or Sculptor said, it has nothing to do with technology, but with social contracts.
    In all countries, the right winger get to decide of the agenda. It will go worse and worse, the more "insecurity" will rise (It won't be faked terrorism, but actual economic/environmental disaster). The second worse thing that could happens is the left winger get hold of the decision process, with their "one size fits all" utopia.

    There was never a time when actual people could decide of their fate, and the internet is not either a way to do that.

    I suggest that everybody get in touch with its local farmer, build local non-profit with him, and say goodbye to globalization.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    By placing satellites in a La Grange orbit between the earth and sun could deflect some of the heat away from the earth thereby allowing humans to "adjust " the amounts of either more or less heat that they need here on earth.
    1) It would need to be a hundreds of miles across in size to have any measurable effect. We are a long ways from having the engineering technology to carry out such as project.

    2) The effect would not give us the desired results, because the changes to temperature (and other) by latitude and elevation are different for insolation than they are for increased greenhouse gases.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    paleo
    no offense
    what makes you think that i think that i'm smarter than you?
    It's just the way my mind works

    it sees a trigger like(from the above link---under wrinkles), :
    The Matthews and Solomon paper only deals with CO2. Short-lived greenhouse gases like methane are not considered in the study and nor are aerosols. Stopping fossil fuel burning, especially coal, would reduce aerosol (small particle) emissions, reducing their current shading effect and increasing warming. On the other hand, stopping fossil fuel consumption would decrease methane emissions and thus decrease warming even more than these authors have projected. It may turn out that these two effects balance out.
    and gushes out a dozen more missed factors, then roars into pages of details from other models
    none of which could easily fit in these pages, nor a normal human attention span-------------hell man, i'm getting old, and as i start to type some of that starting on page one, i tend to forget a bunch of the broader picture and segues(links, bridges,etc. ...) while focusing on a detail. Then, i may try to jam other bits in without proper segues.

    I suspect that if i tried to expand on the linked article(s) by bringing in energy lost through the tropopause into the stratosphere(like happened this year (see SSW)--causing the midwest to be between 10 and 20 degrees colder than normal these past 4 months), or deep ocean currents estimated circuits(easily up to 100s of years) and the locations of eventual upwellings and factor that into weather models, or solar cycles, or ........
    the thing would get unwieldly in one damned confusing swirl of point counterpoint leaving many a tad "punch drunk"

    so, i tried to keep it simple
    and
    apparently,
    failed miserably
    as communication was actually my goal

    so I said:

    invest your minds where they have some value
    learn to understand and live with climate change
    then share that knowledge

    hand wringing based on prognostications based on incomplete knowledge and modeling systems
    is as useless as tits on a boar

    look at intigrating the divergent models
    all have some value
    by looking at the good information from each
    and looking for what has not been forseen
    we may actually find something approximating real knowledge of our shared co-evolutionary biom
    know it's feedback and dampening potentials
    find out what really leads up to an ice age and what leads us out of one
    kick the jams out
    at the risk of curing insomnia
    lemme expand
    the first paragraph is self explanatory
    true?
    the second could translate as
    "don't let this snapshot worry you, look further"
    cool?
    the third was basically a "how to"----------recommending that you look into other climate forcings, feedback mechanisms, and dampeners, and then, keep looking even farther ----------------well beyond the grasp of any precognitions you may harbor.

    have I actually communicated here?
    .......................
    edit epimetheus:
    as/re understand climate change
    I often advise:
    Plant a tree.
    And herein lies something important:
    Try to figure out what climate change will do to the area surrounding the 1 square foot that you are standing on in 50 or a hundred years. And plant the tree that will best survive in that future, based on what you would want from any tree you might plant.

    Tricky?
    Worth the effort?
    Last edited by sculptor; April 24th, 2013 at 11:18 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    First thing you could do is stop with your love of hitting the return key after every other word. It may be how your brain works, but you have shown on a number of occasions that you can use the english language structure fine, and I HIGHLY doubt that is how you wrote in school or when you write physical correspondence. Being digital does not give licence to create illegible word salad posts.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman R1D2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    S, SE USA
    Posts
    31
    Maybe there is someone here that knows more on the subject. But I heard somewhere that if we get "warm" enough the ocean current will get disturbed enough and we will experience a "mini ice age" type event.
    Bad Robot likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by R1D2 View Post
    Maybe there is someone here that knows more on the subject. But I heard somewhere that if we get "warm" enough the ocean current will get disturbed enough and we will experience a "mini ice age" type event.
    The UK and parts of Europe would experience temperatures more akin to their latitude if the Atlantic water cycle shut down or of the jet stream drifted.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    IF

    (that's a mighty big if)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Not so big.

    Polar ice levels are at all-time lows. New research suggests that this can shift the jet stream system and bring cooler air down from the northwest over Europe. They already saw a pretty cold March. We'll just have to see what the climate scientists say.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    late winter and spring cold could well have been due to the increased amplitude of the jet stream
    or, rephrased, a combination of the temperate and polar jet streams
    or, rephrased, a diminishment of the polar jet stream, replaced by(or allowing) a higher amplitude temperate jet stream

    which could have led to a Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW) over the poles
    which disrupted the polar vortex
    allowing cold arctic air to spill down over the northern hemispheric land masses---chilling the temperate zones
    while allowing an influx of warmer air into the arctic resulting in a much warmer northern greenland, and the canadian maritime arctic islands.

    instrumentation improves
    linear causation still presents some confusion

    it seems that the SSW is having a direct effect on polar seas, resulting in changes to the deep water currents
    -----recent studies have only begun to investigate the ramifications of this observation

    always remember that heat or carbon shunted to the cold deep ocean currents can stay down there for well over a century
    It was thought that it would take more than a century of increased atmospheric warming to elevate the temperatures of the deep ocean currents by even 1 degreeC, now that too is being re-examined.

    (it's really nice to see so much resource dedicated to these studies)
    ...............................................
    edit epimetheus:
    So far, this year is the coldest since 1993-----20 yr cycle? solar cycles? low solar activity?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    The UK and parts of Europe would experience temperatures more akin to their latitude if the Atlantic water cycle shut down or of the jet stream drifted.
    Most scientists would say that shutting down the thermohaline overturning at the Arctic "end" will take a very long time. The truth is we just don't know. What needs to happen to maintain it is that when the warmer flow reaches the cold region, you have to have a freezing response at the surface. That extracts water into ice and leaves saltier water unfrozen but very cold. This denser water then sinks/flows through the more normal seawater concentration and begins its journey back around the rest of the world at the bottom of the ocean.

    Clearly if the Arctic were ice-free all year round this would change the flow dramatically. But no one knows - whether the circulation would gradually slowdown over centuries after all the ice is gone year round, or would stop precipitously at some point when there is "too little" freezing during winter or some other process at some time between. What too little ice might amount to is completely unknown. As is just about every other possible tipping point in these various scenarios.

    Really, this is a sideshow. It's a bit like wondering whether you should polish your shoes - before using them to run from an avalanche. If things really are this dire, we'll have far more problems - like getting enough food, or moving away from rising seas/rivers - before the full effect is seen.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    I suspect that as/re the arctic ocean, the bulge of the beufort gyre is noteworthy
    It had risen 15cm or about 6 inches between 2002 and 2011 within it are 10% of the polar fresh water or about 2000 cubic miles of fresh water.

    the pressure of that volume of water has slowed inflows from the pacific, and broadened the size of the gyre allowing some more of it's gathered waters to join the transpolar current and exit around greenland and iceland while the north atlantic current hugs the northern european/eurasian shoreline as far east as central siberia.

    if the SSWs become more common they may disrupt/alter the current flow patterns into and out of and within the arctic ocean
    recent studies are indicating a direct link between SSWs and ocean currents----but not enough data is in to indicate a likely path of change

    think of a jugler with 7 balls in the air---------sooner or later, something has to change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    We can put mirrors between the Sun and Earth but we are totally incapable of deploying low emissions technologies here on Earth? I'm very dubious that these 'simple' solutions are anything but ways to justify avoiding dealing with the actual problem in any timely manner. This particular 'solution' dodges the problem that the problem goes way beyond just the planet's heat balance - unmitigated ocean pH change is real cause for legitimate doomsaying on it's own.

    Personally I don't think the climate and emissions problem has ever been beyond our technological abilities, but the minimum necessary is treated as optional by dismissing or denying the seriousness of the consequences of failure to do so.
    We have had the technology to massively reduce emissions for years.

    By simply using,

    Commercial solar power (in appropriate areas.)
    Commercial wind power (in appropriate areas.)
    New generation nuclear power pants.

    Using natural gas instead of using coal (and catching the carbon, or putting it underground.)

    Using high speed "propfan" commercial airplanes.
    Using high gas milage cars.
    Updated public transportation, with added bicycle lanes.
    Using LED light bulbs.
    Requiring all homes to have modern insulation (with government subsidies.)

    And using organic farming where possible.


    These things would massively reduce emissions, and not even change peoples lives (they would only make our cars a little slower.)

    And capitalism along with government subsidies, could easily pay for the changes.
    Last edited by chad; May 1st, 2013 at 04:26 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    This post was made by accident, sorry.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Totnes in Devon, Mumbai and StAlban-Auriolles in Southern France
    Posts
    120
    Climate change has always happened, at the moment, it would seem that human activity is causing a rather rapid climate change, quite what the consequences of this will be are unknown, there are only models that suggest this will happen or that will happen. The reality is that the complexities in the system are so vast that anybody who professes to know what 'will' happen clearly does not understand the issue in any depth / not a scientist.
    Change will happen, that is all we know. What is far more of a risk to the survival of the human species is overpopulation and the continuing acceleration of depletion of renewable resources.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    The survival of the human race is not the only thing to factor in to our decision-making. We must also consider the well-being of all other life on this planet affected by our actions.

    And let's not paint with such a broad brush. To say the effects are "unknown" and that somehow that should change our mentality is not entirely true. We do know ONE thing; none of the side effects are 'good'. We're not prepared to deal with these severe changes. For instance, we KNOW that if we melt polar ice, by calculating the volume of melt, how much sea levels could rise by a fairly accurate account. We also KNOW how many people live within a shore distance which would be affected by that rise.

    The fact is, we KNOW enough to KNOW that we need to take action right now.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    imagine for a moment what the consequences would be if we were to stop all fossil fuel use tomorrow----(famine comes to mind)

    as/re; take action:
    Flick, what action have you personally taken?

    ................
    as previously mentioned
    No extant climate model can account for known climate changes!
    For example:
    Find just one climate model that predicted the aforementioned SSW, or one study that has calculated the acceleration or deceleration of heat loss to the stratosphere, quantified that heat transfer, and accurately predicted it's final outcome. And I'll be delighted if you share that knowledge.
    Are there any significant changes to be expected in the stratosphere from an increase of SSW events? How, exactly do SSW events effect the ocean currents?
    -------------if you cannot find good/thorough data on this---join the club---

    Here's a kicker, the recent SSW caused northern temperate land masses to have a temperature of about 20 degreesF below normal which increased the heat load requirements by over 50% these past 4 months---which increased fossil fuel use for heating by a like percentage, which added that much more GHGs to the atmosphere---
    -----what we do know---so far this has been the coldest year on record for the USA since 1993---and this was the wettest April in all of Iowa's recorded weather.

    What we do not know still far exceeds what we do know.
    And, much of what we do know remains isolated within specific fields of study, lacking integration with data from other fields of study.
    It seems, that a good first step would be a concentrated integration of knowledge from the varied fields, to form new modeling paradigms.

    but, hubris gets in the way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    I tend to stay away from the "What have YOU done?" question because people think that you cannot be truly concerned about the environment unless you live in a cave and subsist on indigenous flora and dirt.

    I also have a really hard time reading your posts because of the format.
    PhDemon likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    while I tend to focus on the individual to wash the crap off of the abstractions

    ..............................
    as/re
    we need to take action right now
    the old lone ranger joke when Tonto says: What do you mean "we" whiteman?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Totnes in Devon, Mumbai and StAlban-Auriolles in Southern France
    Posts
    120
    To really think that there is anything that we can do to stop the current trends is rather arrogant. And it's not 'bad', there have been mass extinctions in the past and there will be in the future. Get over it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeaunse23 View Post
    To really think that there is anything that we can do to stop the current trends is rather arrogant. And it's not 'bad', there have been mass extinctions in the past and there will be in the future. Get over it.
    Yay for shortsightedness. The human race has not been alive during a rapid climate shifts such as the one we are generating. The last shift that is similar is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Take a look at the floral and faunal turnovers during that temperature spike before you say "suck it up".
    Flick Montana likes this.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    ... The human race has not been alive during a rapid climate shifts such as the one we are generating. The last shift that is similar is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Take a look at the floral and faunal turnovers during that temperature spike before you say "suck it up".
    We may not have been here then, but our ancestors flourished during the eocene optimum. If it hadn't been for the petm, we might not have had the chance to evolve. The world was much warmer (12degrees C) both before the petm, and after, with co2 concentrations 10 times those of today, and our ancestors thrived. North america was a tropical paradise, with palm trees growing up to the 50th parallel. Sea levels were higher due to none of the water being wasted in ice sheets. It was a wetter more verdant world then.

    Maybe it is your reptilian brain that hates/fears the changes of the petm?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    ... The human race has not been alive during a rapid climate shifts such as the one we are generating. The last shift that is similar is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. Take a look at the floral and faunal turnovers during that temperature spike before you say "suck it up".
    We may not have been here then, but our ancestors flourished during the eocene optimum. If it hadn't been for the petm, we might not have had the chance to evolve. The world was much warmer (12degrees C) both before the petm, and after, with co2 concentrations 10 times those of today, and our ancestors thrived. North america was a tropical paradise, with palm trees growing up to the 50th parallel. Sea levels were higher due to none of the water being wasted in ice sheets. It was a wetter more verdant world then.

    Maybe it is your reptilian brain that hates/fears the changes of the petm?
    I would say that your massively over simplifying when you say our "ancestors" were doing fine during the PEtm. Primates as an oder had been around for a very short time, and the modern Subtropical family of Homonidae did not exist, so to say "we will do fine or great-whatever grandparents survived the PEtm!" is a bullshit argument. And,according to the Paleobotanical record, a large portion of North America during the PEtm transitioned to arid scrub and not tropical paradise.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeaunse23 View Post
    To really think that there is anything that we can do to stop the current trends is rather arrogant. And it's not 'bad', there have been mass extinctions in the past and there will be in the future. Get over it.
    That strikes me as an awfully brutish viewpoint for a science forum.

    I'll take arrogance over ignorance and apathy any day.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    From James Hansen, Pushker Kharecha and Makiko Sato et.al. (march, this year):
    “We suggest that the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal, since 2000 is a basic cause of the large increase of carbon uptake by the combined terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks. One mechanism by which fossil fuel emissions increase carbon uptake is by fertilizing the biosphere via provision of nutrients essential for tissue building, especially nitrogen, which plays a critical role in controlling net primary productivity and is limited in many ecosystems.”

    from satelite data:
    The productivity of the planet’s terrestrial biosphere, on the whole, has been increasing with time, revealing a great greening of the Earth that extends throughout the entire globe. Satellite-based analyses of net terrestrial primary productivity (NPP) reveal an increase of around 6-13% since the 1980s.

    Hansen, et. al. wrote about how while co2 emissions have continued to increase, since 2000 atmospheric CO2 has not-------crediting the increased fecundity of the biota with consuming the excess co2.

    couple more points:
    A) No one knows what caused the petm. (the front runner is vulcanism)
    B) There is little or no evidence of terrestrial extinctions associated with the petm, or eocene optimum.(the polar oceans, however, tell a different story, especially the north atlantic.)--due to the kimberite eruptions in canada(which may have acted more strongly on their latitude?)?

    Paleo, I suggest that you revisit whatever it was that makes you think that:
    And,according to the Paleobotanical record, a large portion of North America during the PEtm transitioned to arid scrub and not tropical paradise.
    There was indeed a seemingly rapid change in biota during the petm which may have lasted 100-200 kyears, (and especially near the aforementioned volcanic activity,?) (of which, due to glaciation and erosion, scant evidence remains) but, as a whole the result was slow change in flora and fauna of north america, transitioning to sub tropical rain forests, and the rise of mammals.(which includes us).

    as/re --rapid change: I had previously mentioned a wisconsin pond pollen study that indicated a change from pine to oak forest in well under a century.
    (whether this is, or isn't, pertenant to this discussion remains unknown)

    every once in a while
    it's a good idea to re-examine your paradigms and prejudices.

    my guess
    holding the petm up as a climate boogie man for todays situation is quite a stretch.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    while co2 emissions have continued to increase, since 2000 atmospheric CO2 has not
    So how come the CO2 atmospheric concentration was about 370 ppm in 2000 but is about to pass the 400 ppm barrier?

    I think what Hansen etc are really saying is that the increase in concentrations does not account for all of the increased emissions.
    Full Mauna Loa CO2 record

    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    adelady----you're correct--------i finally found the paper by James Hansen, et al, and they were talking about percentages.
    saying that the percentage of emissions remaing in the atmosphere had diminished

    her are his words(jeez I hate it when people cherry pick to create a misleading headline):

    An interesting point, however, is the failure of the observed increases in atmospheric CO2 to increase as rapidly as the fossil fuel source has increased. This fact is contrary to suggestions that terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks are tending to saturate as CO2 emissions continue.

    An informative presentation of CO2 observations is the ratio of annual CO2 increase in the air divided by annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions, the "airborne fraction" (Fig. 3, right scale). This airborne fraction, clearly, is not increasing. Thus the net ocean plus terrestrial sink for carbon emissions has increased by a factor of 3 to 4 since 1958, accommodating the emissions increase by that factor.

    (there was a chart here, so here is the link to the whole paper: Doubling Down On Our Faustian Bargain By Dr. James Hansen Co-written by Pushker Kharecha and Makiko Sato )

    Fig.3: Fossil fuel CO2 emissions (left scale) and airborne fraction, i.e., the ratio of observed atmospheric CO2 increase to fossil fuel CO2 emissions. Final three values are 5-, 3- and 1-year means.

    Remarkably, the airborne fraction has declined since 2000. The seven-year running mean had
    remained close to 60 percent up to 2000, except for the period affected by Pinatubo. The airborne fraction is affected by factors other than the efficiency of carbon sinks, most notably by changes in the rate of fossil fuel emissions.

    However, the change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5 percent/year to 3.1 percent/year (Fig. 1), other things being equal, would have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction (because a rapid source increase provides less time for carbon to be moved downward out of the ocean's upper layers). A decrease in land use emissions during the past decade might contribute a partial explanation for the decrease of the airborne fraction, but something more than land use change seems to be occurring.

    We suggest that the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal, since 2000 is a basic cause of the large increase of carbon uptake by the combined terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks. One mechanism by which fossil fuel emissions increase carbon uptake is by fertilizing the biosphere via provision of nutrients essential for tissue building, especially nitrogen, which plays a critical role in controlling net primary productivity and is limited in many ecosystems. Modeling and field studies confirm a major role of nitrogen deposition, working in concert with CO2 fertilization, in causing a large increase in net primary productivity of temperate and boreal forests. A plausible addition of 5 TgN/year from fossil fuels and net ecosystem productivity of 200 kgC per kgN16 yields an annual carbon drawdown of 1 GtC/year, which is of the order of what is needed to explain the post-2000 anomaly in airborne CO2.

    Independent of a possible aerosol effect on the carbon cycle

    ..........edit:
    I still think that Hansen has created a "position" which he feels he must defend, and that this is diminishing his objectivity.
    Either that, or, I've just never gotten comfortable with his rhetorical style?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,568
    Sculptor

    Transient Floral Change and Rapid Global Warming at the Paleocene-Eocene Boundaryhis paper and others by Scott. The floral shifts were rapid and notable during the PETM, stop trying to say there will be no effect on the human species.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Totnes in Devon, Mumbai and StAlban-Auriolles in Southern France
    Posts
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeaunse23 View Post
    To really think that there is anything that we can do to stop the current trends is rather arrogant. And it's not 'bad', there have been mass extinctions in the past and there will be in the future. Get over it.
    That strikes me as an awfully brutish viewpoint for a science forum.

    I'll take arrogance over ignorance and apathy any day.
    Actually I think it is ignorance and apathy that makes a lot of folks think that there will be a technological fix along in a while so why bother to change our habits?
    So I'll assume that us scientists can find a way to stop population expansion ( as that is at the root of this issue). ..And they can find a way to create a truly sustainable worldwide economy. And stop large impactors from hitting the earth, oh and super volcanoes from erupting too. And while we are at it we can perhaps engineer the sun to continue providing us with warmth and light for ever, or perhaps find a way to spread our DNA across the universe?
    Sooner or later it will have to end, of course it is life's prerogative to struggle against that but we need to come to terms with the fact that 'All things must pass'..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    So I'll assume that us scientists can find a way to stop population expansion ( as that is at the root of this issue).
    Population is not the root of this issue.

    This issue is about consuming resources - resource use, resource depletion, and failing to account for (or reduce) waste produced by wasteful use of those resources. It's also about silly decisions about using particular resources in the first place, and then persisting with that even though it's been shown to be dangerous in some way. The way most advanced economies behave about fossil use looks a lot like continuing to build houses with asbestos even though you know the mining, processing and use of the stuff kills people - lots of people. We let the assets of asbestos companies decline to zero or negative values when we realised just how dangerous asbestos is. We can do the same for fossil companies.

    Globally, the 20% of the world's people in the highest-income countries account for 86% of total private consumption expenditures - the poorest 20% a minuscule 1.3%.More specifically, the richest fifth:
    • Consume 45% of all meat and fish, the poorest fifth 5%.
    • Consume 58% of total energy, the poorest fifth less than 4%.
    • Own 87% of the world's vehicle fleet, the poorest fifth less than 1%.
    Stress on the environment, society and resources? (I can't find a more up-to-date report with the same presentation/comparison.)

    Though I did like this graphic for its simplicity rather than anything else.
    Percent of World Total

    United States
    Developed Countries
    Undeveloped Countries

    from Consumption by the United States: Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Totnes in Devon, Mumbai and StAlban-Auriolles in Southern France
    Posts
    120
    Agreed, popluation is not the root, however, what I said was population expansion. There is simply no way that the world population can continue increasing without it creating a problem, resources are finite after all. However, nature has proven methods of dealing with population spikes and if we do not control ourselves then nature will.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    while I tend to focus on the individual to wash the crap off of the abstractions

    ..............................
    as/re
    we need to take action right now
    the old lone ranger joke when Tonto says: What do you mean "we" whiteman?
    Not completely sure what that means, but the "I" only goes so far. I work in protecting our water resources, so I like to think I'm doing my part for the environment. That having been said, I cannot alter emissions standards for airlines and car companies, or mandate runoff from farms, etc. These things need to be done through legislation, which involves ALL of us. The "we" comes from the fact that this is a global issue and if we do not act together, we will suffer the consequences together.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeaunse23 View Post
    So I'll assume that us scientists can find a way to stop population expansion ( as that is at the root of this issue)
    I find this statement strange. I agree that population control is key, but how is it implemented through scientists? I've always seen it as more of an issue with education.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Totnes in Devon, Mumbai and StAlban-Auriolles in Southern France
    Posts
    120
    It was assumption for the sake of the point, obviously scientists cannot control population, maybe nobody can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Sculptor

    Transient Floral Change and Rapid Global Warming at the Paleocene-Eocene Boundaryhis paper and others by Scott. The floral shifts were rapid and notable during the PETM, stop trying to say there will be no effect on the human species.
    thanks paleo:
    Nice abstract, unfortunately, the meat of the matter seems to be paywalled and beyond my meager finances
    (sigh)
    The abstract still fails to support your:
    And,according to the Paleobotanical record, a large portion of North America during the PEtm transitioned to arid scrub
    (ah for the days when i was a university student in chicago, and had access to Illinois 3 biggest libraries---when i was doing research, I'd be waiting when the library opened in the morning and then hit the "stacks" and look through the abstracts and bibliographies, then give a list to the librarian who would get me the dissertations, and articles---) but, those days are long gone and much of what i find noteworthy on line is pay walled---(sigh)

    as/re your :
    stop trying to say there will be no effect on the human species
    I never said that---I would NEVER say that. Lacking sufficient knowledge, such a statement would be foolhardy, and reckless, bold and rash just ain't my style.

    Of more immediate concern is the draining of the ogallala aquifer, which, by most estimates is said to be being used fast enough to remove it within 20 years.
    Add to that use, when corn prices spiked due to ethanol, far too many corporate farms bulldozed out the shelter beds to plant those few extra acres in a cash crop. WHEN(not if) persistent droughts return, there may be nothing left in the ogallala to green those high plains fields, nor tree wind breaks to hold back the dust. Just loosing that acreage, may put an end to our food exports(we are still the largest food exporting nation), causing world wide famine in just 20 years.
    And, that is an immediate threat to the species.

    Floral transitions have been damned rapid in the recent past(see the wisconsin and norwegan pond pollen studies) without leading to desertification.
    And, if we know enough to help those transitions as we anticipate the details of climate change, we may be able to maintain a habitable biom.
    As I previously declared:
    as previously mentioned
    No extant climate model can account for known climate changes!
    ...To my way of thinking, that means that we really need to take a step back and look at all factors with an open mind and keen eye, and coordinate/intigrate all extant models and seriously get rid of ego to see where the research is lacking.
    If/when we finally are able to create models with no outliers, no contradictions, nor contra indicators, then, indeed we should proceed with a sound knowledge base to properly husband our shared co-evolutionary biom.
    In the meantime, I advocate planting trees, learning more, building frog ponds, learning more, super insulating buildings, learning more, minimizing my use of fossile fuels, learning more, ...etc... .

    This is our world, and we should be aware of it's needs every last damned minute of our existance, and doing everything we can to make of it a better place.
    ...........................
    as/re "population control"
    Our food and medicine exports have been greatly responsible for the population explosions of the "third world" countries.....
    But' it seems so heartless to not give food to the hungry, nor medicine to the sick.
    It is simple, the hungry and/or sick do not breed as often, and their children tend to die young without procreating.
    ....but---jeez the cure seems so damned heartless, and, if we discard compassion in one place, are we not also likely to discard it in others?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    The reality is that the complexities in the system are so vast that anybody who professes to know what 'will' happen clearly does not understand the issue in any depth / not a scientist.
    That isn't really true. The complexities are only in what happens when.

    We know, with absolute certainty, that modern agriculture and therefore civilisation as we know it cannot continue in a world where the global annual average temperature is 4C degrees higher than pre-industrial.

    We also know that a 6C degrees higher world will mean the death of all but a remnant of current human populations - along with most other species we are familiar with.

    The complexities are in the details. Though the "details" are not minor incidental things in this case. Like - when do we start evacuating Tokyo, London, Bangkok, New York, Shanghai, Mumbai, and whole regions within Florida, Bangladesh, the Nile and Mekong Deltas. Like - when will the first major worldwide crop failure occur - from floods in one handful of countries, droughts in the others.

    At the moment, the stated intention of the countries of the world is to "limit" the temperature increase to 2C. Most have done little to nothing to achieve this, some have gone out of their way to ignore it. They came to this compromise back when the scientific opinion was that the loss of Arctic sea ice was expected towards the end of this century along with increases in extreme weather events. Both of these things are already well under way.

    I doubt that the next IPCC report will be quite so mild in its conclusions as the previous reports have been - but neither will it be a clarion call to urgent action. Being a realist, some will say pessimist, I'm inclined to the view that this will come only from the horrors of widespread food shortages - anyone who thinks the French Revolution was a terrible instance of the consequences of food shortages ain't seen nothing yet. Don't know which year will be the tipping point, but along with the loss of the Arctic, it will be much sooner than people think. Most likely within my lifetime, say another 25 years (if I live as long as the rest of my family). If not by then, then not long after.
    Ken Fabos, Jeaunse23 and Neverfly like this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    We know, with absolute certainty, that modern agriculture and therefore civilisation as we know it cannot continue in a world where the global annual average temperature is 4C degrees higher than pre-industrial.

    We also know that a 6C degrees higher world will mean the death of all but a remnant of current human populations - along with most other species we are familiar with. ... .
    JEEZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
    lady
    we do not know any of that
    and claiming it to be so is really silly
    and does a disservice to real climatology.

    as the temperature rises, if paleo climates are any reasonable model, the most warming will be pole-ward.
    a warmer world will be a more humid world
    water and co2 are plant food
    kick up co2 to 300 or 600 ppm and plant productivity will almost double for much of our food crops.
    even 900 ppm is not detremental to most crops.
    add in that what we really need to look at is the annual range of expected temperatures. If we see temperatures staying above freezing, then we needs look to what doesn't need a freezing dormant phase, and many many plants which provide food for us are well within that range.
    Last edited by sculptor; May 6th, 2013 at 10:26 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    But at least you didn't try to make it into a poem.
    Yeah, what's up with that. I don't read her/his posts most of the time. It reminds me of Vogon poetry, the third worst in the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by PumaMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Neverfly View Post
    But at least you didn't try to make it into a poem.
    Yeah, what's up with that. I don't read her/his posts most of the time. It reminds me of Vogon poetry, the third worst in the universe.
    Its becuz its groovy, daddy-o.
    ...............................
    Many a year ago, an old buddy of mine... We'll call him Snuffluffaguss---
    Well, ol Snuff an me --we went to a swingin party
    mothballs dont fly, ya know?
    So, snuff gets out his trusty flute and a merry ol tune he gave
    I wonder what ever happened to ol Snuff...
    He wore a funny hat.
    ............................................
    Nothin' wrong with some jazz Dad.
    just bein a bit rad.
    that aint so bad.

    Jeez, you aint seen hot til Snuff plays a tune.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    hahahaha
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    hahahaha
    Your response is laughter-- Jeez
    You could have used a little tact
    Instead of leaving me feeling smacked.
    Whether you post that time in rhyme
    Or you could do it in prose, I suppose

    I do not like it Sculptor I Am

    I do not like green cheese and ham.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    a warmer world will be a more humid world
    No. It will be a more extreme world - that "humidity" will drive larger quantities of water in the form of downpours and floods. But dry regions will get drier - the "humidity" will not average out. Dry will be dryer, wet will be wetter, hot will be hotter - unfortunately cold will not be colder, but there will be "unseasonal" frost and snow. Those 'out of season' cold snaps - they'll really be caused more by frost/snow at what used to be normal times - will be a lot more of what happened to last year's apple crops in Canada and the north east USA. Warmer conditions at what used to be the end of winter provoke early flowering - frost comes back for a couple of days/weeks - the crop is lost.

    As for CO2 as plant food. It's only an issue where CO2 is the only factor limiting growth, like glasshouses where plants are already well supplied with water and nutrients. In open fields, the limiting factor in a warmer world is much more likely to be overnight minimum temperatures. If they're not low enough at the right time, corn and rice in particular will simply not set seed. And no crop can withstand being flooded a month before it's due to be harvested. No cereal crop can withstand 6 months of no water. No tree crop can withstand hail/frost/storm during the few weeks before harvest, and most cereals are pretty well wiped out with these conditions near harvest too. No amount of extra leaf produced by more access to CO2 can compensate for losing all your wheat/cherries/rice/walnuts to a hailstorm or a flood or 2 days of 40c+ heat at precisely the time the crop can least withstand it.

    The reason why agriculture cannot survive a 4C warmer world is the higher unpredictability of seasonal conditions and the more extreme conditions likely to prevail even if (more) rain comes at the right seasonal time and (more) heat comes at the right seasonal time.

    We will be able to do things like put orchards and vines under shadecloth and surrounded by windbreaks to ameliorate too much sun/hail/storm conditions. We will be able to modify some crops to cope with more extreme conditions. What we won't be able to do is to do this for all the broad acre farming everywhere that currently produces the world's wheat surpluses in USA, Canada, Australia, Russia for example. Then we have to think about rice and corn and other grain production, both broad acre and smaller regional producers.
    Neverfly likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Totnes in Devon, Mumbai and StAlban-Auriolles in Southern France
    Posts
    120
    I simply do not understand how anybody can claim to 'know'. We have models and as time goes by we see that many of them are proving inaccurate. I maintain that there are simply too many variables and variables within variables, plus as we all know, climate is chaotic and even with powerful supercomputers predictions of what will happen in just a few days are not particularly reliable. Long term forecasting ( months) is spectacularly unreliable, agreed this is specifically with regard to 'local' conditions.
    So we simply cannot 'know'. Climate is changing, yes, it seems that it is changing more quickly than is usually the case, there are a number of basic scenarios and innumerable possible detailed scenarios, many of them do not bode well for continued sustainable industrial development and population growth, some are apocalyptic.
    Beyond this nothing is certain.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    kick up co2 to 300 or 600 ppm and plant productivity will almost double for much of our food crops.
    This simply isn't true. From biology of c3 and c4 photosynthesis we know the max benefit would be between about 20 to 40%. Ecological studies suggest a much more moderate boost in the 10-15% range. Though not a scholarly work by a long shot this article in New scientist calls the idea of huge gains a myth and does a reasonable job of explaining why.
    Climate myths: Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeaunse23 View Post
    I maintain that there are simply too many variables and variables within variables, plus as we all know, climate is chaotic and even with powerful supercomputers predictions of what will happen in just a few days are not particularly reliable. Long term forecasting ( months) is spectacularly unreliable, agreed this is specifically with regard to 'local' conditions.
    You are making an argument of incredulity and confusing weather with climate. Hard chaos limitations to weather modeling do not apply to much of the climate modeling (30 years averages).
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Totnes in Devon, Mumbai and StAlban-Auriolles in Southern France
    Posts
    120
    Yes, I agree there is a difference between weather and climate, however, my argument ( that we cannot predict with any accuracy what will be the consequences of anthropogenic climate change due to both the chaotic nature of the system and its complexity) still holds. This is not incredulity but an understanding of the limits of computational mathematical modelling. We know ACC is real, we know that it will have significant impact on the biosphere but what/where/when/how much etc remains in the domain of mathematical models.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    This is not incredulity but an understanding of the limits of computational mathematical modelling.
    Global climate is not modelling. It's physics.

    The predictions about the eventual outcomes of certain levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are simply physics. Eventual is a problem though. The physical physics repercussions may take some time to be fully realised. The modelling helps us with what happens when along the way. And the loss of Arctic sea ice tells us that our models, so far, are not all that accurate about the when or the how fast of some really obvious consequences.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeaunse23 View Post
    Yes, I agree there is a difference between weather and climate, however, my argument ( that we cannot predict with any accuracy what will be the consequences of anthropogenic climate change due to both the chaotic nature of the system and its complexity) still holds. This is not incredulity but an understanding of the limits of computational mathematical modelling. We know ACC is real, we know that it will have significant impact on the biosphere but what/where/when/how much etc remains in the domain of mathematical models.
    You haven't made an argument as of yet.

    But if you have a sincere wish I can show you many examples of models results that suggest climate modeling is far beyond what you suggest--good enough to not only give good results over the past few hundred years, but as best we can tell get most of the features correct of distantly past climates (such as the peaks of the last ice age).

    Climate final states are relatively straight forward physics, the uncertainties which remain are getting the resolution and filling in the details about how the global system reaches those states.

    Lastly much of the effort isn't about absolute accuracy...but developing a good picture of the future risk globally, regionally and of course locally. Much like an insurance adjuster can't tell you when your house will burn down, he can look at your construction and heating system and develop a reasonable assessment of how likely it is to burn down. Both the physical models and stochastic sensitivity models are sending the same message--our society show listen more seriously to that message. (another recent article showing good verification in decadal forecast is here http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...eo1788_F1.html)
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; May 7th, 2013 at 02:55 AM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Totnes in Devon, Mumbai and StAlban-Auriolles in Southern France
    Posts
    120
    So why therefore is there still so much debate? If it is as cut and dried as you suggest then I would expect 100% of the scientific community to back this up but it seems that there is still significant disagreement, not if it is happening , granted but rather, when, where, what etc....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    Debate? There's virtually none within the scientific community that you'd expect to be on top of the subject. There are a few ideologically or religiously motivated types who just dig in their heels and refuse to go where the science takes them - but they are very few.

    (Plenty of non-experts outside that group willing to nay-say and gripe about stuff they don't really understand but who claim expertise because they have a science or engineering qualification.)

    The when, where and what issues are really taking a lot of scientists by surprise, even those who were most outspoken 10 or 15 years ago. Arctic sea ice is the poster child here, but the loss of glaciers and the increase in extreme weather events are all more extensive and moving much faster than anyone thought, let alone dared to publicly state - apart from the rare people like Maslowski who seems to be spot on with his prediction of the loss of all sea ice at the end of summer before 2020 - and he did that when some people were still sticking to the 2060 timeline.
    Flick Montana likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Totnes in Devon, Mumbai and StAlban-Auriolles in Southern France
    Posts
    120
    Well in a way, this is good to know. I'm still not entirely sure that all the experts are in full agreement however. For instance it has, I understand, been recently shown that glacier retreat in the Himalaya is nowhere near as rapid as had been once suggested.
    maybe its the media causing the confusion. And I completely ignore the experts who have vested interests either commercial, political or religious. Anyway, we are in broad agreement I think, ACC is a reality but the details/predictions are still not clear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Debate? There's virtually none within the scientific community
    This apparently isn't being made clear to the population at large. The only real debate we see is within the confines of the media. Typically, the debate I see is centered around the implementation of laws and their impacts, not the problem itself.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I understand, been recently shown that glacier retreat in the Himalaya is nowhere near as rapid as had been once suggested.
    Glaciers are retreating in the Himalayas as badly as they are all over the world. This is a pretty good overview at Skeptical Science Shrinking Himalayan glaciers Note that there now being more glaciers than before is a very bad sign - it shows that glaciers are breaking up into smaller sections.

    Figure 4 gives a good summary of the decreasing lengths of glaciers in this area.
    The consistent picture that emerges is net ice loss in most parts of the Himalaya. Measurements suggest that the rate of loss has increased since about 1995 (Bolch et al, 2012).

    Fig 4. The glacier retreat since the mid-19th century is obvious in the Himalaya, with the exception of the glaciers at Nanga Parbat in the northwest (RA, CL). Glaciers in the Karakoram show complex behavior (Bolch et al, 2012).
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Totnes in Devon, Mumbai and StAlban-Auriolles in Southern France
    Posts
    120
    Woo, somebody should inform the media here in India
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    here are a few of the results from studying food crops with elevated co2 concentrations:

    sweet potato
    Bhattacharya, N.C., Biswas, P.K., Bhattacharya, S., Sionit, N. and Strain, B.R. 1985.
    Growth and yield response of sweet potato to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Crop Science 25: 975-981.
    results = increase in biomass.dry weight---74% at 300ppm. 148% at 600ppm.

    white potato
    Magliulo, V., Bindi, M. and Rana, G. 2003. Water use of irrigated potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)
    grown under free air carbon dioxide enrichment in central Italy.
    Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 97: 65-80... face studies.
    results = increase in biomass.dry weight- at 300 ppm 1998growing season---53%, 1999--88%

    again, the white potato, Ludewig kicked co2 up to 600ppm in an environmental chamber in 1998
    and had 70% and 100% increase in biomass dry weight.

    spinach
    in 2009, Jin et al. got 38% increase at 300ppm
    in 1993 Holbrook et al. kicked co2 up to 900ppm and got a 118% increase

    broccoli
    in 1998 Reekie et al. grew broccoli in controled environmental chambers at 600ppm
    and got yield increases of 120%

    cucumber
    Kriedemann and Wong (1984) got a 416% increase in containers in a greenhouse at 900ppm.

    strawberries
    Wang and Bunce (2004) got a 39% increase in fruit biomass at 600ppm in an open field test.


    I tend to favor the open field studies so we can see the effects in a "natural setting"
    ............
    there have been hundreds of studies looking into plant productivity with higher co2 concentrations, and several that also studied temperature as a factor.

    by and large, plants do better with higher co2 concentrations, and many plants studied can tolerate higher temperatures with higher co2.

    small wonder when one considers that when plants spread over the land masses, both temperature and co2 concentrations were higher.

    ..................all of this keeps bring us round to the reliability of climate models about which, i have remarked that "they do not model well paleo climates"
    one study of the petm climate found that in using the extant models if one considered the high latitude high winter temperatures, the models kept claiming much higher summer time temperatures for the mid latitudes than the field data indicated.

    as previously stated, many of the extant models rely too heavily on co2 as the main factor, ignoring the concommitant biotic production of sulfur gases to the atmosphere, and other feedback mechanisms, including the aforementiones ssw events, which following the increased amplitude of the temporal jets are likely to become more frequent.

    from Peppe:
    Resolving the equable climate problem is particularly important because it has considerable ramifications for understanding the dynamics of past and future greenhouse climates. If proxy data are correct, and past greenhouse climates were more equable than today’s, fundamental aspects of greenhouse climates must be missing from climate models. This would indicate that unknown biases exist in climate models related to missing forcing factors, because regional and global climate models cannot reproduce climate parameters that agree with proxy data while maintaining equable climates. On the other hand, if climate data generated by models are accurate and greenhouse climates were not more equable than modern, winter temperatures were much cooler than proxy data indicate, or summer temperatures in mid and low latitudes were warm enough to potentially negatively impact plant photosynthesis. This possibility would suggest that physiological responses of plants and animals to climate extremes were different in the past, or that terrestrial biota are more adaptable to extreme climates than thought. The equable climate problem thus shows clearly that aspects of greenhouse climates are poorly understood.
    If you think that we really have a good understanding of the positive and negative feedback mechanisms of this planet.
    If you think we have models that have no contradictions, or outliers or contraindications.
    You are wrong.
    Which makes broad declaritive statments about the future of this environment and climate the province of fools.

    .....................
    I ain't claiming that we cannot understand our shared co-evolutionary biom.
    I am claiming that we ain't even close to that understanding-so don't assume that anything is "settled" nor any "debate" is over. Take a step backward, abandon your "positions" and look again.
    And, eventually, we will know more.
    Last edited by sculptor; May 7th, 2013 at 09:31 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    oops-double
    Last edited by sculptor; May 7th, 2013 at 11:02 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Sculptor, I guess we should get into the C3 and C4 plant biology--which suggest any claims above 40% for a doubling are not only dubious but likely physically impossible.

    And as I said, ecological open air experiements with enhanced CO2 often show low or no increased yeilds such as this one on corn:
    " In the absence of water stress, growth at elevated [CO2] did not stimulate photosynthesis, biomass, or yield. Nor was there any CO2 effect on the activity of key photosynthetic enzymes, or metabolic markers of carbon and nitrogen status. "
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361343/
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    738
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    I have been trying to get him to ACTUALLY use the English language structure for almost a year now. I see no reason to even bother with someone who thinks they sound smarter by making pseudo-poetry out of their posts.
    It's called "arty-farty": Informally artistic in a pretentious way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    AI's Have More Fun Bad Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Washington state
    Posts
    6,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by R1D2 View Post
    Maybe there is someone here that knows more on the subject. But I heard somewhere that if we get "warm" enough the ocean current will get disturbed enough and we will experience a "mini ice age" type event.
    The UK and parts of Europe would experience temperatures more akin to their latitude if the Atlantic water cycle shut down or of the jet stream drifted.
    I believe there is a fear, that if enough ice melts from the Greenland land mass, that it will mix to much fresh water in the Northern ocean. This will change the salinity and the density of the surface water which will prevent the warm water from being pulled down by the colder water. This will in effect stop the ocean current they call the conveyor belt and drastically change the worlds climate almost overnight. (Any climate change will be bad for humans). If this in fact did happen, billions of people could die within a few years (5 to 20).

    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    thanx for the link lynx
    From your linked :
    The results provide unique field evidence that photosynthesis and production of maize may be unaffected by rising [CO2] in the absence of drought.
    reminded me of Vanaja's work wherein he found that increased co2 affected corn in a positive relative to drought. That is that corn yields increased with a combination of h2o stress and higher co2 compared to corn yields with water stress and without elevated co2.
    http://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/40023.pdf

    Which, if adelady's assumption of drought is accurate would mean that the elevated co2 and drought would roughly cancel each other out?

    .......what a wonderful crop is corn, but if memory serves, when the missippian culture swithched to a heavy maize diet, their teeth rotted earlier, and they died younger..........so, maybe betting our future on corn ain't the best possible course of action?
    .................
    and
    how did you become an Anunnaki sponge puppet? catch an ancient disease, or euphoria from your time in the middle east?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    I think it's arrogant and selfish for people, companies, communities and nations to dodge responsibility for the known consequences of the energy choices we make - and they are known more than well enough that to dismiss and ignore what every scientific institution that studies climate is telling us is dangerously irresponsible.

    In any case I am firmly of the view that climate modelling is a very valuable tool in understanding how our climate works and responds to change and has shown itself to be, even if imperfect, more than good enough to show the broad sweep of how change will affect the world. Modelling is far preferable to running a long term, large scale experiment that has us and all we hold dear in the test tube, although lots of people, certain in their belief that nothing people do will matter (don't bother voting btw - u are less than a fraction of a percent and therefore your vote is pointless) seem perfectly fine with letting consequences happen as they will. No doubt when reality intervenes to demonstrate clearly that their confidence that nothing matters proves incorrect, they will be looking for people to blame. Climate scientists?

    Science based understanding of climate, including but not confined to Global Climate Models, allows the possibility of understanding of consequences, before they happen. Our institutions of government allow the possibility of changing what we do when guided by that knowledge. Actually I believe that our elected representatives in government have a clear obligation to take the overwhelmingly consistent scientific advice about serious impacts to security and prosperity very seriously. I think that their knowing participation in promoting misinformation and misunderstandings on behalf of affected vested interests and the deliberate obstruction of efforts to prevent appropriate government policy they engage in are a profound betrayal of the trust they hold on behalf of their constituents.
    sculptor likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    HIgher CO2 offsetting drought? Depends on how bad the drought is presumably. Certainly didn't do much good for USA farmers in 2012.

    The 2012 production declines from expectations early in the growing season reflect crop condition ratings that declined throughout much of the growing season. In the first weekly rating of the corn crop reported by NASS on May 20, over 75 percent was rated as good to excellent, while only 3 percent was in the poor or very poor category. By September 30, only 25 percent of the crop was rated good to excellent with 50 percent rated poor or very poor. Sharp declines in soybean crop ratings also occurred, with only 35 percent of the crop rated good to excellent as of October 7, compared with 65 percent in this year's first weekly soybean rating on June 3.
    USDA ERS - U.S. Drought 2012: Farm and Food Impacts



    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Ken
    you seem to really want the "ideal world"
    and I agree with all of your above
    in any political arena, special interest will always fight for their interests
    and having the ex governor of Iowa as ag chief in the usa is an ecological sin if ever there was one.

    Bear in mind that usa agriculture is heavily dependent on fossile fuels, and we are a net exporter of food(actually, the biggest net exporter).
    If the ogallala aquifer last another 20 years, then when it is drained, that whole high plains production goes off-line and the rest of the world had damned well better step up production and fill in the gap, or lots of people are gonna starve.

    20 years seemed like a long time 50-60 years ago, today, 't'is but the blink of an eye.

    Meanwhile this whole culture is built on this cheap fossil energy jugernaught, and ain't likely to change soon, we can slow it down and turn it, but much like the largest tanker ships, we're gonna need some assist from tugboats.
    (go tesla)

    And, I wish I could see a long range solution in sight, but it just ain't so.

    .....
    as re climate models----I do not discard the models nor the effort involved, we just ain't got really good ones yet.
    With any luck at all, as more field data, and information from our marvelous technologies come into play, the modelers will adapt to the new information, and strive for more comprehensive accuracy.
    Meanwhile, keep a good thought and a keen mind
    bonadventure
    rod
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    adelady
    by years end 2012
    USA wheat production surpassed pervious maximums and corn production was only off 10% from 2011
    and
    here in iowa we just had the wettest april on record, and the river data(I live along the iowa river) are mimicking the graphs from 2008 when we had a "500 year flood"
    last summer, I dug down over 2 feet to bury a dead chicken and the ground was bone dry---last week i dug a test hole, and the ground was moist down the same depth-----so, maybe? the drought is over?

    ........
    and, you realize that the co2 concentration ain't up to the level of that which was used in the aforementioned studies?
    Last edited by sculptor; May 8th, 2013 at 09:02 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Totnes in Devon, Mumbai and StAlban-Auriolles in Southern France
    Posts
    120
    No debate? There seems to be plenty looking at this thread. If we can't agree then what's the chance of the media conveying a consistant message?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    If we can't agree then what's the chance of the media conveying a consistant message?
    We're not reporters or editors. Those professions have at least a nominal obligation to seek out facts, but reporters are now trained much more to treat every topic as though it were a he said, she said, political or personal spat where the reporter gets to be the sensible onlooker who provides balance.

    So every story has to have a narrative and that narrative has to be about a dispute - preferably trivial and with a personal interest twist. So reporters shove microphones into faces shouting "How do you feel" about ....... opinion polls/ a train wreck/ your whole family died/ last week's cricket results/ important scientific data and what they're hoping for is a tear trickling down a face or an angry reaction. That's what counts as a story. The only science story that gets much air time/ column inches is one that can be spun as a medical miracle.

    And that's mainly because science reporting is a dying art in newspapers. There are now very few papers or other media outlets which even pretend to maintain a science section. There are also very few which are not beholden to major industries for their advertising revenue - and fossil companies are the biggest money earners in the world for the time being - so papers need to keep a wary eye on what topics might upset their advertisers and their readership.

    Asking the media to be neutral, factual and reliable on scientific matters is a pretty big ask. It doesn't suit the owners and operators in the first place and it doesn't fit with the way reporters are trained either.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Totnes in Devon, Mumbai and StAlban-Auriolles in Southern France
    Posts
    120
    Tell me about it! here in India, papers like The Times of India print the most hilariously wrong/misunderstood/misinformed science news on an almost daily basis, maybe I should cut out and keep some of the better howlers.
    On a more serious note, I have found that even excellent and well written science reporting ( I love New Scientist) gives me an overall impression that the 'climate debate' is still far from settled.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #89  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    New Scientist? I read every issue for almost 20 years.

    Now? It's gone badly downhill. The new owners have responded to complaints about the quality of reporting (especially on climate, but not just that) by saying that it's not a scientific publication, it's for entertainment!! I still buy particular NS issues if they catch my eye but they can't rely on me as an eager weekly reader any more.

    We now buy Scientific American which seems to be moving to be more like New Scientist used to be.

    The climate "debate" is a manufactroversy. There is no scientific debate. All the contrary and contrarian views you see reported are mainly political, sometimes religiously based, or downright lies. Some outstanding examples are all three.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    Sculptor, I guess we should get into the C3 and C4 plant biology--which suggest any claims above 40% for a doubling are not only dubious but likely physically impossible. ...
    Lynx:
    Please do so. My understanding of that is a bit weak. If memory serves, it has something to do with how a plant processes co2, and that c3 plants thrive on elevated co2?
    And, then to levels of saturation?

    Which brings James Hansen's comment about his misreading of the saturation points of various carbon sinks and then the levels of atmospheric co2 compared to the levels produced by our fossil fuel consumption. It seemed that as/re his comments, the more we produce, the less % remains as free atmospheric co2(what was unsaid, but hinted at in his comments) until we reach a tipping point?

    One paper i read suggested that plants continually exposed to higher levels of atmospheric co2 saturations became more agressive consumers of co2.
    I have found no further mention of this suggestion, save for another comment describing the elongation of stomata instead of their size, total numbers, or concentration.

    ........
    so, please, proceed.
    ...........................................

    On another note, as/re science, I tend to put the word "debate" in quotes, as I prefer to think of the action as a refinement of scientific knowledge, and a coming together of different perspectives, and concomitant knowledge bases to form a better understanding of our shared co-evolutionary biom.
    (I tend to think that the word, "debate" should remain a politician's word and stay the hell out of science)
    Last edited by sculptor; May 9th, 2013 at 07:51 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    I have come across this interesting TED talk by Allan Savory. It seems to be matching the OP pre-requisite.
    But the results seems a little miraculous to me. The critic section on wiki also seems a bit vague.

    So what do you think ? I found the carbon sequestration claim at best exaggerated...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #92  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I was initially very impressed with his ideas, but a bit of reflection and a good look at the areas he proposes be subjected to this treatment shows its limitations. Savory started out with a good idea for regenerating degraded, desertified areas which had lost their large, roaming herds of herbivores. And promptly turned it into a recipe for all deserts everywhere.

    The idea looks great if you look at the loss of depth of soil across the prairies of America since the bison were eliminated. But to think it has any application in Australia, for example, or the formerly fertile crescent of the Middle East or most of the other places he so blithely lists shows a naivety and an ignorance of ecology (along with geography, meteorology and lots of other important things) that are completely counter-productive.

    It's in the same family as those people who constantly nag that we should grow extensive forests of extremely large trees across the Sahara and inland Australia. Unless the ecological "regeneration" you're proposing is something your grandparents (or maybe their predecessors) might have seen, then it's not regeneration. When you're proposing something that's not been seen in 10000 years or more, then you're playing with fire. Worse than that, you're potentially diverting attention and resources away from real solutions to urgent problems.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #93  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    It's in the same family as those people who constantly nag that we should grow extensive forests of extremely large trees across the Sahara and inland Australia. Unless the ecological "regeneration" you're proposing is something your grandparents (or maybe their predecessors) might have seen, then it's not regeneration. When you're proposing something that's not been seen in 10000 years or more, then you're playing with fire. Worse than that, you're potentially diverting attention and resources away from real solutions to urgent problems.
    Could not agree more.

    But that talk make me think of this thread when he spoke of the human micro-climate change. Removing forest, grass, pumping huge amount of water from place to place (changing the whole CO2(and the rest) cycle, not just emission)
    I supposed these could be modeled, thus I was wondering how these small/local change would impact a global simulation (using two run of it (one with an one without)).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #94  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I supposed these could be modeled, thus I was wondering how these small/local change would impact a global simulation (using two run of it (one with an one without)).
    Modellers already have big problems with projecting changes in known issues for regional levels. It's better to have a look at areas where we know what favourable conditions were like some time in the last few centuries or couple of thousand years. Julius Caesar's records of the extensive forests across the Mediterranean coastal regions of North Africa being a good example. Which also raises the question of undoing things like the Aswan High Dam to reinstate the flood, deposit silt, grow stuff without chemical fertiliser routine along the Nile. Good luck with that. There's also the issue of some islands that have been divided in half by previous colonial allocation. There's not much of a problem, ecologically speaking, with Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya. But then look at the treeless hellhole of Haiti where the other half of the island, Dominican Republic, is densely forested and economically productive.

    Then look at what we've done on continents like Australia and North America. We're putting water where it doesn't belong to grow temperate/ tropical stuff on previously desert lands. There's not really a problem with using such lands for agriculture, but it should be growing dryland crops and livestock like olives or dragonfruit or sheep (eating saltbush or the like), not rice and lettuce and dairy cows chomping through lush pasture.

    Then look at the wiki page for Ascension Island. Ascension Island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    In 1836 the Beagle voyage visited Ascension. Charles Darwin described it as an arid treeless island, with nothing growing near the coast. Sparse vegetation inland supported "about six hundred sheep, many goats, a few cows & horses", and large numbers of guineafowl imported from the Cape Verde islands, as well as rats, mice and land crabs; .....
    In 1843, botanist and explorer Joseph Hooker visited the island. Four years later, Hooker, with much encouragement from Darwin, advised the Royal Navy that with the help of Kew Gardens, they should institute a long-term plan of shipping trees to Ascension. The planted trees would capture more rain and improve the soil, allowing the barren island to become a garden. So, from 1850 and continuing year on year, ships came each depositing a varied assortment of plants from botanical gardens in Argentina, Europe and South Africa.

    By the late 1870s Norfolk pines, eucalyptus, bamboo, and banana trees grew in lush profusion at the highest point of the island, Green Mountain, creating a tropical cloud forest.


    Obviously this works well near the equator on rich volcanic "soil" - which is really only created when you have enough plant matter accumulating on the surface. But we know a lot more about ecology now than we did then and there are many thousands of locations across the world in various geographies where this kind of garden creation will certainly benefit the local inhabitants. It will buffer them against some effects of a warming world and possibly ameliorate the local climate and contribute to improving more general outcomes once we get control of emissions (and start extracting excess CO2 from the atmosphere).

    I think permaculture's time is coming - because the loss of cheap fossil-based fertiliser will cause real problems for producing affordable food from broadacre grain crops, quite apart from climate impacts reducing crops. Lots of smaller (compared to multi-thousand acre wheat crops) gardens producing nuts for flour and protein as well as shade and micro-climate control for smaller plants will benefit many communities. We won't be able to save everyone, but we can make things better for many millions of people.
    Boing3000 likes this.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #95  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Thinking only back 10,000 years limits perspective to a very small slice of our planet's climate and biom.

    I would suggest at the very least including as many interglacial climates and biom as may be determined from current field data.

    When was the last time that Australia was forested?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #96  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    Thinking only back 10,000 years limits perspective to a very small slice of our planet's climate and biom.

    I would suggest at the very least including as many interglacial climates and biom as may be determined from current field data.

    When was the last time that Australia was forested?
    What makes you think climate research doesn't extend further back--in fact it does--in some cases hundreds of millions of years to look at climate under varying continental configurations.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    sorry lynx,
    that was in response to adelady's :
    When you're proposing something that's not been seen in 10000 years or more, then you're playing with fire. Worse than that, you're potentially diverting attention and resources away from real solutions to urgent problems.
    I should'a made that more obvious?

    20 million years ago, both the southern 1/2 of australia and antarctica were forested
    but australia was closer to antarctica then
    so those ancient trees most likely ain't an option for Australia's current latitude
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #98  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    The 10000 years refers to the Holocene. The stable climate regime that has allowed us to survive at first and then thrive with agriculture. Any climate that doesn't have the same features of regular, predictable seasons in the temperate regions, driven by predictable winds and currents, won't do the trick.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #99  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    And we have to go a lot further back than 10,000 years to find equivalent greenhouse gas radiative forcing as now and will soon pass (we're just shy of peak Holocene temps now) any known recent inter-glacial while humans have been around.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  101. #100  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Lynx:

    humans = genus homo?
    A) ... then 2.3-2.8 million years(coincidentally just about the same time the northern hemisphere entered this current ice age)?

    or did you mean early modern humans including heidelbergensis?
    B) ... then roughly 1.2 million years?

    or fully modern humans?
    C) ... then roughly 2-300 thousand years?

    well, yes to all three , especially to A) and B) who had the extended comfort of the superinterglacials.
    ...................................
    adelady as/re :
    The 10000 years refers to the Holocene. The stable climate regime that has allowed us to survive at first and then thrive with agriculture. Any climate that doesn't have the same features of regular, predictable seasons in the temperate regions, driven by predictable winds and currents, won't do the trick
    A) The climate is changing! The predictability that you cherish, as based on the previous few thousands of years will need to change along with it.
    B) Long ago, when I studied and was degreed in anthropology/archaeology, I wrote several papers concerning the likelyhood(?) that we as a species had advanced agricultural and monumantal archetectural civilizations during the coldest part of the last period of glaciation, which were destroyed/inundated by the rising sea levels, and floods associated with the melting of the continantal ice sheets. Back then, any claim to humans in the americas before 10,000 ybp was considered to be from the "lunatic fringe of archaeology"(meadowcroft, calico hills, etc), and one of my professors congratulated me in that I had joined that fringe.(then gave the paper an A+) To date, nothing has proven the postulations presented in those papers false, and much more ancient dates for humans in the americas are accepted. I would go so far as to suggest that the comments about the monumantal archetecture of gobleki tepe(10kybp), that "the oldest of the 'temples' is the best executed" would support the concept of a displaced advanced civilization as postulated in those papers.
    Conjecture? For sure, but as yet not disproved.
    ..The part of me who wrote those papers would like to see the return of the ice and concomittant drop in sea levels(I'd be happy with a significant improvement in underwater archaeology).
    Meanwhile, the rest of me would like to see an ice free arctic.

    But, I'll most likely be dead before any of that happens.
    Meanwhile, I continue to plant trees and really enjoy being sung to sleep by the frogs who congregate around the frog pond i dug and maintain.
    Last edited by sculptor; May 22nd, 2013 at 09:02 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Mammoth climate change
    By Pong in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 16th, 2011, 06:48 PM
  2. Climate Change Debate
    By KIMCHIJJIGAE in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: January 17th, 2011, 10:17 AM
  3. Why nothing much gets done about climate change
    By Bunbury in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 27th, 2009, 10:59 PM
  4. Climate change
    By sak in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: August 21st, 2008, 03:28 AM
  5. A Different Approach to Solving Climate Change...!
    By Null Hypothesis in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 4th, 2007, 05:04 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •