Notices
Results 1 to 48 of 48
Like Tree26Likes
  • 3 Post By adelady
  • 5 Post By John Galt
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By Flick Montana
  • 1 Post By hannah40
  • 2 Post By cosmictraveler
  • 1 Post By sculptor
  • 2 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By sculptor
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 2 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By adelady
  • 1 Post By Lynx_Fox

Thread: Climate: Increasing temperatures

  1. #1 Climate: Increasing temperatures 
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    There's a really interesting new paper out in Nature:Climate Change http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...imate2145.html Thankfully its open access but you do have to register.

    Here's an extract from the conclusion.

    Furthermore, the available evidence suggests that the most 'extreme' extremes show the greatest change. This is particularly relevant for climate change impacts, as changes in the warmest temperature extremes over land are of the most relevance to human health, agriculture, ecosystems and infrastructure


    However, it takes a bit of reading and re-reading. There were a few news reports but they didn't say much. Now, everyone's favourite statistician has done some work with it. Hot Days | Open Mind

    I know most of us can't follow the technical statistical bafflegab, and it's certainly far more work than most of us are willing or able to do to track down the international datasets, but he shows how this all fits in.

    ...points out that although global average temperature may have been increasing more slowly recently than in the previous two decades or so, the frequency of hot days in land areas has been increasing
    faster recently than in the previous two decades or so.
    ...

    Seneviratne et al. used a somewhat different approach. They defined “hot days” as those above a given percentile (without regard to the normal distribution), and instead of just counting hot days, they computed what fraction of the land areashowed an excessive number of hot days during each year. They also included the entire globe for which data were available. Their overall result, however, is the same: that the number of hot days has increased more rapidly recently in spite of the global average temperature increasing more slowly ...

    And he finishes his OP with this

    It also emphasizes the point that it’s not just the mean that matters, it’s also the extremes. Some would say that the change in extremes is the greater threat to the habitability of our planet.

    Well worth the read.


    "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 Junior TridentBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    207
    Thanks for posting, I've been waiting for this. As we see extreme weather events happening all over the planet, its becoming plain that the predicted 3 degree C increase in temps by the year 2100 are not the actual threat, the actual threat is extreme weather weirdness (hot, cold and bizarre) that we've been seeing. And good data on it is lacking. So this work is clearly a step in the right direction.

    edit: And this analysis (your second link) is excellent. Huge can of worms that needs more explanation: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/hot-days/


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    I wonder how well the data would fit if it was compared to a logistic map.
    This one is like a little movie.

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logistic_map_with_parameter_from_0.02_to_4_t_ from_0_to_200.gif
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Our great-grandchildren will condemn us for not assassinating those who argue anthropocentric global warming is not happening. I plead guilty.
    PumaMan, pyoko, adelady and 2 others like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Much of this flies in the face of the equable climate model which seems favored by most paleo-climatologists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,395
    What specific paleoclimatologists?
    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  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    just look up "equable climate model"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    just look up "equable climate model"
    And look at the implications of an "equable climate model". This video by a geology/paleo scientist tells us a bit about that. When you get to 45 mins through his talk, look at the slide. The scary Q&A on that slide is the "Is the current climate 'normal'?"

    The answer. "NO. Normal for Miami is under 80 metres of water." Not 80 feet, 80 metres of water.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yze1YAz_LYM&hd=1

    (And please. Anyone who watches the whole thing. What on earth is it with that lectern? I know it's the camera moving and not the lectern but that's not the visual effect on me. I find it really annoying.)
    "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  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    44
    Indeed, there have been many extreme cases of low/high temperature. It seems like more people die due to these, rather than the gradual changes.

    I don't think we can stop global warming. The best we can do is to slow it down. We're still doomed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    I don't think we can stop global warming. The best we can do is to slow it down. We're still doomed.
    Doomed? I don't think so. I do think it's a very real possibility if we don't get off our idle butts and get busy with mitigation.

    Although it does look like too many people in power are pushing us down the "bacteria in the petri dish" road.

    (For those who've never seen what happens, if a bacteria is dividing in two at whatever interval, during that final interval there is still a whole half of the petri dish apparently available for growth. And then, in an instant, it's all over. The bacteria can no longer freely reproduce, at least half must die to allow room for the rest to divide again. The predictable result is that they all die.)

    My suspicion is that we are too far down the road to avoid a whole lot of sea level rise and a whole lot of agricultural crop failures during the next few decades as well as failures of even more fisheries. Which means that 'doom' may well be the right word for too many people in too many vulnerable situations. But ...

    Sooner or later, the world's leaders will be unable to avoid reality. At which stage, we can very readily put the whole world on a war footing (there will already be more uprisings and maybe regional wars if we go on too much longer) and there is sooooo much slack in the system that we'll be able to cut back emissions quite substantially pretty quickly. We'll also have to start reabsorbing the CO2 directly from the atmosphere. None of the fancy stuff to start with - just start quarrying and crushing every last deposit of suitable rock we can get our hands on - there are thousands if not millions of suitable locations around the world, everyone can get involved.

    In fact, I think it will be very much like the effects of a major war like WWII. When we transfer commercial and manufacturing resources into producing more and more solar and wind, and transfer work forces into trades assistant jobs involved in upgrading infrastructure we might very well finish up with the kind of boost to economic activity that comes from munitions and vehicles during conventional warfare. Only we won't be blowing those materials and vehicles up, we'll be using them to improve things further. And the multitudes of people needed to upgrade or rebuild housing, airfields, ports, bridges, railways and public transport systems added to people needed for entirely new infrastructure and facilities look, from a distance, very much like mobilising a few armies.

    And we'll also be blowing things up. Huge holes in the ground and knocking off the tops of various mountains, only this time we'll be trying to soak up CO2 rather than release it.

    There'll be misery, there'll be famines and floods and fires, there'll be more riots and some wars - but in the end we'll get it done. And our descendants will curse our names forever that we were too lazy, selfish and stupid to have prevented it when we clearly could have.
    PumaMan 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  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    doomed?
    jeez
    so much negativity
    ...more CO2 means more greenery, means more primary production and more O and less CO2
    .......
    Why always such doom and gloom?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    more CO2 means more greenery, means more primary production and more O and less CO2
    Well, that would work if plant life generally was limited by CO2. Any plants or systems that aren't doing so well are like as not attributable to too little or too much water, too little or too much nitrogen or other essential nutrient.

    We're certainly not getting any more CO2 absorption benefit out of the Amazon rainforests for the foreseeable future. The dry season is now averaging three weeks longer than it used to. So that, all by itself, is a substantial reduction in the capacity of the "lungs" of the earth. And that's just the constant average - the occasional years when the Amazon forests are net CO2 emitters rather than absorbers are just the murky icing on the tasteless cake. Amazon drought caused huge carbon emissions | Reuters If this continues on a once or twice a decade routine timeline rather than once or twice a century exceptional event we'll be running very short of CO2 absorbers.
    PumaMan 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  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Why always such doom and gloom?
    Because widespread doom and gloom is entirely possible if we don't get our act together.

    My own opinion is that it doesn't need to get that bad, but it will get like that* if we refuse to admit that it's a possibility. I always use a seatbelt and my house, my car and my belongings are all insured against fire, theft, vandalism, accidental damage. I don't expect any of those things to happen next week, but the risk of them happening at all is serious enough that I'm willing to pay to protect myself against the possible devastating financial losses if it should happen.

    * Doesn't mean I'll be alive to see it. But I'd like to think my grandchildren's grandchildren will have a world worth living in. It'd be nice to think that they'll be able to take their families camping at the same kind of seaside areas that we took our children to, but I'm pretty certain that those particular campsites will be under water in 3 generations time. But losing that indulgence is only part of the picture, I'm hoping that the rest of their lives and opportunities will be better.
    PumaMan 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  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    more CO2 means more greenery, means more primary production and more O and less CO2
    Well, that would work if plant life generally was limited by CO2. Any plants or systems that aren't doing so well are like as not attributable to too little or too much water, too little or too much nitrogen or other essential nutrient.

    We're certainly not getting any more CO2 absorption benefit out of the Amazon rainforests for the foreseeable future. The dry season is now averaging three weeks longer than it used to. So that, all by itself, is a substantial reduction in the capacity of the "lungs" of the earth. And that's just the constant average - the occasional years when the Amazon forests are net CO2 emitters rather than absorbers are just the murky icing on the tasteless cake. Amazon drought caused huge carbon emissions | Reuters If this continues on a once or twice a decade routine timeline rather than once or twice a century exceptional event we'll be running very short of CO2 absorbers.
    Nitrogen: as/re one of the F.A.C.E. studies was a limiting factor in the growth of loblolly pine--------but that was well above 600ppm-so when/if we get there
    we will need to address that.

    The taiga is much more "the lungs of the earth", and as the earth's high latitudes warm, it is growing(hopefully faster than the chinese can cut it).
    The tree line is marching poleward as we keyboard in these thoughts.
    see:
    http://climatechange.umaine.edu/Rese...aps_before.jpg
    http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journ...ate1836-f2.jpg
    http://www.discoveringthearctic.org....c_veg_maps.gif
    Ecosystems and climate interactions in the boreal zone of northern Eurasia - IOPscience
    Recent changes in phenology over the northern high latitudes detected from multi-satellite data - IOPscience

    The climate seems to be now in turmoil.
    I expect it to settle down if/when CO2 levels level off for several years(decades?). And, I don't see the absolute levels mattering all that much unless/untill we exceed 800ppm------------which I don't think a real possibility.
    Meanwhile-----------whether it is from the locus(ii?) of multi-year ice, or continuous thunderstorms in the south west pacific(or a combination of the 2?)---we have had 2 long record setting winters here in the midwest of the USA. (which means that more fuel is being used to stay warm which means more CO2 is being injected into the atmosphere)

    Doom and gloom ain't gonna fix nothing. Rather, we should be contemplating what it is that we can do (in light of what is already being done) to help the earth sustain a comfortable existence for our descendants.

    One of the things that makes some idiots think of me as a denier is that I have a strong negative/contrary reaction to fear mongering.
    We are changing our biom, and will continue to do so in the future in ways that you and I cannot imagine. The key as always, is in seeking that which we can do to compensate for that which we have done, are doing, and will do. The earth is ours to do with as we will whether for good or destruction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,229
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    ...more CO2 means more greenery
    That's like saying that more water means more greenery, so the bottom of the ocean must be the greenest place on the planet. There's a bit more to it than that.

    For example, around here, more CO2 means less greenery - because we will get less rain as it gets warmer. In rain forests, slash-and-burn means more CO2 and less greenery. Moutaintop removal for coal mining means more CO2 and less greenery. In forests, warmer temperatures mean new parasites can more effectively wipe out forests - so again less greenery.

    If you kill off all (or even a lot of) the greenery, you don't have that carbon sink any more,

    means more primary production and more O and less CO2
    That would make sense if we were not producing far more CO2 than plants can handle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    ...more CO2 means more greenery, means more primary production and more O and less CO2
    Am I the only one who took this as sarcasm?
    "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  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    So it wasn't sarcasm. What a shame.
    PumaMan 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  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    what a shame?
    what a shame that mother nature takes advantage of our folly and turns it to good advantage for us?
    what a shame that plants are growing faster and consuming more CO2?

    huh?
    wut?

    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Our great-grandchildren will condemn us for not assassinating those who argue anthropocentric global warming is not happening. I plead guilty.
    I don't like to hear people wish others dead, even if rhetorical and not a serious or genuine call to start assassinating people. Most have been mislead and deceived and are therefore victims of the distorted public discourse that has arisen. But I think there is a subset of climate obstructionists that are dangerously irresponsible and potentially acting criminally because they know quite well that the fundamentals of science on climate are sound but deliberately seek to use lies and deception to subvert civil and rational discourse in order to obstruct actions to avoid dangerous climate change regardless. When the intent is gain - political, commercial, kudos of admiring peers - at the expense of sound governance in the face of serious challenges upon which lives depend, then their actions should be condemned in strong term, but not necessarily with calls for assassination.

    For most people the right to believe and say whatever they want and advocate about it is essential and should be retained; it's those in positions of trust and responsibility, elected and appointed or by virtue of their profession and it's standards, who have an obligation to be as well informed as possible, who have no inalienable right to believe what they like or advocate for it using self-serving - or sponsor/supporter - serving lies and deception, especially if when being misleading endangers the future security and prosperity of their broader constituency. Given the impacts will be irrevocable and essentially (in ordinary human terms) eternal we cannot afford this kind of profound distortion and derailing of good governance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Our great-grandchildren will condemn us for not assassinating those who argue anthropocentric global warming is not happening. I plead guilty.
    Dude I was totally ready to oppose you but that's straight up. You surprise this AGW advocate and veteran of the psychic wars.

    On Edit to Other Posts: Wow, "doomed?" Nawww, I would be surprised. We're better than that. OTOH, I expect an excess death toll in the 3.5-4.5 billion range. I think the population in 2100 may be lower than it is today. But we won't die out. Hopefully there will be a biosphere left.



    Last edited by Schneibster; March 5th, 2014 at 06:42 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    we have had 2 long record setting winters here in the midwest of the USA.
    What records? There's a hefty splattering of daily cold records and precipitation records. But I don't know of any record setting cold month, let alone a cold season.

    From the Climate Highlights section of National Overview - January 2014 | State of the Climate | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

    - the 33rd coldest December-January on record.
    - No state was record warm or record cold.
    -
    the 11th driest December-January on record
    -
    Six states had two-month precipitation totals ranking among the 10 driest.
    -
    For the first time in the 15-year period of record for the U.S. Drought Monitor, California experienced the worst classification of drought, known as D4 or "exceptional".

    And from the Temperature and Precipitation Maps for January
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/maps.php?submitted=true&year=2014&month=1&imgs[]=Nationaltrank&imgs[]=Nationalprank&imgs[]=Regionaltrank&imgs[]=Regionalprank&imgs[]=Statewidetrank&imgs[]=Statewideprank&imgs[]=Divisionaltrank&imgs[]=Divisionalprank&ts=1#maps
    "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  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,229
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    On Edit to Other Posts: Wow, "doomed?" Nawww, I would be surprised. We're better than that. OTOH, I expect an excess death toll in the 3.5-4.5 billion range.
    I predict that by 2100 nearly the entire human population of the planet living today will be dead!

    But seriously . . .

    I think the population in 2100 may be lower than it is today. But we won't die out. Hopefully there will be a biosphere left.
    It's fairly self-regulating. We won't doom ourselves because if we do, and we start dying out, people will stop burning so much carbon. But we definitely have the capability of making our lives far more miserable, and radically changing the biosphere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    what a shame?
    what a shame that mother nature takes advantage of our folly and turns it to good advantage for us?
    what a shame that plants are growing faster and consuming more CO2?

    huh?
    wut?

    What a shame you think that means anything.

    Does pumping CO2 into the atmosphere offer plants more opportunity to grow? Well, if their current growth is limited by a LACK of CO2, sure. But pumping more CO2 onto a plant doesn't make it into a super plant. In fact, the issues caused by excess atmospheric CO2 (flooding, drought, increased temperature, more severe weather) all have such an immensely negative effect that any potentially positive effect from increasing CO2 levels would mean absolutely nothing.

    We're not helping plants by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. It isn't like caffeine for mother nature. I'm still hoping you're being sarcastic and I'm just not "getting it".
    PumaMan 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  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    The US East has had an unusually cold winter; the rest of the world has had an unusually warm one. Or so my sources say.

    From a political point of view it might not have been optimal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    doomed?
    jeez
    so much negativity
    ...more CO2 means more greenery, means more primary production and more O and less CO2
    .......
    Why always such doom and gloom?
    It's not that simple.

    The amounts of c02 are too great for the greenery to combat it. This, in turn results in co2 hanging around in the atmosphere which then traps heat which causes the global surface temperature to rise, thus melting the ice caps. We see rising tides etc...floods. Oh, and acidic oceans and the problems it brings.
    Schneibster likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,788
    Deforestation around the world is continuing at alarming pace and over a million acres a day are being decimated. Soon there will not be enough plant life to counter anything and that could easily pollute humans into extinction as well as animal life.
    hannah40 and Schneibster like this.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Deforestation around the world is continuing at alarming pace and over a million acres a day are being decimated. Soon there will not be enough plant life to counter anything and that could easily pollute humans into extinction as well as animal life.
    Absolutely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Did any of you actually take the above offered link and then read the content?
    npp was increasing globally by a tad over .35% per year over 17 years from 1982-1999;
    take out the effects of pinatubo, and we'd have .4%, while CO2 levels were increasing at .45%/year at that time.
    The connection becomes obvious. true?
    Meanwhile CO2 has been increasing at about .5% per year for the past decade.

    Plants don't combat CO2, they eat it, and give us food, wood, and O in the bargain.

    If the math is accurate, then cutting CO2 emissions by less than 1/10 of 1 percent should be enough to allow plants to balance our output.
    It's simple, really, just consume 1/10 of 1 percent less(of everything).
    Meanwhile, the greenery is marching toward higher latitudes and altitudes. (any help you could give it will be appreciated)

    Reduce consumption
    then Repair
    Rebuild
    Reuse
    then Recycle everything that comes under your control.

    Lead from in-front, lead by example.
    Schneibster likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Sculptor, all of that will help and all of that is necessary. In addition we need to offset as much new energy plant construction by conservation, and by use of alternative energy, as we can. But ultimately, China and India will have to choose nuclear instead of coal, or it's gonna get really, really bad. We should have been working with them and helping them for twenty years now; instead, Bush alienated them both so badly that we can't even get them to listen any more, though that may finally be changing now as they begin to perceive this is no political ploy but instead a very, very scary problem that they are creating for themselves as well as the rest of us. They will see mass deaths.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Meanwhile, the greenery is marching toward higher latitudes and altitudes. (any help you could give it will be appreciated)
    And that's a really bad idea. What we want at higher northern latitudes is lots of snow cover during spring and most of summer to return albedo to its earlier higher values.

    The albedo of forest is not wonderful.
    PumaMan and Schneibster 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  
     

  33. #32  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    The inundation of the Marshall Islands serves as a counterpoint:

    Climate science debate "futile" says Marshall Islands minister

    This wasn't a storm. It was just the tide. No extreme weather events. Just water, getting slowly higher and higher. And salting the land. And floating the coffins out of the cemetery.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Meanwhile, the greenery is marching toward higher latitudes and altitudes. (any help you could give it will be appreciated)
    And that's a really bad idea. What we want at higher northern latitudes is lots of snow cover during spring and most of summer to return albedo to its earlier higher values.

    The albedo of forest is not wonderful.
    That's what YOU WANT. But it's easy for you to want that because you don't live here.
    And, this ain't Dogpatch. Easy enough for you to champion the pain and suffering of others for your warped ideals.

    What I want is a balance between the O breathers, and the CO2 breathers.
    dan hunter likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by sculptor View Post
    What I want is a balance between the O breathers, and the CO2 breathers.
    OK, I read the global garden link and you seem to have a point. I had no clue where your comments were coming from before so I didn't comment on it

    I still have my doubts if your conclusions are right and I am not about to jump on any cornucopian bandwagons here.
    We still have lots of problems with general overpopulation.
    Places like Asia increasing their consumption to first world levels and the resulting increases in CO2 as well as increased forest cutting rates make it unlikely that being able to grow beans instead of wheat in Saskatchewan will matter very much.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Where are people going to grow rice?

    This is probably the most scary question about global warming.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    That's what YOU WANT. But it's easy for you to want that because you don't live here.
    And, this ain't Dogpatch. Easy enough for you to champion the pain and suffering of others for your warped ideals.
    You don't live in the Arctic circle, do you? Nowhere near any permafrost, and as I recall you don't live near the equator either. You live smack dab in the temperate zone but inland, not anywhere near a coast.

    If people don't like living in arid hot inland deserts or coping with four months of ice and snow or dealing with the blustery winds of many seaside locations, they need to find ways to make life more comfortable for themselves where they are. Some people would suggest moving, but all places have various drawbacks which aren't immediately apparent to people looking at their advantages.

    Champion the pain and suffering of others? As Schneibster says, Where are people going to grow rice? And I might point out, corn. Both plants can grow quite well in warm conditions, which is not much help if overnight temperatures stay above the level they should drop to in order to produce seed. Growing plants but producing no crop will cause unimaginable "pain and suffering" to billions of people. Rice productivity has been declining, ever so slightly, over the last few years, and as overnight minimum temperatures continue to rise, this will continue. Rice yields in tropical/subtropical Asia exhibit large but opposing sensitivities to minimum and maximum temperatures
    Schneibster 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  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Somehow or other, looking up references for agriculture, I came across this. I think I'd heard the expression "climate departure" before, but I don't recollect seeing this particular map.

    If anyone's talking about "pain and suffering", here's a timeline for you. This shows which year which places will go through their climate departure - when the coolest year in the subsequent years will always be warmer that the previous warmest year for that location in the baseline period 1960-2005. (Not a common choice of baseline - I suppose they wanted something pretty big but the whole of the 20th century would be irrelevant.) Note all the red dots, that's within the next ten years.

    (Leonard Bernstein and Gene Thorp/The Washington Post)
    If the coolest years are warmer than previously hottest years for the foreseeable future in a particular place, there will be some places where the previous agriculture is no longer possible. Remember that overnight minimum temperatures have been rising much faster than daily maximum temperatures, that affects everything from rice to apples. What will people eat?
    Flick Montana and Schneibster 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  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Schneibster 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  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    >killer graphic<
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    Botheration.
    >Link library enhanced with your valuable data<

    Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Why is it that you think Leonard Bernstein and Gene Thorp of The Washington Post actually know that their pretty picture really foretells the future?
    To me, it seems an exercise in hyperbolic insanity.

    Once again, it flies in the face of the equable climate model. In support of which, we have already seen that the greatest warming is happening at the high latitudes and high altitudes(excepting maybe antarctica?).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    Once again, it flies in the face of the equable climate model.
    Not at all. It's telling us what will happen as our climate changes towards the equable climate. It's easu to argue about the dates in the graphic, not so easy to argue that that's not where we're headed if we don't pull our socks up. Remember the equable climate you seem so keen on will put Florida under several metres of water - when it's that warm there's no other option. Florida has always been under water when climate has been "equable" as references commonly describe it.

    Just using wiki for the Eocene we find this

    Using isotope proxies to determine ocean temperatures indicate sea surface temperatures in the tropics as high as 35 °C (95 °F) and bottom water temperatures that are 10 °C (18 °F) higher than present day values.

    Eocene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    If you think that oceans this warm don't expand to cover substantial portions of the present USA, then I'd strongly question your grasp of physics. This example of an "equable" climate might be very attractive to crocodiles wanting to relocate to the Arctic, but I've found no instances of "equable climate" that coincide with human history, let alone one that's compatible with our range of agricultural plants and animals.

    Here's another reference describing what happens in an "equable" climate. Causes and consequences of extreme Permo-Triassic warming to globally equable climate and relation to the Permo-Triassic extinction and recovery

    Nothing there is remotely like any conditions that humans or our earlier lineage have ever lived in. And to add insult to injury, bathtub-warm, anoxic oceans don't produce anything we might like to eat that I've ever heard of. If you know more or better, we'd like to hear of it.
    PhDemon 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  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    Just using wiki for the Eocene we find this
    The Eocene oceans were warm and teeming with fish and other sea life.
    and:
    An issue arises, however, when trying to model the Eocene and reproduce the results that are found with the proxy data. Using all different ranges of greenhouse gasses that occurred during the early Eocene, models were unable to produce the warming that was found at the poles and the reduced seasonality that occurs with winters at the poles being substantially warmer. The models, while accurately predicting the tropics, tend to produce significantly cooler temperatures of up to 20 °C (36 °F) underneath the actual determined temperature at the poles. This error has been classified as the “equable climate problem”.
    "We keeps trying to model a starship, but all we's come up with so far is a model T, though once, we thought we wuz seeing a Desoto in there"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    I meant combat as in the problem of the excess co2.

    I am aware of carbon cycles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope sculptor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    4,211
    I suspect that if people understood our myriad symbiotic relationships, with all living things on this spaceship earth(including the earth it'self), a little better, we'd have a more fruitfull ecology with little more effort than the tendency to follow where knowledge leads.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    What we have to do is add our energy needs to the carbon cycle as consumers instead of just pumping it up.

    That means making use of all the methods we've found for turning the CO2 into fuel and holding a moratorium on burning coal and oil for a while. That means growing lots of plants. That means doing something about deforestation. But there's no need to go crazy; we've got a hundred years and we already know four different ways of sucking carbon out of the atmosphere and making fuel: switchgrass, E. Coli with engineered genes that crap diesel fuel, and two types of catalyst.

    That doesn't mean we can relax though. Just knowing about it is one thing; doing it, and especially integrating it into a modern economy without starving a billion people, is the hard part.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    537
    I believe in using eco friendly sources. solar power. Using friendlier sources for more transportation methods.

    Truth is, the big corps don't always like it so much.

    All this taking stuff from the the earth internally will bite us back, if it isn't doing so already.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Schneibster View Post
    That means doing something about deforestation.
    Not quite so simple. But in general stopping deforestation in the tropics and mid latitudes (the US is much more forested than 19th century), while increasing deforestation in high latitudes so a dark, low-albedo forest doesn't get well established there.
    Schneibster likes this.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Monterey
    Posts
    614
    None of it is simple; OTOH we didn't get here simply either. And don't forget the algae. The nightmare scenario is we kill off the algae and suffocate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Accurate Temperatures for Weather Forecasts?
    By galexander in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: April 12th, 2011, 03:04 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 18th, 2011, 07:09 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 9th, 2010, 03:38 PM
  4. Global temperatures correlated with CO2 rise?
    By Twit of wit in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: May 28th, 2010, 01:13 PM
  5. Reducing global temperatures using the oceans
    By ronseal86 in forum Biology
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: May 27th, 2007, 05:33 PM
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
  •