Global warming strikes again...

[Berzerker]

We wont get anything done if 'climate change' caused the Camp fire, a very wet year followed by a very dry year, high winds and an arsonist or idiot did that. What was the climate like during the little ice age and why is past climate irrelevant to how extreme our weather events allegedly are? I dont like corporate welfare, subsidies are just a way for business to steal from us by bribing politicians.

 

[Estebonrober]

We wont get anything done if 'climate change' caused the Camp fire, a very wet year followed by a very dry year, high winds and an arsonist or idiot did that. What was the climate like during the little ice age and why is past climate irrelevant to how extreme our weather events allegedly are? I dont like corporate welfare, subsidies are just a way for business to steal from us by bribing politicians.

You are in denial of reality on so many levels its hard to justify trying to save you. Past climate is irrelevant because civilization wasn't around. We can do anything we set our minds no matter what caused what. I'm not sure how the little ice age has anything to do with this please enlighten me?

You are completely surrounded by corporate welfare. From cushy TIF exemptions for retail businesses across the nation to land and access deals given to extraction companies. No, not one part of your daily life is without subsidization. You're denial of reality doesn't actually change reality.

 

[Bootstoots]

We wont get anything done if 'climate change' caused the Camp fire, a very wet year followed by a very dry year, high winds and an arsonist or idiot did that. What was the climate like during the little ice age and why is past climate irrelevant to how extreme our weather events allegedly are? I dont like corporate welfare, subsidies are just a way for business to steal from us by bribing politicians.

You are in denial of reality on so many levels its hard to justify trying to save you. Past climate is irrelevant because civilization wasn't around. We can do anything we set our minds no matter what caused what. I'm not sure how the little ice age has anything to do with this please enlighten me?

You are completely surrounded by corporate welfare. From cushy TIF exemptions for retail businesses across the nation to land and access deals given to extraction companies. No, not one part of your daily life is without subsidization. You're denial of reality doesn't actually change reality.

The past does matter: climate change in the past can help to inform what is happening in the present and what will happen in the future. The paleoclimate record is invaluable because it shows what actually happens when the climate changes, not just what we might expect from modeling studies and the like.

What we know from paleoclimate studies of California and the Southwest more generally is that the climate there is very sensitive to changing global climate conditions. The relatively minor Medieval Warm Period, which reached temperatures warmer than anything between the start of the Little Ice Age (c. 1600) and the last couple decades of the 20th century, saw considerably drier conditions across the Southwest. So-called "megadroughts" lasting decades to a couple centuries occurred through 900-1600, punctuated by wetter periods. The Anasazi collapse was associated with these droughts.

The Little Ice Age that followed was wetter than at present, on average, but also saw greater precipitation variability because the ENSO cycle got somewhat more intense. Droughts that occurred were shorter but were extreme relative to the higher average, more so than the short-term extremes during the Medieval era.

For the present and near future, what seems to be occurring is kind of a mixture of the two: temperatures are warmer and the climate probably a bit drier overall, but climate change is also probably making the ENSO cycle more extreme as well. So there are severe droughts lasting for periods of a few years at a time, punctuated by periods of very high precipitation associated with El Niño events and an increase in so-called Pineapple Express storms, where an "atmospheric river" develops and advects lots of moisture from further south in the Pacific and dumps it over California in a short period of time. Wildfires are helped out by higher temperatures and dry conditions most of the time, but then some winters see high precipitation and flooding as well.

People who attempt to downplay global warming often point to past climate variability as a sign that natural climate change is a big deal, and then try to use it to deny that anthropogenic climate change is a major issue in comparison. They're right about the first part: the fairly minor fluctuations of a few tenths of a degree that occurred in the last 2000 years had big effects. What this means is that the climate system is very unstable and small forcings can have big impacts. But now, we're coming along and giving the climate a huge shove by comparison - 1 C already and probably about 3 C by the end of the century. Far from natural climate change showing that what we're doing doesn't really matter, it shows that the impacts of such a large forcing are going to dwarf the already large variations that have happened in the last few thousand years.

 

[Estebonrober]

The past does matter: climate change in the past can help to inform what is happening in the present and what will happen in the future. The paleoclimate record is invaluable because it shows what actually happens when the climate changes, not just what we might expect from modeling studies and the like.

What we know from paleoclimate studies of California and the Southwest more generally is that the climate there is very sensitive to changing global climate conditions. The relatively minor Medieval Warm Period, which reached temperatures warmer than anything between the start of the Little Ice Age (c. 1600) and the last couple decades of the 20th century, saw considerably drier conditions across the Southwest. So-called "megadroughts" lasting decades to a couple centuries occurred through 900-1600, punctuated by wetter periods. The Anasazi collapse was associated with these droughts.

The Little Ice Age that followed was wetter than at present, on average, but also saw greater precipitation variability because the ENSO cycle got somewhat more intense. Droughts that occurred were shorter but were extreme relative to the higher average, more so than the short-term extremes during the Medieval era.

For the present and near future, what seems to be occurring is kind of a mixture of the two: temperatures are warmer and the climate probably a bit drier overall, but climate change is also probably making the ENSO cycle more extreme as well. So there are severe droughts lasting for periods of a few years at a time, punctuated by periods of very high precipitation associated with El Niño events and an increase in so-called Pineapple Express storms, where an "atmospheric river" develops and advects lots of moisture from further south in the Pacific and dumps it over California in a short period of time. Wildfires are helped out by higher temperatures and dry conditions most of the time, but then some winters see high precipitation and flooding as well.

People who attempt to downplay global warming often point to past climate variability as a sign that natural climate change is a big deal, and then try to use it to deny that anthropogenic climate change is a major issue in comparison. They're right about the first part: the fairly minor fluctuations of a few tenths of a degree that occurred in the last 2000 years had big effects. What this means is that the climate system is very unstable and small forcings can have big impacts. But now, we're coming along and giving the climate a huge shove by comparison - 1 C already and probably about 3 C by the end of the century. Far from natural climate change showing that what we're doing doesn't really matter, it shows that the impacts of such a large forcing are going to dwarf the already large variations that have happened in the last few thousand years.

I should clarify, I understand your point here completely and agree. My saying it is irrelevant is that the fact if it was 5 C warmer in the Jurassic doesn't have any bearing on whether or not we should act on anthropogenic climate change now. Right wingers in the US have drummed up the idea that since the earth was hot in the past its okay for it to get hot now, not even bother to comprehend the fact that agriculture (especially as we know it) would be impossible over large swaths of the planet.

 

[El_Machinae]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190110141811.htm
Oceans are warming even faster than previously thought
Recent observations show ocean heating in line with climate change models

Heat trapped by greenhouse gases is raising ocean temperatures faster than previously thought, concludes an analysis of four recent ocean heating observations. The results provide further evidence that earlier claims of a slowdown or 'hiatus' in global warming over the past 15 years were unfounded.

It is somewhat elementary, trapping heat will cause temperatures to rise. This is elementary physics. The entire concern is built around the understanding of very basic physics.

We've a very strong lack of communication here. Liberals cannot even convince each other to give up meat, or just significantly reduce their footprints.

 

[Broken_Erika]

We've a very strong lack of communication here. Liberals cannot even convince each other to give up meat, or just significantly reduce their footprints.

They can have my bacon when you pry it from my cold dead fingers!

 

[Birdjaguar]

Liberals cannot even convince each other to give up meat, or just significantly reduce their footprints.

And Republicans cannot convince themselves that the way to save the Party is to have lots of more children. making vegetarians is a slow process since it involves one of our major pastimes. Over the past 50 years US beef consumption is significantly down ~50%. Pork is down. Chicken way, way up and Turkey up. As soon as lab grown beef and pork get going, cattle and pig farming will further decline to everyone's benefit.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If there is lab grown beef there will be lab grown chicken. Some cheap chicken tastes like it is grown in a lab now so that will be no loss.

I agree; it's just that beef is the product most being worked on now. Getting rid or reducing how many cattle we have around the world would be a major step in fixing things.

 

[Hrothbern]

I agree; it's just that beef is the product most being worked on now. Getting rid or reducing how many cattle we have around the world would be a major step in fixing things.

Beef is also meat from a ruminant. Ruminants produce much more methane per kilo meat than most animals.

And as side notes:
Natural grass-fed cows have a substantial lower carbon footprint than cereal fed cows. Cows eating lots of herbs growing between natural grass taste a lot better as well. That meat will be more expensive than current meat, but much cheaper for now than factory grown meat. Whereby noted that current factory meat has still a high carbon footprint. Lots of R&D yet to be done.

Perhaps we need a propaganda charm offensive by the governments like was done in the US around the big conscription needed for WW2, with more recipes based on less meat per meal or snacks (besides the vegetarian recipes ofc):

When the young males were removed from the workers force for the army, the women took over many production and office jobs, and all magazines started to promote recipes for meals that could be made more simple in shopping and cooking saving time.
When all those soldiers were coming back, those same magazines produced all kinds of more elaborate meal recipes to get those same women back to the kitchen.

 

[Silurian]

There are also large areas of land that is not suitable for cultivation but will support animal production. Do we give up food production on land we can not cultivate. The part of England is quite hilly, where you could get machinery onto it the topsoil would wash off in the rain if it was cultivated.

On Dartmoor, which I can see from my house, the soil is poor and rocky so it is used for grazing in the summer. If those animals were not there the land that is not bog would end up covered in gorse (a low prickly bush) and bracken (a fern) reducing biodiversity.

When lab grown meat becomes common I would expect that eating real meat will begin to be regarded as strange. What will we do then, allow the allow the landscape to change or keep animals to maintain it but not eat them.

 

[Hrothbern]

Melting of Ice has many effects:

One-third of the glacier ice of the Himalyas is doomed to melt away at the 1.5 C scenario. Having detrimental effects on the water supply for 250 million people living nearby and up to 2 billion people in total. https://www.theguardian.com/environ...imalayan-ice-cap-doomed-finds-shocking-report

A small amount of people living close to the glaciers, in desert like dry high altitude plains, are experimenting with an odd local solution: Ice stupa's.
An ingenious idea to build artificial glaciers at lower altitudes using pipes, gravity and night temperatures could transform an arid landscape into an oasis:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...g-water-crisis-in-the-high-desert-of-himalaya

Another effect on our environment from ice melting is caused by gravity changes of those decreasing ice masses. These effects are local, and during the average sea level going up, some coastal areas will experience the sea level going up less than average, some more.

Do note to start with that sea level is higher where gravity from nearby mass is higher. This has a plus or minus effect of sea water level of up to 60 meter.
Nearby mass can come from mountains, from thick ice sheets and lack of nearby mass can come from deep oceans. (land specific weight roughly 2, water roughly 1).
The following graph shows that effect as it is now:

http://sciencedocbox.com/Geology/74...os-655-tectonic-geodesy-jeff-freymueller.html


Along our coast the melting of ice and snow has other effect: not only the increasing sea water level from more water, and ofc on top from the higher temperature the expansion of sea water, but also the gravitational effects on the local sea water level from the effect on local masses and gravity melting away in certain areas of the world.

For example: the sea water level near Greenland is higher from the gravity of all that ice nearby.
When all that ice of Greenland is melted away, the average sea level of the world goes up, but the sea level nearby the Greenland coast will go down as well.
Minor effects changing gravity from changing mass locations are including the density & salinity of the local sea water from, and the season you measure (ice increase/decrease, temperature water). The changing landmass height, from for example bouncing back upward of land under thick ice during the last Ice Age, etc, etc. All in all complex.
The link above shows how far we are at the moment in accuracy. The qualitative effects are mostly clear, but getting the models matched accurately enough with measurements is still a lot of work.

=> The first consequence, of these gravity effects, is that you cannot just measure the sea level increase from Climate at a random point on Earth.
=> You have to measure all over the globe at (roughly) the same time, or point in time period (the tides !) by absolute GPS, to get the average sea water level increase. Historic records comparing with landmass height less accurate from changing height of landmass and need adjustments from models from recent absolute measurements.

Here a graph of the separate effects of the ice melting of glaciers, Greenland and Antarctica. The effect is shown when enough ice melts for 1 mm average sea level increase.
When only Greenland would melt, the sea level of the Greenland coast goes down with 1.4 mm for every 1.0 mm average sea level increase. Climate deniers will love that.
In general around the equator, the tropics up to the subtropics, the sea level increase goes at almost 1.5 speed compared to average.

https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/66805087/sealevel_change_in_the_dutch_wadden_sea.pdf

 

[AdamCrock]

I have thought about the warming today and was thinking on one out of the box solution - maybe we can catch the smoke emissions from chimneys into baloons mixed with some lighter than air gas and send them into space to prevent spreading CO2 into the atmosphere ?

 

[Silurian]

I have thought about the warming today and was thinking on one out of the box solution - maybe we can catch the smoke emissions from chimneys into baloons mixed with some lighter than air gas and send them into space to prevent spreading CO2 into the atmosphere ?

As the balloon rises the outside pressure falls and the balloon expands. Eventually it will burst.

 

[AdrienIer]

Balloons rise because the density of the helium inside it is smaller than the density of the air around it. Even if it somehow doesn't burst, at some point in its climb the helium will be denser than the air around it and it will stop rising.

 

[AdamCrock]

Yup You're right guys, I haven't thought about that. Anyways I've read about CO2 storage programs like BECS (Bio-Energy Carbon Capture and Storage - in uderground geological formations for example) . The good thing is that large quantities od CO2 are not immediatly released into the atmosphere but any ideas what can be done with all that extra CO2 ? Make methanol ? fertilizers ? Maybe we can grow some sort of food bearing plant or fungus in very high CO2 enviroment using bio-engineering ? That would be great wouldn't it ? Well eventually we will run out of fossil fuels - hopefuly it will not be too late otherwise we might become fossils ourselves when the oceans will rise heralding a new ice age ...

 

[El_Machinae]

The fact that sea levels will actually drop in some regions of the planet actually kinda blew my mind. It's probably my favorite piece of AGW trivia.

 

[Hrothbern]

The fact that sea levels will actually drop in some regions of the planet actually kinda blew my mind. It's probably my favorite piece of AGW trivia.

Happened to me as well
The South Alaska coast will see that effect. The local Climate deniers will tweet it no doubt to disprove all that Climate nonsense.

We need in NL the precision of local sea level increase for our multi-decade new wave of sea-dike planning. The last one started in 1953 after a flood and is just finished.
We are now in the phase of testing out all kinds of new engineering/building solutions in very big testing bassins emulating storms and implementing some ideas in chosen parts of our dike defense system. Separating by design lasting components from wear & tear components for maintenance also an important innovation. One of the most promising innovations is the control of "natural" forming sandbanks protecting the dikes from high waves. Will be part of the post 2100 AD technologies. Will need long testing times in Real Life.
Our agreed risk profile is a once in 10,000 year storm calamity for Holland, the most populous part of the Netherlands. Experiments are done as well in making dikes fully resistant for earth-squakes up to Richter 5.

Here a typical environmental, very good BTW, Dutch professor that made an explanation for dummies for Dutch TV.

 

[Lexicus]

I guess you wont be defending that

https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/jet

How about you Lex?

I don't know what you are asking me to defend or exactly what you are arguing here.

 

[Berzerker]

That was from the Dunce thread and I was asking you to defend Wastl's post since you liked it

 

[Lexicus]

Oh, yeah, what you said about the jet stream is just silly, you don't know what you're talking about and your link certainly doesn't support what you said.