1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Global warming strikes again...

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by CavLancer, Nov 24, 2016.

  1. Princeps

    Princeps More bombs than God

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,265
    My understanding is that increased humidity and melt-water is freshening the sea, which creates more sea-ice around the Antarctic.
     
  2. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    13,630
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    This is going to be an interesting evolution in the next four years.

    NASA's political patronage has been overturned. To this point, the money has been based on Democratic themes, such as climate change. What will the new administration bring?

    J
     
  3. warpus

    warpus In pork I trust

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2005
    Messages:
    50,882
    Location:
    Stamford Bridge
    Making space great again?

    aka allowing China and other nations to catch up a bit while funding is slashed in order to promote competition, it's the American way
     
  4. CavLancer

    CavLancer This aint fertilizer

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    4,298
    Location:
    Oregon or Philippines

    A climate change...change? If Trump doesn't bring factory jobs back to the rust belt this is o v e r in 4 years. So, NASA will likely not want to change too much too fast. Also, a complete reversing of opinion would reveal them as the political organization that they are. Which btw also launches rockets now and again. The private companies are much better at it so that's becoming less however.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2016
  5. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,325
    Location:
    Montana
    Lt killer M!
     
  6. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    13,630
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    Do you mean making NASA about putting people in space again? Space habitats, asteroid mining, vacuum and zero G industry, a mission other than servicing a political agenda, that sort of great?

    Never mind. I see you think NASA is already a waste of money. As things sit, you may be right.

    J
     
  7. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,437
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    Warmer air holds more moisture than colder air. Most of Antarctica is covered by a giant ice sheet, and it is so thick that the elevation at the surface of the ice is 7000-13000 feet above sea level across the interior of the continent. The combination of the polar location, the high altitude, and the lack of nearby ocean means that it literally never gets above freezing, or even close. The all-time record high temperature at Amundsen-Scott station, right at the South Pole, is 10 F; the average high in mid-summer is -15 F, while the average low in mid-winter averages -81 F, and it commonly gets down below -100 F. Vostok Station is even colder; that's where Earth's all-time record low of -128 F was recorded.

    Because the air is so cold, it holds very little moisture, so Antarctica is a desert: only about 1 inch of precipitation (liquid equivalent) is recorded per year in the interior of the continent. Increase the temperature somewhat, and the amount of water the air holds will go up, but it's so cold that it's still well below freezing. The result is more snowfall. Even factoring in the melting that will occur along the edges of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, it will probably gain more in increased snowfall than it will lose to melting and evaporation for the rest of the century. Meanwhile, the much smaller West Antarctic Ice Sheet is much more susceptible to melting and will lose more mass than it gains over the course of the century, contributing to sea level rise.

    But now let's talk about sea ice. The North Pole is in an ocean, not a continent like Antarctica. When we talk about the Arctic ice cap, it usually refers to sea ice in the Arctic ocean, where it forms an "ice cap" only a few feet thick and floating on an ocean that is about 29 F (the melting point of seawater), which is far warmer than it ever gets in central Antarctica. This means that Arctic sea ice is one of the most sensitive indicators for climate change, along with mountain glaciers.

    As we'd expect in a warming world, the Arctic ice cap/sea ice is in rapid decline. This year, its minimum coverage in September was very low; it tied with 2007 for second lowest on record, above 2012's historic minimum. But since then, it has failed to recover at anything like the normal rate, so as of right now, Arctic sea ice coverage is well below where 2012's was at this time of year even though it had a higher minimum. Here's a graph of 2016 Arctic sea ice extent compared to 2012 and the long-term average:



    As for sea ice around Antarctica, the picture is fuzzier. There's a huge ice continent feeding ice into the Southern Ocean, and this causes sea ice extent to not show a consistent pattern. Right now Antarctic sea ice is at the lowest point we've ever recorded it for the time of year, but just two and a half years ago it hit a record high maximum. Here's that sea ice graph, with 2014 and 2016 highlighted.



    Does this all make sense to you? I'm happy to answer any questions, because I like talking about science and we're living in a very interesting time. I can assure you that global warming is real, having spent a couple of years now in an atmospheric science department, spoken to climatologists, and grappled with the data myself. I would rather it turn out not to be real or be grossly exaggerated; it would be much better for our way of life if we were able to take full advantage of fossil fuels without worrying about anything but their eventual depletion. I'm really not much of an environmentalist myself. But I've seen enough to know that global warming isn't some sort of mass hysteria, alarmist groupthink, or conspiracy by environmentalists and/or liberals.
     
    Michkov, Cheetah and Valka D'Ur like this.
  8. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    13,630
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    But the politics associated with climate change is exactly mass hysteria, alarmist groupthink, or conspiracy. There is a major disconnect between what politicians want to happen and what is supported by the science.

    J
     
  9. CavLancer

    CavLancer This aint fertilizer

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    4,298
    Location:
    Oregon or Philippines
    Well Boots, I also agree that global warming is real. The globe warmed seriously during the 90s, and again these last couple years during ElNino, which ended a period of slight cooling aka, "the pause". That El Nino is now pretty much over and I believe "the pause" will resume. Its cause will anyway, as solar cycle 24 is continuing its drastic downhill plummet. Add to that the PDO, as well as La Nina and it should be much cooler soon, which is why I chose now to start this thread. I consider that a period of global cooling is upon us. If the solar scientists are correct solar cycle 25 will flat line and cause major cooling, devastating cooling. At that point I think we'll miss the good 'ol days of global warming. Many predict that this cooling will last between 30 and 150 years, but I don't see why in might not be the end of the Holocene. Boots, have you seen any predictions about what will happen when the Holocene ends? Its inevitable of course, has anyone done a paper that you've seen and can link to?
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2016
  10. carlosMM

    carlosMM Deity

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    8,567
    One decade is too short a window to look at climate.
    You do realize that the consistent, clearly evident warming of the recent decades does not match solar activity?
    Please do share the sources of these "many prediction".
     
  11. CavLancer

    CavLancer This aint fertilizer

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    4,298
    Location:
    Oregon or Philippines
    Search= solar cycle cooling. Some decided the planet was going to freeze during one decade, the 70s. Then they decided its cooking during the 90s. Only that time a whole industry got started.
     
  12. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    44,946
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Well, yes and no. It's a political compromise in assuming 2 degrees is ecologically safe. But there's the whole "someone else's shoreline" issue. As well, with existential risks, you need to err on the side of caution.

    I'm not sure how abusing one's own footprint helps elucidation either
     
  13. Michkov

    Michkov Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,449
    You cant just state some fact, without providing any source to back it up. And then tell everyone who is asking for one to go and search it themselves. I mean you read these things somewhere, how hard is it to include the link here?
     
  14. Princeps

    Princeps More bombs than God

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2004
    Messages:
    5,265
    It's true that there was still some amount of debate regarding how the climate was changing, but even in the 1970s, the prevailing expert opinion supported global warming. In fact, global warming was first predicted when the properties of carbon dioxide were documented for first time, which was in the 1860s.

    The global cooling theory was based on the idea that soot and other pollutants would cause global dimming. This didn't happen, obviously.
     
  15. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    44,946
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    A lot of those 'cooling' reports also used things like "at current rates of sulphates emissions", which we then reduced.

    Fossil carbon is a multi-trillion dollar industry. Artificial cooling would cost a couple billion per year. That's how easy it is to intentionally change the climate
     
  16. carlosMM

    carlosMM Deity

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Messages:
    8,567
    Nope - your claim, you source it.

    Can you be any more vague?
    "concluded"? Is that what you mean?
    A nice myth. Just because there was a fringe view - and one that wasn't half as ridiculous as you make it now, given the amount of cooling (or rather non-warming) caused by massive air pollution - a fringe view that happened to make it to the cover of some magazine doesn't mean that there was a serious discussion in the scientific community about this.
    Wrong - the potentially disastrous consequences of excessive CO2 emission was already known in the late 1800s.
    EDIT: Arrhenius, 1896 /EDIT
    And even EXXON's and SHELL's own research departments warned of the danger of massive warming in the 1950s. The "industry" here is denial - funded by the oil and coal industry. That indeed flourished from the 90s on.
     
  17. onejayhawk

    onejayhawk Afflicted with reason

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2002
    Messages:
    13,630
    Location:
    next to George Bush's parents
    As you know, I believe the whole precept of eliminating coal use is over the top. Phasing it out over the next century, perhaps. Ending in the next ten, no. If erring on the side of caution is 25 years, we can talk. Then the whole question of coal and shale gasification arises. New power plants. New refineries.

    That said, I was speaking more of so-called green businesses. Most have been nothing but pork barrel projects. Sensible rules on oxygenating fuels would help. Eliminating subsidies for ethanol tomorrow would be good for both the environment and the bottom line.

    Of course, anyone that presents such ideas is a climate denier and has no right to be heard. Such is political life in USA today.

    J
     
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2016
  18. Synsensa

    Synsensa Deity Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2006
    Messages:
    22,127
    Why is eliminating it in the next 10 years over the top?

    Do you mean that from the perspective of accomplishing it politically, or are you against the idea for other reasons?
     
  19. GoodEnoughForMe

    GoodEnoughForMe n.m.s.s.

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2006
    Messages:
    5,445
    Location:
    new alhambra

    ???

     
  20. CavLancer

    CavLancer This aint fertilizer

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    4,298
    Location:
    Oregon or Philippines
    Here, I searched 'solar cycle cooling for you. :) Yup Goodnuf, that's the thing, right there. Is it fact? Some is. I hope the coming winter and spring will expose the cooking of the books. If it goes to cold then people will be looking for answers, and that list you posted will be scrutinized for fallacy. Remember that this thread is founded on what I expect to happen. I'm either right or wrong, time will tell, and not too much time. :dunno:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=sol...firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=QGA_WPS7OMOA2QSV34n4AQ
     

Share This Page