The issue which is rarely mentioned by anyone but me is Consumerism plus Planned Obsolescence. Then we call increasing GDP economic growth without subtracting the Depreciation of all of the junk we throw away. Eliminate that idiocy and population would be less of a problem. psikTrue, it's not the overall numbers of people that is important, it's our overall impact that is. Living in much greater harmony with the natural world using sustainable technology and techniques is possible. Treating the world as a disposable resources for endless economic growth while producing a lot of useless and quickly obsolete garbage isn't sustainable.
I introduced Mr. Holdren in post 205 because he declared that we are in the cooling cycle right now and if it was not for the man-made carbon we would be cooling instead of heating and going into another Ice Age.But you never provided a citation for us to read what he actuality said, even though you were asked to provide the source! We don't care what your lousy biased memory pastes together.
Then the question becomes, if we are cooling,NO, NO, NO. We are in a radical warming period. PERIOD Dare you to come up with some legitimate science (not some Republican/libertarian blogger screeching echo-chamber soundbites), some serious science that indicates otherwise.
Then comes the kicker with the claims that the earth cooling cycle has happened in the past with jumps that can take place in decades instead of thousands of years. And that is a big concern. If the jumps are true, we need to fully understand the how and when these jumps happen.Then learn about the conditions then, rather than pretending it's all a mystery and that perhaps hundreds of giga tons might puff… disappear or magically stop doing their physics thing.
Abrupt Climate Change - What is the Younger Dryas? http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/examples.shtml The most spectacular aspect of the YD is that it ended extremely abruptly (around 11,600 years ago), and although the date cannot be known exactly, it is estimated from the annually-banded Greenland ice-core that the annual-mean temperature increased by as much as 10°C in 10 years. Why was there a Younger Dryas? This is a touchy subject that is currently the focus of much research. One explanation is the one involving a thermohaline circulation (THC) shutdown, triggered by a catastrophic discharge of freshwater from Lake Agassiz (figure 2). The consequence is a rapid reduction in northward ocean heat transports, leading to an abrupt cooling over Northern Europe and North America. That is why so much attention is focused on the behavior of the North Atlantic ocean circulation: not only by scientists, but also Hollywood screenplay writers. Bear in mind, however, that the greenhouse world we are creating through fossil fuel burning might not behave at all like the Earth of 12,800 years ago, so that this scenario may be irrelevant for future climate change. …Seems to me a rational person, with a modicum of awareness regarding our physical planet and it's many interconnected systems, would take away the lesson that we had better treat our planet and climate engine gently, because even moderate forcings can have unpredictable and radical results, besides all serious physical changes will be detrimental to a people and society totally tied to and dependent on that milder climate regime. Also the thing you are steadfastly missing in this abrupt climate change, is that those changes you're referring to were the result of internal fluctuations. Today we continue massively increasing our planet's global insulation blanket, that matters a great deal - and so long as you deliberately ignore that reality and its implications - you'll keep spouting dishonest nonsense.
I introduced Mr. Holdren in post 205 because he declared that we are in the cooling cycle right now and if it was not for the man-made carbon we would be cooling instead of heating and going into another Ice Age.But you never provided a citation for us to read what he actuality said, even though you were asked to provide the source! We don't care what your lousy biased memory pastes together.
Then the question becomes, if we are cooling,NO, NO, NO. We are in a radical warming period. PERIOD Dare you to come up with some legitimate science (not some Republican/libertarian blogger screeching echo-chamber soundbites), some serious science that indicates otherwise.
Then comes the kicker with the claims that the earth cooling cycle has happened in the past with jumps that can take place in decades instead of thousands of years. And that is a big concern. If the jumps are true, we need to fully understand the how and when these jumps happen.Then learn about the conditions then, rather than pretending it's all a mystery and that perhaps hundreds of giga tons might puff… disappear or magically stop doing their physics thing.
Abrupt Climate Change - What is the Younger Dryas? http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/arch/examples.shtml The most spectacular aspect of the YD is that it ended extremely abruptly (around 11,600 years ago), and although the date cannot be known exactly, it is estimated from the annually-banded Greenland ice-core that the annual-mean temperature increased by as much as 10°C in 10 years. Why was there a Younger Dryas? This is a touchy subject that is currently the focus of much research. One explanation is the one involving a thermohaline circulation (THC) shutdown, triggered by a catastrophic discharge of freshwater from Lake Agassiz (figure 2). The consequence is a rapid reduction in northward ocean heat transports, leading to an abrupt cooling over Northern Europe and North America. That is why so much attention is focused on the behavior of the North Atlantic ocean circulation: not only by scientists, but also Hollywood screenplay writers. Bear in mind, however, that the greenhouse world we are creating through fossil fuel burning might not behave at all like the Earth of 12,800 years ago, so that this scenario may be irrelevant for future climate change. …Seems to me a rational person, with a modicum of awareness regarding our physical planet and it's many interconnected systems, would take away the lesson that we had better treat our planet and climate engine gently, because even moderate forcings can have unpredictable and radical results, besides all serious physical changes will be detrimental to a people and society totally tied to and dependent on that milder climate regime. Also the thing you are steadfastly missing in this abrupt climate change, is that those changes you're referring to were the result of internal fluctuations. Today we continue massively increasing our planet's global insulation blanket, that matters a great deal - and so long as you deliberately ignore that reality and its implications - you'll keep spouting dishonest nonsense. Wow... that's all I have to say about the above post...just wow. Wished more people could see it this way.
{re #329]}
DougC,
Me too.
That’s why I keep flapping my lips, er, pounding the keyboard, when I can.
thanks,
CC
Great, I can agree with you on the one million years. Also the population problem. This brings up the question, is population moving into the industrial age one of the causes of CC? If so, do you think that we are going to have to deal with the population to deal with CC?http://www.skepticalscience.com/ How about you do a little work for yourself... There is no work to be done. It was a question about population control. Doug was bring up the fact of the population increase. I was just bringing up the point that along with Carbon control we may need population control if we are going to get a handle on the problem.
Then the question becomes, if we are cooling,NO, NO, NO. We are in a radical warming period. PERIOD Dare you to come up with some legitimate science (not some Republican/libertarian blogger screeching echo-chamber soundbites), some serious science that indicates otherwise. You missed the point. John said that we are in the cooling part of earth’s cycle now. And if it was not for man-made warming we would be cooling. I not sure if the science at this point in time can say for certain, I hear we are not at the top yet. At the top. And over the top and on the way down.
Then the question becomes, if we are cooling,NO, NO, NO. We are in a radical warming period. PERIOD Dare you to come up with some legitimate science (not some Republican/libertarian blogger screeching echo-chamber soundbites), some serious science that indicates otherwise. You missed the point. John said that we are in the cooling part of earth’s cycle now. And if it was not for man-made warming we would be cooling. I've read the too, and it shows just how sensitive our climate is to greenhouse gases. This is further evidence that mankind is causing global warming.
I not sure if the science at this point in time can say for certain, I hear we are not at the top yet. At the top. And over the top and on the way down.As usual, you say one thing that makes sense and follow it with nonsense. What the hell are you trying to say?
You missed the point. John said that we are in the cooling part of earth’s cycle now. And if it was not for man-made warming we would be cooling. I not sure if the science at this point in time can say for certain, I hear we are not at the top yet. At the top. And over the top and on the way down.We're dealing with very complex and scientific issues here, how about you stop giving us your interpretation of what someone may or may not have said and post some credible articles. It's okay to include quotes taken directly from the articles that illustrate what you're trying to communicate. Or you can keep up this endless circle game that already has me highly convinced you're just one more denier...as can be seen on more than one occasion when you've completely misrepresented what someone actually said and the results of their research.
How much fun can life on this planet get?
It should come as no surprise that human activity is causing the world’s oceans to warm, rise and acidify. But an equally troubling impact of climate change is that it is beginning to rob the oceans of oxygen. While ocean deoxygenation is well established, a new study led by Matthew Long, an oceanographer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, finds that climate change-driven oxygen loss is already detectable in certain swaths of ocean and will likely be “widespread" by 2030 or 2040. Ultimately, Long told The Huffington Post, oxygen-deprived oceans may have “significant impacts on marine ecosystems" and leave some areas of ocean all but uninhabitable for certain species.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-oxygen-loss-oceans_us_57226e80e4b0f309baf0499e I really don't get this accurate enough to trust business. If the models all indicate similar trends then disagreement about the degree of the trends is more scary than perfect agreement would be. Especially since we have empirical data that is worse than most of the predicted trends. What does it mean to human life if it takes more than 10,000 years for the planet to correct the crap we are causing? We don't have 10,000 years of human history. psik
How much fun can life on this planet get?It’s the human factor and we may not be having this problem as bad as it has gotten today if we had not followed the nuclear movement and promises back in the 60’s and dealt instead with proven facts and science. We went with nuclear because it was going to be dirt cheap and the radiation would be burnt into a non-radioactive material. When the nuclear did not pan out as predicted, it opened the door for coal. Had all the facts been on the table at the time, we could have invested in geothermal instead of nuclear and be using non-polluting geothermal right now. I’m afraid we are going to have to make some very tough choices that people will not like because you are right, the clock is ticking.It should come as no surprise that human activity is causing the world’s oceans to warm, rise and acidify. But an equally troubling impact of climate change is that it is beginning to rob the oceans of oxygen. While ocean deoxygenation is well established, a new study led by Matthew Long, an oceanographer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, finds that climate change-driven oxygen loss is already detectable in certain swaths of ocean and will likely be “widespread" by 2030 or 2040. Ultimately, Long told The Huffington Post, oxygen-deprived oceans may have “significant impacts on marine ecosystems" and leave some areas of ocean all but uninhabitable for certain species.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-oxygen-loss-oceans_us_57226e80e4b0f309baf0499e I really don't get this accurate enough to trust business. If the models all indicate similar trends then disagreement about the degree of the trends is more scary than perfect agreement would be. Especially since we have empirical data that is worse than most of the predicted trends. What does it mean to human life if it takes more than 10,000 years for the planet to correct the crap we are causing? We don't have 10,000 years of human history. psik
It’s the human factor and we may not be having this problem as bad as it has gotten today if we had not followed the nuclear movement and promises back in the 60’s and dealt instead with proven facts and science. We went with nuclear because it was going to be dirt cheap and the radiation would be burnt into a non-radioactive material. When the nuclear did not pan out as predicted, it opened the door for coal. Had all the facts been on the table at the time, we could have invested in geothermal instead of nuclear and be using non-polluting geothermal right now. I’m afraid we are going to have to make some very tough choices that people will not like because you are right, the clock is ticking.The government supported nuclear technology that could produce material for bombs. Thorium technology could not do that so we didn't get it even though there is more thorium in the world than uranium. psik
It’s the human factor and we may not be having this problem as bad as it has gotten today if we had not followed the nuclear movement and promises back in the 60’s and dealt instead with proven facts and science. We went with nuclear because it was going to be dirt cheap and the radiation would be burnt into a non-radioactive material. When the nuclear did not pan out as predicted, it opened the door for coal. Had all the facts been on the table at the time, we could have invested in geothermal instead of nuclear and be using non-polluting geothermal right now. I’m afraid we are going to have to make some very tough choices that people will not like because you are right, the clock is ticking.The government supported nuclear technology that could produce material for bombs. Thorium technology could not do that so we didn't get it even though there is more thorium in the world than uranium. psik Exactly. It was the Nixon administration that killed the thorium molten salt reactors that Alvin Weinberg and his team wanted to build to replace all the PWRs and BWRs being used for civilian nuclear power. Nixon backed the LMFBR which would have produced large amounts of plutonium.
It is not what you say but how you show it:
The image has resonated for a number of reasons — one of them being, as Hawkins says, that it “doesn’t require any complex interpretation." It uses data that was always there, of course — data from the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Center which document the globe’s average temperature anomaly monthly and annually going back to the year 1850. (Two U.S. agencies, NASA and NOAA, do the same but only go back to 1880). Hawkins took these monthly temperature data and plotted them in the form of a spiral, so that for each year, there are twelve points, one for each month, around the center of a circle – with warmer temperatures farther outward and colder temperatures nearer inward. At the same time, he took the pre-industrial baseline temperature to be the average temperature from 1850 to 1900, and put out markers for where a 1.5 degree Celsius rise above that temperature would be, and where at 2 degree Celsius rise would be, in the form of larger, red concentric circles.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/11/this-scientist-just-changed-how-we-think-about-climate-change-with-one-gif/ psik
Technology: Nasa Climate Change And Global Warming || Great Documentary (New)
psik
Climate change is real [DISOBEDIENCE][HD]2016
psik
Is there a limit to how weird things can get?
Peak sand?
(MUST SEE) Biggest Secret They Don’t Want You To Know
psik
Is there a limit to how weird things can get? Peak sand? (MUST SEE) Biggest Secret They Don't Want You To Know https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKQaJ4akm50 psikSand has a lot of surface area, not anywhere near the surface area of clay, but sometimes a large surface area may allow for a larger selection of chemicals to interact. Also, at low tide you have peak sand to lay your towel... :)
Bringing it back to climate models accuracy worth trusting:
Robust Responses of the Hydrological Cycle to Global Warming http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/jcli3990.1 Isaac M. Held National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, New Jersey Brian J. Soden Rosenstiel School for Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3990.1 Received: 13 September 2005 Final Form: 17 March 2006 Abstract Using the climate change experiments generated for the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this study examines some aspects of the changes in the hydrological cycle that are robust across the models. These responses include the decrease in convective mass fluxes, the increase in horizontal moisture transport, the associated enhancement of the pattern of evaporation minus precipitation and its temporal variance, and the decrease in the horizontal sensible heat transport in the extratropics. A surprising finding is that a robust decrease in extratropical sensible heat transport is found only in the equilibrium climate response, as estimated in slab ocean responses to the doubling of CO2, and not in transient climate change scenarios. All of these robust responses are consequences of the increase in lower-tropospheric water vapor.
Scorched Earth, 2200AD
Climate change has done its worst, and now just 500 million humans remain on lifeboats in the north. How do they survive?
So what if we only reach +1.95 degrees by 2100. What will happen after that?
psik
I am sure everyone wants to hear this wonderful news:
May 2016 Was the 8th Consecutive Warmest Month on Record, NASA Says
psik