It should be possible to manage many of the important cycles like the carbon cycle to create sustainable economies and societies. But that requires breaking some very long term habits and mindsets. Like the Earth is an infinite resource we can exploit at will, which seems to be behind climate change denial and our current disposable economies.I've head people argue that point with me. I don't understand the cognitive dissonance required for an educated person to believe Earth's resources are infinite. And when we're dealing with something like ecosystems health which underlies pretty much everything in human terms, it's not just the amount of life present, it's how diverse and robust the ecosystem is. For instance if there's just a few species present and something happens that selects those species for extinction then you can have an ecological collapse. There's is a great deal of stability and strength built into the natural systems of the Earth, but they aren't infinitely resilient.
Wow. There's a lot going here. From what I understand the 2000s saw the lowest level of recorded solar activity and ocean turnover that brought huge volumes of colder bottom water to the surface which acted to cool the planet. And we still had many record setting warm years in that time period when otherwise the Earth probably would have seen record cold global average years. It makes you wonder just how much warming from CO2 is being hidden by other short term factors that can suddenly end. It's like we're playing tickle with a giant and hoping we can get out of the way when it swats at the nuisance.When temperatures are averaged at a global scale, the differences between years are usually measured in fractions of a degree. In the NOAA data set, 2015 was 0.29 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than 2014, the largest jump ever over a previous record. NASA calculated a slightly smaller figure, but still described it as an unusual one-year increase.http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/science/earth/2015-hottest-year-global-warming.html?_r=0 Holy Sh!t! psik
25 January 2016 – The global average surface temperature in 2015 broke all previous records by a strikingly wide margin, according to the United Nations World Meteorological Organization (WMO), which announced today that for the first time on record, temperatures were about 1 degree Celsius above the pre-industrial era.http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=53088#.VqZ4SGFVKlM One down one to go! https://www.wmo.int/media/content/2015-hottest-year-record http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/2015-may-just-be-hottest-year-on-record/ http://earthsky.org/earth/2015-hottest-year-on-record-by-far psik
Carl Mears PhD on Climate Data vs Models
Limitations - Climate Modeling
Claudia Tebaldi: Making Sense of Uncertainty: What Do Climate Models Tell Us?
psik
If we should be in an ice-age, and we just came through the hottest year in recent history, then this should be of great concern. It would mean that GW is much greater than we even suspected.For a million years and more the shift between temperate and ice age has been a very slight change in solar insolation along with a CO2 fluctuation of about 100 ppm (180-280ish ppm) since 1850 (a nano second in geologic time) we've increased that Atmospheric-Regulato-Regulator by another 120 ppm by adding (now we're up to) over 3 gigatonnes every month after month to the atmosphere. Thankfully more than half of that get's sucked out of the atmosphere by the oceans, increased plant grown and other means - or we'd have been in even deeper shit a lot sooner. (http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/airbornefraction/). Guess it is true as the sunrise that collectively we way the hell underestimate the impacts of GW.
Hi, I'm new so please let me know if I'm butting in to existing conversations.Butt in with abandon, this is a discussion forum - all civil, lucid conversation is welcomed, stupid shit is attacked with relish. Hope you enjoy the ride. Now on to reading what you've written. :cheese: ________________________________________________________________________________ Sir, having read your post, it's my pleasure to officially invite you to butt into any existing threat/dialogue, as it appear you bring some genuine intelligence to the conversation. All I have to add to your post is:
Earth's Earliest Climate By: Angela M. Hessler (Chevron Energy Technology Company) © 2011 Nature Education Citation: Hessler, A. M. (2011) Earth’s Earliest Climate. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):24 ~~ Lead Editor: Figen Mekik thin red line, that drops dramatically and then has a couple spikes = Impact rate dotted red line = Solar luminosity dark green line = CO2 level light green line = CH4 (methane) blue line = Ocean surface temperature red line = O2 Two vertical bands, in the Archean = earliest sedimentary rock formation. Dark gray vertical bands = glacial episodeshttp://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/earth-s-earliest-climate-24206248
It should be possible to manage many of the important cycles like the carbon cycle to create sustainable economies and societies. But that requires breaking some very long term habits and mindsets. Like the Earth is an infinite resource we can exploit at will, which seems to be behind climate change denial and our current disposable economies.I've head people argue that point with me. I don't understand the cognitive dissonance required for an educated person to believe Earth's resources are infinite. And when we're dealing with something like ecosystems health which underlies pretty much everything in human terms, it's not just the amount of life present, it's how diverse and robust the ecosystem is. For instance if there's just a few species present and something happens that selects those species for extinction then you can have an ecological collapse. There's is a great deal of stability and strength built into the natural systems of the Earth, but they aren't infinitely resilient. Add to that the coordinated timing of and between biological events that has developed over millions of years and evolved into niches that change on a decadal, century and longer scale. I'm talking about stuff like the first thaw and all that triggers. Then the character and rate of river run off. When the leaf and flower buds open and when their consumers (bees, bugs, birds and others) show up, when the last hard frost shows up. Whether you got your ten "average" inches of summer rain fall expectation in one day, or spread over the summer like it used to be. Stuff like that. People like us who have spent their lives understanding and trying to learn about all the complexities of life and human society and history, have an appreciation for the intricacy and vulnerabilities to these webs of life. We are aware of all the damage already inflicted out there, and are terrified of the trends and their increasing momentum and where they are taking our human society and this Earth. And all they know is their TV screens, magazines and dreams of Hollyworld, well half of them, the other half is wrapped up in worshipping their own self-aggrandizement by climbing into Ancient Tribal Texts and pretending they've figured out the God of Creation. They demonstrate utter contempt for everything that's made our wonderful lives possible, it's soo mind-goggling crazy that society is taking this route. They get rich on the principles of compounding interest, but are oblivious that it holds true in the physical world just as it does in the financial one. Worst is their ability to totally ignore all the damage that has already been inflicted. But then these are the same people who believe more bombs and wars will fix the problems bombs and wars created.
Thankfully more than half of that get's sucked out of the atmosphere by the oceans,Yes, we should be really grateful for the opportunity to study the acidification of the oceans. Maybe some people will get to starve due to the eventual drop in sea food production. psik
Carl Mears PhD on Climate Data vs Models https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvdeDwAjiOI Limitations - Climate Modeling https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGlILmPGkWs Claudia Tebaldi: Making Sense of Uncertainty: What Do Climate Models Tell Us? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGx0_xXHPXE psikThanks for the links, psik. I'm researching for an article about climate modeling and these will come in handy.
Carl Mears PhD on Climate Data vs Models https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvdeDwAjiOI Limitations - Climate Modeling https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGlILmPGkWs Claudia Tebaldi: Making Sense of Uncertainty: What Do Climate Models Tell Us? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGx0_xXHPXE psikThanks for the links, psik. I'm researching for an article about climate modeling and these will come in handy. Likewise, thanks - and there was other interesting new stuff in the side bar too.
Yes, we should be really grateful for the opportunity to study the acidification of the oceans. Maybe some people will get to starve due to the eventual drop in sea food production. psikThat and the fact that as the oceans warm, they will be unable to hold as much CO2 in solution. In the same way warm soda loses its fizz.
Hi, I'm new so please let me know if I'm butting in to existing conversations.Butt in with abandon, this is a discussion forum - all civil, lucid conversation is welcomed, stupid shit is attacked with relish. Hope you enjoy the ride. Now on to reading what you've written. :cheese: ________________________________________________________________________________ Sir, having read your post, it's my pleasure to officially invite you to butt into any existing threat/dialogue, as it appear you bring some genuine intelligence to the conversation. All I have to add to your post is:
Thanks. I'm not sure how much more of this I'm actually up to discussing, it's become so depressing to see year after year of concrete data piling up supporting the huge risks and virtually nothing being done to mitigate the impacts of climate change. No one really knows for sure, but it may now be a case of just documenting an unfolding disaster of massive proportions. I'm not a violent man and don't support the death penalty, but I wouldn't object in the slightest to the worst climate change deniers being publicly executed for the mega deaths they've likely programmed for us in the coming decades. Alvin Weinberg, James Hansen and others weren't lying when they began warning of this decades ago. The people who are behind climate change denial have knowingly been lying for that same period. http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/the-passion-of-alvin-weinberg http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2Earth's Earliest Climate By: Angela M. Hessler (Chevron Energy Technology Company) © 2011 Nature Education Citation: Hessler, A. M. (2011) Earth’s Earliest Climate. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):24 ~~ Lead Editor: Figen Mekik thin red line, that drops dramatically and then has a couple spikes = Impact rate dotted red line = Solar luminosity dark green line = CO2 level light green line = CH4 (methane) blue line = Ocean surface temperature red line = O2 Two vertical bands, in the Archean = earliest sedimentary rock formation. Dark gray vertical bands = glacial episodeshttp://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/earth-s-earliest-climate-24206248
I'm not sure how much more of this I'm actually up to discussing, it's become so depressing to see year after year of concrete data piling up supporting the huge risks and virtually nothing being done to mitigate the impacts of climate change. No one really knows for sure, but it may now be a case of just documenting an unfolding disaster of massive proportions.Yeah ain't that the truth. For instance, I do blog about it quite a bit, trying to share information, trying to hone my understanding of the climate system (not that difficult to do just takes time, and intellectual curiosity) and my understanding of how people can be so entrenched in their denial (a seemingly impossible task) and trying to improve my writing about it. But when friends ask me about my writing, I shrug it off with: "it's ugly stuff" "not fun reading… AGW don't you know" and move on to something else. When I'm at gatherings I don't bring it up - I'll politely try to correct stupid comments I happen to hear, but pretty much let it slide. What's the point, my little group of pals aren't going to make any difference to the momentum we've allowed to build up. Why bother, lets talk about that canoe back when, and enjoy the moment… But, when I walk away from my blog and the writing about it, I start feeling like a fraud, like I need to at least try, I'm not going to win any battles, but maybe somewhere it'll connect with someone and move them to understanding and action, futile though that action may be, but at least we're not giving… or something like that
Let’s do a scenario. Say there were no what you call deniers and go back a couple of years when Al Gore did the big global warming pitch. And everyone got on board with the global warming bandwagon. The taxes would have gone up. The cost of everything would have also gone up. The computer models would have not gotten the resources required to be on the path they are at today. And then you have to ask yourself, would it really have made much of a difference unless the whole world got on board? All these charts and reports are fine. But until you have real working computer models, you really got nothing but poking you’re finger in holes of a dam that is about to burst. Don’t stress yourself out. You are doing a good job.
Let’s do a scenario. Say there were no what you call deniers and go back a couple of years when Al Gore did the big global warming pitch. And everyone got on board with the global warming bandwagon. The taxes would have gone up. The cost of everything would have also gone up. The computer models would have not gotten the resources required to be on the path they are at today. And then you have to ask yourself, would it really have made much of a difference unless the whole world got on board? All these charts and reports are fine. But until you have real working computer models, you really got nothing but poking you’re finger in holes of a dam that is about to burst. Don’t stress yourself out. You are doing a good job.If there were no deniers then a change of course could have begun 40 years ago when Al Gore first brought this before Congress and James Hansen was producing his first projections in the late 1970s. Before that Alvin Weinberg was researching human forced climate change at ORNL starting in the 1960s, but no one seemed interested. http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/the-passion-of-alvin-weinberg There's a massive amount of inertia in the Earth climatic system and once it begins shifting it can be difficult to impossible to stop, something few people seem to grasp. The sane time to take action was long before hundreds of extra gigatonnes of CO2 had been added to the carbon cycle.
Let’s do a scenario. Say there were no what you call deniers and go back a couple of years when Al Gore did the big global warming pitch. And everyone got on board with the global warming bandwagon. The taxes would have gone up. The cost of everything would have also gone up. The computer models would have not gotten the resources required to be on the path they are at today. And then you have to ask yourself, would it really have made much of a difference unless the whole world got on board? All these charts and reports are fine. But until you have real working computer models, you really got nothing but poking you’re finger in holes of a dam that is about to burst. Don’t stress yourself out. You are doing a good job.If there were no deniers then a change of course could have begun 40 years ago when Al Gore first brought this before Congress and James Hansen was producing his first projections in the late 1970s. Before that Alvin Weinberg was researching human forced climate change at ORNL starting in the 1960s, but no one seemed interested. http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/the-passion-of-alvin-weinberg There's a massive amount of inertia in the Earth climatic system and once it begins shifting it can be difficult to impossible to stop, something few people seem to grasp. The sane time to take action was long before hundreds of extra gigatonnes of CO2 had been added to the carbon cycle. Going back to the 70s when the course we were on became obvious - namely we were making too many babies and consuming too many resources and polluting too much. Had there been a realistic appreciation for our climate system and the biosphere it enables, not only would less babies have been made, but stuff like construction habits would have transformed into intelligent designs (as opposed to the Trophy Home Complex of today) - by more intelligent I mean better insulation, doors that actually seal the weather out, plumbing systems centralized with future maintenance concerns being afforded as much attention as how many bathrooms you can spread out as far as possible or how fancy you can make the place. Incorporating maintenance need, understanding and working with the elements, rain, snow conditions, sun's orientation (I mean like what kind of moron would build a shed roof on top of a garage facing north in snow country, yet you see it and the winter hassles it causes all the time, but by summer construction season seems all those lessons are again forgotten, and most f'n architects have never spent a day in the field so know nothing of physical practicalities and limitations. I've seen decks get sheared off and crushed under falling roof snow for the same reason, on a 1/2 million dollar plus home. . . . oh god I could rant on and on, as the memories start streaming by.) It seems to me that had we been able to first understand our planet as the living entity it really is, then our predicament of too many people on a genuinely shrinking world, would have been absorbed into the collective consciousness. Imagine if the Reaganomics greed is good and wars are glorious mentally hadn't captured the USA imagination, Or those dumb but ultra-rich oil magnates who wrestled the Northeast establishment reign on power, had not happen, and their subsequent massive investment in "Think_Tank" expressly created to mislead the public about science finding because dumb rich powerful become power obsessed and hell bent on dumbing down America... our sating greed is everything mentality would not have percolated throughout the world. Had the collective population appreciated what a complex society we have and how vulnerable it is to a deteriorating biosphere and climate system and oceans - we've have made our priority protecting and enhancing it, rather than consuming and soiling it fast as possible. It would look way different today, changes would still be coming but slower, and the human footprint wouldn't have been so great. The Earth is very simple to live with, you only have to appreciate that you are part of it, and it is part of you. WE got none of that. Most people zero conception of what's out there on this planet, talk to them about folds within folds of complex harmonic cumulative complexity flowing down the stream of time - and it's like Chinese - nothing there to relate to because they have no inkling of what evolution, and the story of how we got here, is all about. ________________ Well Maddy is barking, wants to go for another walk - so I better stop barking and go for a walk. Thinking of all we've lost get's pretty overwhelming.
Going back to the 70s when the course we were on became obvious - namely we were making too many babies and consuming too many resources and polluting too much. Had there been a realistic appreciation for our climate system and the biosphere it enables, not only would less babies have been made, but stuff like construction habits would have transformed into intelligent designs (as opposed to the Trophy Home Complex of today) - by more intelligent I mean better insulation, doors that actually seal the weather out, plumbing systems centralized with future maintenance concerns being afforded as much attention as how many bathrooms you can spread out as far as possible or how fancy you can make the place. Incorporating maintenance need, understanding and working with the elements, rain, snow conditions, sun's orientation (I mean like what kind of moron would build a shed roof on top of a garage facing north in snow country, yet you see it and the winter hassles it causes all the time, but by summer construction season seems all those lessons are again forgotten, and most f'n architects have never spent a day in the field so know nothing of physical practicalities and limitations. I've seen decks get sheared off and crushed under falling roof snow for the same reason, on a 1/2 million dollar plus home. . . . oh god I could rant on and on, as the memories start streaming by.) It seems to me that had we been able to first understand our planet as the living entity it really is, then our predicament of too many people on a genuinely shrinking world, would have been absorbed into the collective consciousness. Imagine if the Reaganomics greed is good and wars are glorious mentally hadn't captured the USA imagination, Or those dumb but ultra-rich oil magnates who wrestled the Northeast establishment reign on power, had not happen, and their subsequent massive investment in "Think_Tank" expressly created to mislead the public about science finding because dumb rich powerful become power obsessed and hell bent on dumbing down America... our sating greed is everything mentality would not have percolated throughout the world. Had the collective population appreciated what a complex society we have and how vulnerable it is to a deteriorating biosphere and climate system and oceans - we've have made our priority protecting and enhancing it, rather than consuming and soiling it fast as possible. It would look way different today, changes would still be coming but slower, and the human footprint wouldn't have been so great. The Earth is very simple to live with, you only have to appreciate that you are part of it, and it is part of you. WE got none of that. Most people zero conception of what's out there on this planet, talk to them about folds within folds of complex harmonic cumulative complexity flowing down the stream of time - and it's like Chinese - nothing there to relate to because they have no inkling of what evolution, and the story of how we got here, is all about. ________________ Well Maddy is barking, wants to go for another walk - so I better stop barking and go for a walk. Thinking of all we've lost get's pretty overwhelming.It's my firm belief that this kind of disposable Earth mindset is enabled by and feeds back into the wide scale use of fossil fuels, there seems to be a basic contempt for life at all levels at work there. Just look at the people running the industry and the kind of people they use to lock us into this this sick way of living. Once we remove this insane belief in "cheap" energy from coal, oil and gas then it become apparent that as you say we are an inseparable part of the Earth and what we do to it we do to ourselves.
Let’s do a scenario. Say there were no what you call deniers and go back a couple of years when Al Gore did the big global warming pitch. And everyone got on board with the global warming bandwagon. The taxes would have gone up. The cost of everything would have also gone up. The computer models would have not gotten the resources required to be on the path they are at today. And then you have to ask yourself, would it really have made much of a difference unless the whole world got on board? All these charts and reports are fine. But until you have real working computer models, you really got nothing but poking you’re finger in holes of a dam that is about to burst. Don’t stress yourself out. You are doing a good job.If there were no deniers then a change of course could have begun 40 years ago when Al Gore first brought this before Congress and James Hansen was producing his first projections in the late 1970s. Before that Alvin Weinberg was researching human forced climate change at ORNL starting in the 1960s, but no one seemed interested. http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/the-passion-of-alvin-weinberg There's a massive amount of inertia in the Earth climatic system and once it begins shifting it can be difficult to impossible to stop, something few people seem to grasp. The sane time to take action was long before hundreds of extra gigatonnes of CO2 had been added to the carbon cycle. Going back to the 70s when the course we were on became obvious - namely we were making too many babies and consuming too many resources and polluting too much. Had there been a realistic appreciation for our climate system and the biosphere it enables, not only would less babies have been made, but stuff like construction habits would have transformed into intelligent designs (as opposed to the Trophy Home Complex of today) - by more intelligent I mean better insulation, doors that actually seal the weather out, plumbing systems centralized with future maintenance concerns being afforded as much attention as how many bathrooms you can spread out as far as possible or how fancy you can make the place. Incorporating maintenance need, understanding and working with the elements, rain, snow conditions, sun's orientation (I mean like what kind of moron would build a shed roof on top of a garage facing north in snow country, yet you see it and the winter hassles it causes all the time, but by summer construction season seems all those lessons are again forgotten, and most f'n architects have never spent a day in the field so know nothing of physical practicalities and limitations. I've seen decks get sheared off and crushed under falling roof snow for the same reason, on a 1/2 million dollar plus home. . . . oh god I could rant on and on, as the memories start streaming by.) It seems to me that had we been able to first understand our planet as the living entity it really is, then our predicament of too many people on a genuinely shrinking world, would have been absorbed into the collective consciousness. Imagine if the Reaganomics greed is good and wars are glorious mentally hadn't captured the USA imagination, Or those dumb but ultra-rich oil magnates who wrestled the Northeast establishment reign on power, had not happen, and their subsequent massive investment in "Think_Tank" expressly created to mislead the public about science finding because dumb rich powerful become power obsessed and hell bent on dumbing down America... our sating greed is everything mentality would not have percolated throughout the world. Had the collective population appreciated what a complex society we have and how vulnerable it is to a deteriorating biosphere and climate system and oceans - we've have made our priority protecting and enhancing it, rather than consuming and soiling it fast as possible. It would look way different today, changes would still be coming but slower, and the human footprint wouldn't have been so great. The Earth is very simple to live with, you only have to appreciate that you are part of it, and it is part of you. WE got none of that. Most people zero conception of what's out there on this planet, talk to them about folds within folds of complex harmonic cumulative complexity flowing down the stream of time - and it's like Chinese - nothing there to relate to because they have no inkling of what evolution, and the story of how we got here, is all about. Back in the 70’s the carbon credits were look at as another commodity market and being sold to the public that way. The future energy that we understood would be required was going to be enormous. What was being done by the big oil and utility companies was a blueprint for clean and carbon free energy by the use of geothermal energy. At the time the Geysers just north of San Francisco was the poster child for the geothermal energy of the future. Over half of the electric at the time use by San Francisco area came from the Geysers. What happened next was the (mainly the California) scientists at the time attacked the geothermal energy with what turned out to be fault accusations and theories. But the public backed the scientists in the belief of these fault accusations. Now, had the oil companies and utility companies been allowed to build the geothermal inner structure that they wanted to construct. Then we would have had and would have been using carbon free and dirt cheap energy now for decades. The utility companies did the only thing the public would allow, build the system using cheap coal.
You know that we can use the internet, right Mike?
History of Geothermal. Specifically mentions the Geysers.]
San Francisco Power and Water]
You know that we can use the internet, right Mike? History of Geothermal. Specifically mentions the Geysers.] San Francisco Power and Water]I’m not sure that you can do it correctly! Where is there any data on the talking points of my post? You would do better to follow the court battles that went all the way to Supreme Court. And the investment patterns of geothermal energy during that period. Just throwing stuff against the wall with internet searches to see what sticks is a waste of time.