There are two roads for climate changing taking place.NOPE. There's one reality going down - how you wish process is another issue. Show me one place where I've preached about laws or regulation or mitigation. If you can't find one. Then please stop claiming shit you believe I'm thinking. Better to stick to taking about the actual science, but you always seen to steer away from that. And now the phonetic language - oh brother. Talk about meaningless distractions. Next the horrors of QWERTY I suppose. :smirk: Oh, come on now. Stop being in denial. Look at the laws that have already passed. Do you think just because you yourself don’t directly push for the laws that it wasn’t the global warming movement that was the cause of the laws passing? Stop denying the reality of what is happening. Tell me that you don’t think that you are in a movement? Call it, “processing the issue" if you want. I can work with that. The phonetic language is a perfect example of how we are all paying every day for education that could be better and cheaper because of the science being miss-handled by people not understanding the human factor and the movements on the subject that took place.
The phonetic language is a perfect example of how we are all paying every day for education that could be better and cheaper because of the science being miss-handled by people not understanding the human factor and the movements on the subject that took place.It's also an example of being oblivious to the heritage in our language.
Oh and what kinds of laws have been passed/
Please inform us.
Because I can’t thing of one damned thing of substance that’s been achieved,
But before the laws, people need to get on the same page and appreciate the physical undeniable reality humanity is facing.
Now your type will come up with demands for a 100% confident prediction of exactly where each ‘insult’ on our infrastructure will occur including timing and exact damage number - or youz laugh it off.
Me I know continuing to destabilize weather patterns, and increase atmospheric moisture will result in extended droughts and torrential down pour events, that will be quite destructive.
I know rising sea levels will radically fuck coastal cities and their inhabitants and the economies of attached countries - even though I can’t tell you where the first substantive catastrophes will happen, although for me Sandy seemed a clear shot across the bow.
I know that the temperate forests around the world are dying at horrifyingly fast rates, can’t tell you exactly how that will play out, but it sure is going to creating big problems for everyone who’s benefited from our once healthy forests.
Back half a century ago when mass recognition of this problem began, had we all be allowed to learn about the actually science and learned about what we were doing to our climate and the basic consequence that would flow from that
Then the choices were “simple” - power down, material minimalism is OK, Bigger is NOT Better - Greed is NOT Good is more criminal thinking than anything, or at least sociopathic.
Less babies, less consumption, less destruction of natural landscapes and resources would have allowed Earth to ease into these changes a bit slower, thereby giving the self presumed Sapiens a chance to go with flow. Nah, instead we choose Reagunomic, and put the petal to the metal as hard as we could. The growing disasters are our just deserts. The party is just starting, hand on idiot. (yeah your phoniness has pissed me off this morning. You’re game is utterly contemptible.)
Crazy making of your style is easy, constructively learning is the challenge.
The phonetic language is a perfect example of how we are all paying every day for education that could be better and cheaper because of the science being miss-handled by people not understanding the human factor and the movements on the subject that took place.It's also an example of being oblivious to the heritage in our language. Not sure I understand. We don’t lose any of our heritage. We get rid of illiteracy and gain the use of other tools for our language. Sort of like moving letter writing from paper to computer. Just a better system all the way around.
Oh and what kinds of laws have been passed/ Please inform us. Because I can't thing of one damned thing of substance that's been achieved,Carbon laws mostly.
But before the laws, people need to get on the same page and appreciate the physical undeniable reality humanity is facing.Totally agree with you on this point.
Now your type will come up with demands for a 100% confident prediction of exactly where each 'insult' on our infrastructure will occur including timing and exact damage number - or youz laugh it off.Not understanding the thought here.
Me I know continuing to destabilize weather patterns, and increase atmospheric moisture will result in extended droughts and torrential down pour events, that will be quite destructive. I know rising sea levels will radically fuck coastal cities and their inhabitants and the economies of attached countries - even though I can't tell you where the first substantive catastrophes will happen, although for me Sandy seemed a clear shot across the bow. I know that the temperate forests around the world are dying at horrifyingly fast rates, can't tell you exactly how that will play out, but it sure is going to creating big problems for everyone who's benefited from our once healthy forests.Here I have a concern. I am aware that to have big populations of humans that other species will be made extinct. One concern is that we could be doing a much better job at protecting the environment. Another concern is that the children will end up getting the message that all the weather patterns are caused by humans. They will never understand Mother Nature. Another concern is that we open up a can of worms with lawsuits. For example, a category F4 tornado in Kansas kills 20 people and causes two billion dollars of damage. And we have lawsuits claiming that without climate change the tornado would have only been a F3 and the damage would have been less than a billion. So if it is a human factor, then someone is going to be sued to pay the damages. Same with ocean rising. That’s why we should not put more blame on climate change than what is really man-made climate change. The international courts will have a hay day suing the United States.
Back half a century ago when mass recognition of this problem began, had we all be allowed to learn about the actually science and learned about what we were doing to our climate and the basic consequence that would flow from that Then the choices were "simple" - power down, material minimalism is OK, Bigger is NOT Better - Greed is NOT Good is more criminal thinking than anything, or at least sociopathic. Less babies, less consumption, less destruction of natural landscapes and resources would have allowed Earth to ease into these changes a bit slower, thereby giving the self presumed Sapiens a chance to go with flow. Nah, instead we choose Reagunomic, and put the petal to the metal as hard as we could. The growing disasters are our just deserts. The party is just starting, hand on idiot. (yeah your phoniness has pissed me off this morning. You're game is utterly contemptible.)Step back and look at what is happening in the big picture right now. In the last decade the race for natural resources has been taking place by industrializes countries. China has been the leader of the push. Once the race is over then look for the industrialized countries to take up climate change issues. The computer models will be working and well laid out plans will be put in place.
Crazy making of your style is easy, constructively learning is the challenge.
Looks like the data on February is coming in:
Update, March 3, 2016: Since this post was originally published, the heat wave has continued. As of Thursday morning, it appears that average temperatures across the Northern Hemisphere have breached the 2 degrees Celsius above “normal" mark for the first time in recorded history, and likely the first time since human civilization began thousands of years ago.* That mark has long been held (somewhat arbitrarily) as the point above which climate change may begin to become "dangerous" to humanity. It's now arrived—though very briefly—much more quickly than anticipated. This is a milestone moment for our species. Climate change deserves our greatest possible attention.Our Hemisphere’s Temperature Just Reached a Terrifying Milestone http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html Enjoy! psik
Mike, just in case you’re still paying attention I suggest you download and listen to the latest Radio Ecoshock podcast.
Pam Pearson spends some time talking about baselines. If you are truly open minded on this topic give it a listen.
Mike, just in case you're still paying attention I suggest you download and listen to the latest Radio Ecoshock podcast. http://www.ecoshock.info/2016/03/extreme-arctic-fear.html Pam Pearson spends some time talking about baselines. If you are truly open minded on this topic give it a listen.I will give it a listen tonight, thanks.
Darron, here’s the point of the broadcast that I would like to bring up.
“We’re not the good at forecasting."
“We really don’t understand abrupt changes."
“The models don’t forecast very well. “
“The scientists need to get better at commutating the risks."
“The PH level of the oceans may change."
“Tring to figure out what the triggers are that cause abrupt climate change."
“Basically 620,000 years ago, the earth was deep in the Ice Age. The deglaciation happened in 700 years. It happened in three steps. The first step amount to well over half of the temperature rise in the earth. And it happened in 50 years. And this type of climate change was not unique, this type of behavior has been happening over the last million years. This is the trend."
I agree with what was being said. My weak understandings is in the PH levels, have not followed that at all. My biggest interest is in the abrupt changes.
Sorry for the delay response, I had to go out of town.
Mike, you are quoting the podcast without context. I’ll listen to it again and take notes and reply later.
Mike, you are quoting the podcast without context. I'll listen to it again and take notes and reply later.Yea, I am a bit overloaded with work right now. I first heard of the abrupt changes about five years ago and it’s not went away. It really has my interest and I would like to know more. Another item that I keep thinking I will run into the answer for without doing any research is why it takes 90,000 years to warm the earth and only 10,000 years to cool the earth and take us into an Ice Age? A 90/10 ratio or cooling happens 9 times faster than warming and that’s not right. But it is a fact proven by the ice cores over and over again.
Mike, you are quoting the podcast without context. I'll listen to it again and take notes and reply later.Yea, I am a bit overloaded with work right now. I first heard of the abrupt changes about five years ago and it’s not went away. It really has my interest and I would like to know more. Another item that I keep thinking I will run into the answer for without doing any research is why it takes 90,000 years to warm the earth and only 10,000 years to cool the earth and take us into an Ice Age? A 90/10 ratio or cooling happens 9 times faster than warming and that’s not right. But it is a fact proven by the ice cores over and over again. I think the answer lies in your post. Going into a glaciation period there is relatively little ice cover on the Earth. At the height of glaciation there are millions of square miles of ice sheets sometimes miles thick. These act as a giant break on warming as they reflect a lot of incoming solar radiation back into space and keep huge amounts of CO2 locked in frozen Earth. So in a cooling phase you get relatively rapid cooling down to a certain level where most of the CO2 capture has been done and then the ice sheets build up slowly over thousands of years. You then need to remove much of this ice cover then the CO2 levels can recover to inter-glacial levels. It's probably all in the ice...
Mike, you are quoting the podcast without context. I'll listen to it again and take notes and reply later.Yea, I am a bit overloaded with work right now. I first heard of the abrupt changes about five years ago and it’s not went away. It really has my interest and I would like to know more. Another item that I keep thinking I will run into the answer for without doing any research is why it takes 90,000 years to warm the earth and only 10,000 years to cool the earth and take us into an Ice Age? A 90/10 ratio or cooling happens 9 times faster than warming and that’s not right. But it is a fact proven by the ice cores over and over again. I think the answer lies in your post. Going into a glaciation period there is relatively little ice cover on the Earth. At the height of glaciation there are millions of square miles of ice sheets sometimes miles thick. These act as a giant break on warming as they reflect a lot of incoming solar radiation back into space and keep huge amounts of CO2 locked in frozen Earth. So in a cooling phase you get relatively rapid cooling down to a certain level where most of the CO2 capture has been done and then the ice sheets build up slowly over thousands of years. You then need to remove much of this ice cover then the CO2 levels can recover to inter-glacial levels. It's probably all in the ice... That was my first thought too. Sunlight reflecting into space. But once I saw the amount of area cover each year by the winter snow. Then the 9 to 1 warming cycle should push winter a lot longer. It could be the ice, but it is hard to get a visual on and it would be best if it was the reflection causing the rapid cooling. Because the other only causes I can think of would be the reactions of atmospheric gases or the Milankovitch cycle. The CO2 cause I am having trouble with because in the early ice core sample the 9 to 1 was still taking place. And the CO2 levels were said to be 300 times higher that today’s levels.
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
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/earth-s-earliest-climate-24206248
If you’re tossing out 300 x current levels - it would be best to include a source… and perhaps what time period you’re referring to.
What'sUpWithThatWatts, et al.: {6} Evolution of Earth's Atmosphere - easy version
That was my first thought too. Sunlight reflecting into space. But once I saw the amount of area cover each year by the winter snow. Then the 9 to 1 warming cycle should push winter a lot longer. It could be the ice, but it is hard to get a visual on and it would be best if it was the reflection causing the rapid cooling. Because the other only causes I can think of would be the reactions of atmospheric gases or the Milankovitch cycle. The CO2 cause I am having trouble with because in the early ice core sample the 9 to 1 was still taking place. And the CO2 levels were said to be 300 times higher that today’s levels.The 300 times higher levels of CO2 were back in the Snowball Earth period over 600 million years ago. In the last several million years and during this current ice age the levels of CO2 have fluxuated between 280 and 180 ppm. The Milankovitch Cycles in conjunction with ocean circulation start off the glaciation periods by causing slightly less Solar insolation in the Northern Hemisphere which results in slightly colder winters, more snowfall and ice cover which then causes direct feedbacks like the uptake of more and more CO2 by the cooling oceans and frozen land surface. In the warming phase, once again you have only a very slight change in Solar insolation causing a positive forcing in the Northern Hemisphere but there are massive ice sheets that need to be removed first before complete warming can occur and the CO2 levels can return to inter-glacial levels.
Thanks for the fast reply, I realized that I never got to the point of my last post. Got interrupted and getting to old to remember which direction I am going. The point I was trying to make about the ice coverage. Is that I feel, that it we are not putting enough research into the cloud coverage. I think the earth temperatures affects the amount of clouds in the atmosphere. Reason for the thought is what we believed happened with Venus. Venus was said to have had an atmosphere more like earths a long time ago, then they had the runaway greenhouse effect. Now it is like hell and covered in clouds.
Thanks for the fast reply, I realized that I never got to the point of my last post. Got interrupted and getting to old to remember which direction I am going. The point I was trying to make about the ice coverage. Is that I feel, that it we are not putting enough research into the cloud coverage. I think the earth temperatures affects the amount of clouds in the atmosphere. Reason for the thought is what we believed happened with Venus. Venus was said to have had an atmosphere more like earths a long time ago, then they had the runaway greenhouse effect. Now it is like hell and covered in clouds.So what is your point? Seems to me you are arguing that global warming is even more dangerous than the IPCC is letting on. BTW, I was out of town last week and didn't have time to listen to the Radio Ecoshock podcast again. Please be patient.
Thanks for the fast reply, I realized that I never got to the point of my last post. Got interrupted and getting to old to remember which direction I am going. The point I was trying to make about the ice coverage. Is that I feel, that it we are not putting enough research into the cloud coverage. I think the earth temperatures affects the amount of clouds in the atmosphere. Reason for the thought is what we believed happened with Venus. Venus was said to have had an atmosphere more like earths a long time ago, then they had the runaway greenhouse effect. Now it is like hell and covered in clouds.Cloud cover is a complex forcing, depending on the altitude and type of clouds they can have a positive or negative forcing. The best evidence is that cloud cover now is having a slight positive forcing. http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm Venus is a good example of how powerful a moderator of "climate" carbon dioxide in an atmosphere is. Venus has a much higher albedo than Earth due to its dense cloud cover, most solar radiation is reflected back into space. But because almost all the atmosphere is CO2 it has the highest surface temperature of any planet. What little sunlight gets through to Venus' surface is so efficiently trapped within the atmosphere that the planet averages over 850 F at the surface. http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/A/Albedo
Yea, I think of clouds are ice cover too, because the upper clouds are sometimes just small ice particles. But they can come and go much faster than sheet ice without leaving anything to base a study on. It will be interesting what the models come up with. Great data on the website you posted, but I think the answer they were giving is at this time, it remains an uncertainty. They are connecting the clouds to the oceans but think the data is in a trend period and so they really don’t know. Both sides of the issue think the clouds are an area of total disagreement. This may be an issue that can only be answered by the climate models. I have never read any data on how much earth coverage the clouds produce, I guess it would have to be based upon density and solar location.
Yea, I think of clouds are ice cover too, because the upper clouds are sometimes just small ice particles. But they can come and go much faster than sheet ice without leaving anything to base a study on. It will be interesting what the models come up with. Great data on the website you posted, but I think the answer they were giving is at this time, it remains an uncertainty. They are connecting the clouds to the oceans but think the data is in a trend period and so they really don’t know. Both sides of the issue think the clouds are an area of total disagreement. This may be an issue that can only be answered by the climate models. I have never read any data on how much earth coverage the clouds produce, I guess it would have to be based upon density and solar location.It gets even more complex when you factor in human created cloud cover. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/contrail-effect.html But none of that alters the very well understood positive forcing created by significantly increasing the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The signal for human forced climate change due to the huge amounts of CO2 that have been emitted became apparent over 2 decades ago.