Dealing with climate change

95 replies [Last post]

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
marcopolo
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2009
Points: 837
Re: Dealing with climate change

@ME Roller,

You are correct, (strictly speaking). Although fuel for Nuclear energy is in no danger of depletion, it isn't 'renewable' in the true sense. There are a number of ways for disposing of nuclear waste relatively safely.
(Wookey has pointed out some of the most useful).

There are other methods. such burying beneath the great salt flats of South Australia etc. Although, the nuclear power alternative is not 100% perfect, it does produce low carbon fuel in sufficient qualities to suit the needs of industrial societies. Much of the opposition to nuclear power is based on exaggerated fears.The Nuclear power industry has an enviable safety record, but that could be improved by inspection and monitoring by an independent,international, licencing agency.

Unattainable perfection, should never become the enemy of the attainable good.

It's disappointing to see the lack of interest, at the practical examples I provided to combat green house emissions. Governments can provide incentives, and leadership, but government mandates usually result in negative results. It needs community involvement and understanding of self-interest benefits, to achieve really positive results.

Calling for changes that are either impractical, or too economically disruptive, only serves to confuse the public, and divert focus from priorities.

Environmental priorities are too important to be delayed, or diluted, by old ideologies.

When the Australian Labour-Green minority government introduced a Carbon Tax, I didn't care so much about the subterfuge (they had promised the electorate they wouldn't with out a new election)but whether the tax worked. Did it reach it's environmental objectives? Disappointingly, it became obvious that the Carbon Tax was simply a device to increase revenue to disguise the incompetence of an increasingly badly managed economy.

In contrast, the conservative Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, has shown how government incentives can work to reduce emissions, and acquire popular support. When I am in the UK, I drive an EV. I have never received any negative reaction, except from those of the radical left, who resent that they can't afford the price of an EV.

Emissions schemes and 'carbon taxes', are pointless if they are ineffective, or ideologically based.. Such schemes only transfer carbon emissions elsewhere, but the planet has only one bio-sphere !

Just as the ineffective 'action' by the IMO to disallow the use of Bunker Oil in national waters (or the national waters of those countries that bother to participate) the planet's oceans and Bio-sphere is international, Bunker Oil pollution respects no national borders !

If the international community is to effectively reduce the increase in green house emissions by 2020, (let alone reach the target of less emissions) it must prioritize. With over 7 billion people on the planet, there is no time to waste fiddling around with ideology. Only economic prosperity and education of women, can limit population growth. That takes energy, and increased living standards.

In a single concerted action, Bovine (and other livestock) technology may reduce the world most virulent green house gas, methane, by up to 25% ! (more than the world entire motor vehicle fleet). (these figures are not precise, but intended as examples)

The abolition of bunker oil may reduce the increase of green house emissions by up to 50%! These are achievable objectives. Requiring the PRC to stop using coal for energy, is not a feasible objective.

Highly developed nations, with low growth populations, such as Denmark can institute economically expensive 'green programs', (and good for them). But in reality, it's just a drop in the ocean in contrast to expansion in the developing world.

Norway, has very advanced 'green' policies, yet is a major Oil exporter. Norway is rightly proud of it's well funded environmental national programs, but by exporting oil, Norway just shifts the problem elsewhere.

Again in contrast, the effects of more humble reforms, like reducing bovine emissions, can be eagerly implemented by developing nations, (including the PRC) because it improves the health and yields of the animals.

If the half dozens major Western importing nations refused entry to shipping 'rigged' for bunker oil, those ships would become obsolete, and unprofitable to operate.

I'll admit these aren't exciting grand schemes to reform the world ! But they work, and on an international scale ! Whether you agree with GW/CC or not, no one want's to live in a world where you are forced to unnecessarily breathe/eat carcinogens just so that a shipping company can make a marginally higher profit!

So, I'll ask the question again,....who's interested to lend a hand ?

__________________

marcopolo

Mik
Mik's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/11/2007
Points: 3739
Re: Dealing with climate change

marcopolo wrote:

...
...

So, I'll ask the question again,....who's interested to lend a hand ?

How? Does it involve belief in the infinite growth paradigm?

I eat very little meat (I think it's called "ethical omnivorism") and buy locally grown and produced products when they are available. That reduces both methane and greenhouse gas emissions, without requiring international agreements http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2012/11/27/video-1-5-minute-climate-talk-crash-course/?WT_mc_id=SA_CAT_ENGYSUS_20... or bio-engineering cattle. It's the rich countries of the world that are eating most of that cattle producing the methane.

Another little hobby of mine is charcoal production, fashionably knows as "Biochar". Feeding some char to cattle also reduces methane IIRC and has various other health benefits for the cattle and economical benefits, while being carbon-negative. That would be a better approach than re-inventing the cow, which would undoubtedly lead to further concentration of wealth.

Burying nuclear waste under salt plains seems idiotic to me. Are these salt plains not located close to current sea levels and have been flooded by the ocean numerous times before? They will go under again, and probably a lot sooner than most people think.

__________________

This information may be used entirely at your own risk.

There is always a way if there is no other way!

marcopolo
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2009
Points: 837
Re: Dealing with climate change

@ Mik,

How do I put this without sounding impolite or condescending? Your private little contributions to the environment are very laudable, but not really effective outside your own lifestyle!

Biochar is an interesting hobby, and a useful form of soil enrichment. But suggesting that it's a practical alternative to solving a world wide cattle methane program is unrealistic! There are over 1,7 billion cattle,(3 billion by 2022), and another 3 billion sheep and goats. Small hobby farm solutions may work on one or two cows, but 2-3 billion? It's just not logistically practical. As for wealth concentration,.. again you're letting your political/ideological prejudices get in the way of serious environmental progress.

The planets great salt plains are generally located far inland. Salt flats, are generally unpopulated and rated the most stable geological formations. If the oceans ever flood these area's, the question of pollution will be pretty academic, except to those with gills!

Mik, I've no wish to seem patronizing, but hobbyist solutions, private lifestyle choices, and reductionist philosophies, are just not practical or effective. Worse, they can hinder and divert attention from practical priorities.

The overwhelming majority of the worlds population insist on "infinite growth". The PRC, Brazil, India, Russia and other developing nations are not going to accept less. The developed world is certainly not going to settle for lower living standards.

These are political realities ! Only technology can solve the environmental problems facing the planet, by creating new wealth creating industries to replace older resource based industries. The vast expansion of communication technologies etc, is a good example.

To create new industries, and implement effective environmental policy we must have strong healthy economies,and organizations. Only sufficient surplus wealth can attract the type of investment necessary to effect technological development.

The choice is simple, sit 'round dreaming of impractical hobbyist solutions, that will never make the slightest difference in the real world, or put aside ideology, and support real priorities that ,even if not perfect, can really produce an impact on a vast scale.

So, once again I ask,.....who will lend a hand ?

__________________

marcopolo

MEroller
MEroller's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/26/2011
Points: 831
Re: Dealing with climate change

marcopolo wrote:

So, once again I ask,.....who will lend a hand ?

marcopolo, Mik was simply answering your question? On the ground that there will be no improvement of the situation until everyone individually gets their very own act together...

Are you directing this question to governments, the UN, or who knows what? Then you need to ask it in other places, not an EV Forum where neither governments, nor the UN or any other big entity regularly visit and read.

What kind of answer do you expect from indiviudals like us here, apart from what we ourselves can do or are already doing to reduce our very own contribution to polluting, depleting and in other ways negatively impacting the world we all live in?

__________________

My rides:
QvR vR one: a Swiss package of pure understatement - innocent and to some eyes (from some angles) exceedingly ugly looks, but with raw and hardly containable electron power up to real 95 to 100km/h! And a literally rock-hard suspension due to a carrying capacity of twice it's unladen weight... Now converted to more controllable and efficient brushless motor and vector-contoller.

E-Sprit Fury (basis is the Erider Thunder 5000) since May 03, 2011. Highly moded - but now in active retirement

marcopolo
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2009
Points: 837
Re: Dealing with climate change

MEroller wrote:

What kind of answer, do you expect from individuals like us here,

At long last ! That's exactly the question I was hoping to hear. I thank you for the question.

In truth, there is only so much that individuals can do. I used the example of Bovine Emmisions, to show how a positive and practical approach, (engaging not alienating), can unite disparate interests to produce dramatic results.

If every concerned US citizen wrote to his congressman, President, Senator, supporting the abolition of Bunker oil, the mainstream media would start to pick it up as an issue.

People like 'Safe' may not appreciate being barraged with derision about GW, issues by people who have no ability or power to do anything positive to help the bio-sphere.

But "Safe' has enough interest to read and write about these issues ! Isn't it better to ignore his skepticism, on some issues, and focus on the priorities on which even skeptics can agree, and participate to change ?

It only by reaching out to business, and the mainstream, that real progress can be made.

(Oh, and by the way, I will soon be ready to post details of how individuals can be part of a project to rid the world of it's most toxic pollutant)

__________________

marcopolo

safe
safe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2010
Points: 788
Re: Dealing with climate change

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/12/121205-oldest-dinosaur-found-tanzania-science-archaeology/

Oldest Dino @ 240 Million Years Ago

...which is the end of the Permian.

Notice that CO2 is LOW, but temperature is HIGH.

The CO2-to-Temp "relationship" just doesn't work in the past... but that won't stop alarmism today. ;)

(never let reasan get in the way of popular myths!!!)

Choose science.... it's a good "bet".

.

safe
safe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2010
Points: 788
Re: Dealing with climate change

Why?

They used to say:

"It's the economy stupid."

But when it comes to the "Climate Cycle" we might say:

"It's the ocean stupid."

The reason the temperature went UP while CO2 went DOWN is because the oceans had no physical ability to circulate because of plate techonics. Once the plates separated the temperature went DOWN.

The oceans have currents that distribute energy into areas further north or south than the physical position receives energy from the sun. Europe gets a warm stream because of ocean currents. Weather is "directed" because of ocean temperature.

The "Climate Cycle" now is dominated by oceans... CO2 simply "exists" in parallel.

-------------

Repeating how the "Climate Cycle" works...

When we reach the proper heat level the ice caps melt, which makes the oceans less salty and slows circulation. This begins a long process of "less moderate" climate where the poles get COLDER and the equator gets WARMER. After thousands of years the snow piles up again at the poles and the sea level drops by about 350 feet. The oceans are now salty enough to begin circulation again and this begins a warming trend that lasts about 20,000 years and then it does it all over again.

CO2 simply "goes along for the ride".

The oceans are the "dominant feature" of the "Climate Cycle".

Excess CO2 is gradually absorbed by the oceans, but having extra doesn't do much to the cycle, CO2 tends to simply lag around and follow ocean circulation trends.
.

safe
safe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2010
Points: 788
Re: Dealing with climate change

Anchorage breaks seasonal snow record

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/storms/winter/story/2012-04-08/anchorage-snow-record/54110016/1

Inundated with nearly double the snow they're used to, Anchorage residents have been expecting to see this season's snowfall surpass the record of 132.6 inches set in the winter of 1954-55.

This is likely the kind of future that the "Climate Cycle" points to.

Poles will get warmer in summer for a while as the ice melts, but at the same time as ocean currents slow (which we need data for) we will see more snow and colder winters.

It's a kind of weird reality... both more melting and more snow... but that's what the "Climate Cycle" does.

Even if man NEVER EXISTED the "Climate Cycle" would be doing this odd behavior.

Humans are prone to "mystical beliefs" based on emotion and that's why climate change is such a great political tool. It's easy to scare people about the climate and USE this fear to direct politics. If you remove the emotion and insert reason in it's place so that people understand the physical forces at work they will be less vulnerable to popular influences.

Reason does appear to be "uncool" these days though... nothing "cool" about the "Enlightenment" or reason these days.

In our "modern era" what we call "truth" is decided by "the mob" mentality of popular culture. If enough people simply want to believe something then through popular culture peer pressure what is not factually correct ends up being held as "truth" anyway.

And it gets worse with money because now there are "supposed scientists" that are being paid to "give results" to their masters. Not only is there a bias now, but many of the scientists begin with an agenda supportive of a "cause".

So there is a gradual corruption of reason in the sciences and in the public mind.

------------------

This is "normal" though because the history of mankind has seen many civilizations rise on honesty and fall through self deception. The pattern of mankind "lying to itself" is an age old problem and not something we can eradicate. (to thine own self be true)

So we are in a sense "doomed" to think in emotional terms about climate changes based on our place now in the cycle of civilizations.

.

safe
safe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2010
Points: 788
Re: Dealing with climate change

About two thirds of the US is presently covered with ice. That's the highest winter level in a decade.

The "simple warming" view of climate change doesn't seem correct.

At the same time a single winters higher level of snowpack doesn't say much either.

.

LeftieBiker
Offline
Joined: 07/09/2011
Points: 871
Re: Dealing with climate change

The "ice" cover is from winter storms, which deposit more snow when there is more energy in the atmosphere, and also when it is slightly warmer (but still at or below freezing). Thus mild winters according to temperatures can produce large amounts of snow, fueling the delusions of climate change deniers. This is a transitional state, however, as eventually it will be too warm for snow to build up, and then too warm for it to fall at all...

PJD
Offline
Joined: 11/22/2006
Points: 1403
Re: Dealing with climate change

Your points are correct. In spite of the snow cover, it has been quite warm as post-snow cold spells go here in western Pennsylvania. Between Christmas and New years eve, the temperature never varied more than a few degrees - between freezing and 26F - so the daily average was actually slightly above normal. Recent clear nights allowed it to get into the teens on the hills, mid-upper single digits in the colder valleys. That is a below the seasonal average but still warmer than typical for a clear calm January night with a good snow cover.

safe
safe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2010
Points: 788
Re: Dealing with climate change

That might be true on the East Coast, but I'm presently living out West and I just checked the averages and we are 16 degrees BELOW average.

It was 8 degrees this morning.

So the West is well below normal and I guess some places East are not.

The bottom line is we aren't seeing warming here... that's for sure !!!

--------------

This tends to reinforce the "higher wisdom" of knowing how the "Climate Cycle" actually works.

In the beginning people used to talk of "global warming" like it would go in a straight line. Now that we understand how the "Climate Cycle" works we know that things are more complex. The oceans guide weather patterns and the melting of polar ice changes ocean currents. So we "expect" that patterns will change.

---> Areas warmed by ocean current induced weather patterns will get colder.

---> Areas formerly cooled by the weather will overheat.

...so the future looks more like an Earth of extremes. (like in previous cycles)

-----------------

The "Moderate Earth" humanity has enjoyed for the last 10,000 years is actually only 1/10 of the "Climate Cycle".

We have "deceived ourselves" to imagine the climate would always be good.

(it NEVER stayed constant in the past)

.

PJD
Offline
Joined: 11/22/2006
Points: 1403
Re: Dealing with climate change

Safe,

You really need to view the two lectures I posed here:

http://visforvoltage.org/forum/13377-concise-scientists-explanaton-agw-and-what-needs-be-done

Then come back.

You still seem to be confusing climate change over geologic time scales with the near-instantaneous (from a geological perspective) climate events like AGW and a couple of other times in the geologic past. The latter are extremely disruptive events leading to mass extinctions. By the way, the geologic time/CO2 Temperature chart you posted cannot be right - for example, the late carboniferous was actually a cool spell that experienced up to 50 glacial events also, the chart does not even have a y-axis scale shown.

And at any rate, nobody ever argued that CO2 alone governs climate - particularly over the huge scale (the lifetime of the earth) of your chart, In particular, over that long a time scale, solar output has been steadily increasing by a very significant degree, requiring the Earth's "Gaia" mechanisms (look it up) to compensate. Atmospheric CO2 (among other things) is an important thing that gets adjusted by this incredibly fortuitous mechanism. That is why CO2 levels could be 2000-3000 ppm in the Ordovician - yet the climate was comparable to present. It needed to be that high, or the earth would have been an iceball (or conversely, it would have become uninhabitably hot long before today.

safe
safe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2010
Points: 788
Re: Dealing with climate change

I wasn't able to fast forward those videos. Not going to devote an hour to old arguments.

-----------------

Basically we can all agree that the "Moderate Earth" of the last 10,000 years is only 1/10 of the overall "Climate Cycle", so even if mankind didn't exist the earth would become less moderate.

Does man's existence alter anything?

Or does it even matter?

That's my point...

The "defining charactoristic" of mankind is that despite Ice Ages or scorched summers we adapted. I just think that we need to elevate our wisdom to realize that the "Moderate Earth" is not forever.

The "Climate Cycle" automatically means "Moderate Earth" ends.

Human existence just places an "exclamation point" at the end of that realization !!!

Anyone who (at this stage of knowledge) believes in a perpetual "Moderate Earth" is in a dream.


.

safe
safe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2010
Points: 788
Re: Dealing with climate change

The "Most Profound" Thought

I'm posting again to stress this...

The "most profound" thing I've learned in studying the science of the "Climate Cycle" is that this cycle was turning anyway.

We were "doomed" from the start.

Climate tends to not stay the same for long (under any circumstance) and that's very hard for individuals or civilizations to grapple with.

So much of human history revolves around the general stubburn insistence of mankind to deny that climate is impermanent.

We are no different... we "want to believe" through human sacrifice (Mayan) or giving up oil (Present) that by hurting ourselves in some way... some "sacrifice to the gods" that things will remain the same.

Wisdom means accepting that the climate will change because that's what it does. ;)

.

PJD
Offline
Joined: 11/22/2006
Points: 1403
Re: Dealing with climate change

Quote:

I wasn't able to fast forward those videos. Not going to devote an hour to old arguments.

Sigh...

No point wasting my time. This discussion might as well be with a brick wall. As a fellow US citizen, you embarrass me.

LeftieBiker
Offline
Joined: 07/09/2011
Points: 871
Re: Dealing with climate change

As long as there is an alternative argument available, no matter how little it's supported by facts, people will believe it if it better suits their mindset and/or lifestyle. Note, BTW, that the cartoon is from 2007...

safe
safe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2010
Points: 788
Re: Dealing with climate change

Look we've all studied the science on this by now.

A "recap":

In the beginning the concept was "global warming" and no one even considered any historical data relating to long term cycles.

The new term was "climate change" and that sort of permitted that things went in cycles, but then said man was responsible for altering it's rate.

After that we (all) came to realize that "climate cycles" are driven by a variety of forces and that the ocean currents are the dominant feature of the cycles.

Finally we are left with the "realization" that we were "doomed" from the start that no matter what we would do the climate has no intention of remaining consant for long.

---------------

After that we move on to political observations of humans in the past and how "control" is assumed to be held by those in power. When faced with a changing climate the political forces drive "compensating reactions" that hope to correct the situation.

This leads to things like "human sacrifice" to "appease the gods".

We no longer believe in "gods" (at least us scientific types don't) but the human dynamic is the same.

The "kick in the gut" at the end is that China pollutes (CO2) at a rate 5 times the US... so even if we "sacrificed" we cannot control events.

-----------------

But those that seek a "political cause" in this should not worry at all. Think of how many human sacrifices the Mayans did even though it had no effect at all. If someone complained you can imagine what they did... they would "sacrifice" the person that complained.

Think of that scene in Schindlers List where the educated woman was trying to tell the Nazi's that they were building a foundation incorrectly. What happened?

They took the advice... and killed the woman.

It's "nice" when power also has truth... but power can have just power and still win.

(JPEG removed -- mgmt)

The whole point about this whole "climate scare" from the beginning was to gain political power. Well, the left is very powerful these days, so the goal of getting power was achieved. The struggle for power was a success... now if the truth comes out it doesn't matter anymore.

Control was the original motivation... just as with the Mayans the "crisis" allowed certain people to gain power over others.

So human beings are always the same.
.

safe
safe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2010
Points: 788
Re: Dealing with climate change

Just to be clear...

I think electric vehicles are great. I've had lot's of fun with my ebikes and it seems to me that with continued research and lowered costs that we will get a future without stinky gasoline.

I'm not against the adoption of electric vehicles at all !!!

But it's just cool technology to me... I'm not a left wing guy seeing it as a political cause.

If you love the technology... then we are all friends. :)

.

Mik
Mik's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/11/2007
Points: 3739
Re: Dealing with climate change

safe wrote:

Look we've all studied the science on this by now.

A "recap":

In the beginning the concept was "global warming" and no one even considered any historical data relating to long term cycles.

The new term was "climate change" and that sort of permitted that things went in cycles, but then said man was responsible for altering it's rate.

After that we (all) came to realize that "climate cycles" are driven by a variety of forces and that the ocean currents are the dominant feature of the cycles.

Finally we are left with the "realization" that we were "doomed" from the start that no matter what we would do the climate has no intention of remaining consant for long.

---------------

After that we move on to political observations of humans in the past and how "control" is assumed to be held by those in power. When faced with a changing climate the political forces drive "compensating reactions" that hope to correct the situation.

This leads to things like "human sacrifice" to "appease the gods".

We no longer believe in "gods" (at least us scientific types don't) but the human dynamic is the same.

The "kick in the gut" at the end is that China pollutes (CO2) at a rate 5 times the US... so even if we "sacrificed" we cannot control events.

-----------------

But those that seek a "political cause" in this should not worry at all. Think of how many human sacrifices the Mayans did even though it had no effect at all. If someone complained you can imagine what they did... they would "sacrifice" the person that complained.

Think of that scene in Schindlers List where the educated woman was trying to tell the Nazi's that they were building a foundation incorrectly. What happened?

They took the advice... and killed the woman.

It's "nice" when power also has truth... but power can have just power and still win.

The whole point about this whole "climate scare" from the beginning was to gain political power. Well, the left is very powerful these days, so the goal of getting power was achieved. The struggle for power was a success... now if the truth comes out it doesn't matter anymore.

Control was the original motivation... just as with the Mayans the "crisis" allowed certain people to gain power over others.

So human beings are always the same.
.

Hi "safe",

you have summed up your views very succinctly there, well done!

It shall serve as a reminder without wasting too much time on trying to talk sense into you in the future.

Mik

__________________

This information may be used entirely at your own risk.

There is always a way if there is no other way!

safe
safe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2010
Points: 788
Re: Dealing with climate change

Power is power.

Humans have used all kinds of fear tactics to control people over the history of mankind.

Despite all our technology we are still human and we still suffer from the same things.

---------------

My prediction:

"Climate will change... and nothing we can do will prevent it."

----------------

So I would ask anyone:

"Do you really believe you can control the climate and make it unchanging?"

...if you really believe that you can do that then you can be at peace with yourself. If even the slightest doubt creeps in and you begin to doubt the truth of that belief, then you are one step closer to my position.

May truth win in the end. :)
.

safe
safe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2010
Points: 788
Re: Dealing with climate change

2012 Hottest North American Temperature Average

I used to live in Kansas City and still have family there... it was miserable this last summer.

Out West it was slightly below average in some areas. (we are 16 degrees below average here in Jan 2013)

This is all "normal" as we approach this round of deglaciation in the "Climate Cycle".

Still... people are likely going to panic... but they just need to realize deglacation is inevitable. (sorry)

The world average was something like 9th highest... so we are "almost there" in melting.

Are we all looking forward to the next phase in the cycle?

I'm looking forward to it... it's like the seasons changing only on a larger timescale. :)
.

safe
safe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2010
Points: 788
Re: Dealing with climate change

Extreme Cold In California

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/californians-brace-nights-freezing-temps-18197177

The National Weather Service is forecasting morning frost on San Diego beaches. Big Sur, on the central coast, prepared for daytime highs almost 20 degrees below Boston's. Even the snowbird haven of Palm Springs faced the possibility of freezing temperatures at night.

In addition, San Diego zookeepers turned up the heat for chimpanzees, tourists covered their hands on Hollywood walking tours, and some farmers broke out wind machines and took other steps to protect crops from freezing.

Freeze warnings were in effect in San Diego County valleys and deserts Saturday morning with lows in the 20s and 30s, the weather service said.

In Sonoma County, homeless shelters started handing out extra warm clothes on Friday to protect people from freezing overnight temperatures.

Morning temps fell into the 20s and 30s in many areas, and much lower in the mountains. A low of 12 degrees was recorded in the Big Bear mountain resort east of Los Angeles.

-----------------

I'm living in Nevada and it was 2 degrees this morning.

Talk of "global warming" sounds like a "joke" to people out West right now. ;)

----------------

It still seems to me that what we are facing is a change from "Moderate Earth" to "Extreme Earth". The changes in ocean currents due to polar ice melting will eventually create an earth of extreme weather.

The future of climate change is more likely one of "changes in distribution" of heat which alters established weather patterns. It's the change in the circulation of weather that we will notice most.

San Diego normally is very moderate and rarely freezes...

.

safe
safe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2010
Points: 788
Re: Dealing with climate change

Humans : Always Dealing With Climate Change

Was watching a show about the migration of human DNA around the world over the last 140,000 years.

Apparently climate change was a major driving force that made the races diverge. Darker northern climates favored white skinned peoples and hot sunny deserts favored dark skinned peoples.

The fact that humans vary by race is an example of how quickly we adapt to climate change.

Most all racial differences were caused by climate.

So this isn't our first rodeo. ;)

--------------------

Those people without an "adaptive mindset" simply died out... survival of "those that fit in" to climate change was the mechanism of racial dispersion.

Seems like we could learn from this...

.

davew
davew's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/20/2006
Points: 85376
Re: Dealing with climate change

Mik wrote:

Hi "safe",

you have summed up your views very succinctly there, well done!

It shall serve as a reminder without wasting too much time on trying to talk sense into you in the future.

Mik

Well said. I was trying to decide if Safe was uninformed or a troll. The number of times he deliberately confuses weather and climate leads me more to the troll conclusion. Either way clearly his mind is set and he has no interest in new information so conversation is pointless.

__________________

"we must be the change we wish to see in the world"

safe
safe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2010
Points: 788
Re: Dealing with climate change

I have no confusion at all about any of this....

My point about DNA is that is gives us a scientific reminder of how climate change has effected humanity.

The human species diverged into new and different races as a consequence of climate change.

-----------------

There is great irony in this... racial identity and climate change are related.

We have racial differences because the earth has already thrown radical climate change at us before.

Pretty profound if you think about it...

------------------

Climate change continues as does adaptation.

Some will adapt and survive, others will not adapt and die.

Natural selection is still weeding out those that want "constant climate".

We might even joke that "constant climate" is a philosophy of failure!!!

Those that stubburnly held to a "constant climate" philosophy in mankind's past have gone extinct.

(in the past people migrated, adapted, or died)

.

safe
safe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2010
Points: 788
Re: Dealing with climate change

Another thing to consider...

What about organic matter "in the clouds" ?

http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/living-bacteria-discovered-in-middle-and-upper-troposphere-say-researchers/

“We have demonstrated that our technique works, and that we can get some interesting information,” Nenes posited. “A big fraction of the atmospheric particles that traditionally would have been expected to be dust or sea salt may actually be bacteria. At this point we are just seeing what’s up there, so this is just the beginning of what we hope to do.”

...this means that a new bacteria "might" alter the strength of the sunlight that gets through the atmosphere.

Here's a thought, what if a CO2 absorbing bacteria were to be created (by humans) and released into the atmosphere ?

You could then simply eat up all the CO2.

The only danger is when the bacteria eats "too much" CO2 and we have too litte CO2, but that problem could be solved by future generations.

All very interesting.... shows that there are potentially many options to consider.

Normally I would have thought nothing was alive up there.
.

safe
safe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2010
Points: 788
Re: Dealing with climate change

Extreme Earth

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/31/us/weather-extremes/?hpt=hp_t1

J. Shepherd Marshall, the president of the American Meteorological Society, said in an e-mail that the cold temperatures that preceded this week's record highs may have two factors behind them. One of those is what meteorologists call a stratospheric warming event.

That caused the pressure holding back the cold air in the Arctic to weaken -- as if someone opened the refrigerator door of the North Pole. That cold air will now slide into the United States, leading to a frigid February, the website Climate Central explained.

It's something that has been happening more often in recent years.

"Stratospheric warming events have been increasing in frequency the past decade or so -- possibly related to diminishing sea ice," Marshall said.

That might be linked to climate change, but he cautioned that one week of extreme temperature changes does not equal pinpoint evidence of global warming.

"Weather is to your mood as climate is to your personality. You cannot judge climate by a day or week," he said.

The other factor is a weather phenomenon that circles the world at the equator called the Madden-Julian Oscillation.

"Because the MJO influences (temperature) through tropical rainfall, it can modify weather patterns far away from the equator," Climate Central reported.

-------------

Long before "global warming" and the "climate cycle" show an "absolute" temperature change we will see a transition from a "Moderate Earth" to an "Extreme Earth" climate.

While the "climate cycle" is a natural process it's still hard for mankind to adjust to the fact that climate is never constant.

We have to get used to the idea that climate is in a perpetual process of mutation.

.

marcopolo
Offline
Joined: 05/10/2009
Points: 837
Re: Dealing with climate change

@ SAFE

Here's a study that might interest 'Safe'

.
CLIMATE SCIENCE
Global warming less extreme than feared?
by Bard Amundsen and Else Lie
Oslo, Norway (SPX) Feb 01, 2013

A number of factors affect the formation of climate development. The complexity of the climate system is further compounded by a phenomenon known as feedback mechanisms, i.e. how factors such as clouds, evaporation, snow and ice mutually affect one another.

Policymakers are attempting to contain global warming at less than 2C. New estimates from a Norwegian project on climate calculations indicate this target may be more attainable than many experts have feared.

Internationally renowned climate researcher Caroline Leck of Stockholm University has evaluated the Norwegian project and is enthusiastic.

"These results are truly sensational," says Dr Leck. "If confirmed by other studies, this could have far-reaching impacts on efforts to achieve the political targets for climate."

Temperature rise is levelling off
After Earth's mean surface temperature climbed sharply through the 1990s, the increase has levelled off nearly completely at its 2000 level. Ocean warming also appears to have stabilised somewhat, despite the fact that CO2 emissions and other anthropogenic factors thought to contribute to global warming are still on the rise.

It is the focus on this post-2000 trend that sets the Norwegian researchers' calculations on global warming apart.

Sensitive to greenhouse gases
Climate sensitivity is a measure of how much the global mean temperature is expected to rise if we continue increasing our emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

CO2 is the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activity. A simple way to measure climate sensitivity is to calculate how much the mean air temperature will rise if we were to double the level of overall CO2 emissions compared to the world's pre-industrialised level around the year 1750.

If we continue to emit greenhouse gases at our current rate, we risk doubling that atmospheric CO2 level in roughly 2050.

Mutual influences
A number of factors affect the formation of climate development. The complexity of the climate system is further compounded by a phenomenon known as feedback mechanisms, i.e. how factors such as clouds, evaporation, snow and ice mutually affect one another.

Uncertainties about the overall results of feedback mechanisms make it very difficult to predict just how much of the rise in Earth's mean surface temperature is due to manmade emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the climate sensitivity to doubled atmospheric CO2 levels is probably between 2C and 4.5C, with the most probable being 3C of warming.

In the Norwegian project, however, researchers have arrived at an estimate of 1.9C as the most likely level of warming.

Manmade climate forcing
"In our project we have worked on finding out the overall effect of all known feedback mechanisms," says project manager Terje Berntsen, who is a professor at the University of Oslo's Department of Geosciences and a senior research fellow at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo (CICERO). The project has received funding from the Research Council of Norway's Large-scale Programme on Climate Change and its Impacts in Norway (NORKLIMA).

"We used a method that enables us to view the entire earth as one giant 'laboratory' where humankind has been conducting a collective experiment through our emissions of greenhouse gases and particulates, deforestation, and other activities that affect climate."

For their analysis, Professor Berntsen and his colleagues entered all the factors contributing to human-induced climate forcings since 1750 into their model. In addition, they entered fluctuations in climate caused by natural factors such as volcanic eruptions and solar activity. They also entered measurements of temperatures taken in the air, on ground, and in the oceans.

The researchers used a single climate model that repeated calculations millions of times in order to form a basis for statistical analysis. Highly advanced calculations based on Bayesian statistics were carried out by statisticians at the Norwegian Computing Center.

2000 figures make the difference
When the researchers at CICERO and the Norwegian Computing Center applied their model and statistics to analyse temperature readings from the air and ocean for the period ending in 2000, they found that climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration will most likely be 3.7C, which is somewhat higher than the IPCC prognosis.

But the researchers were surprised when they entered temperatures and other data from the decade 2000-2010 into the model; climate sensitivity was greatly reduced to a "mere" 1.9C.

Professor Berntsen says this temperature increase will first be upon us only after we reach the doubled level of CO2 concentration (compared to 1750) and maintain that level for an extended time, because the oceans delay the effect by several decades.

Natural changes also a major factor

The figure of 1.9C as a prediction of global warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is an average. When researchers instead calculate a probability interval of what will occur, including observations and data up to 2010, they determine with 90% probability that global warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration would lie between 1.2C and 2.9C.

This maximum of 2.9C global warming is substantially lower than many previous calculations have estimated. Thus, when the researchers factor in the observations of temperature trends from 2000 to 2010, they significantly reduce the probability of our experiencing the most dramatic climate change forecast up to now.

Professor Berntsen explains the changed predictions:

"The Earth's mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.

"We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system - changes that can occur over several decades - and which are coming on top of a long-term warming. The natural changes resulted in a rapid global temperature rise in the 1990s, whereas the natural variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the levelling off we are observing now."

Climate issues must be dealt with
Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project's findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought.

Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years.

Sulphate particulates
The project's researchers may have shed new light on another factor: the effects of sulphur-containing atmospheric particulates.

Burning coal is the main way that humans continue to add to the vast amounts of tiny sulphate particulates in the atmosphere. These particulates can act as condensation nuclei for cloud formation, cooling the climate indirectly by causing more cloud cover, scientists believe. According to this reasoning, if Europe, the US and potentially China reduce their particulate emissions in the coming years as planned, it should actually contribute to more global warming.

But the findings of the Norwegian project indicate that particulate emissions probably have less of an impact on climate through indirect cooling effects than previously thought.

So the good news is that even if we do manage to cut emissions of sulphate particulates in the coming years, global warming will probably be less extreme than feared.

About the project
Geophysicists at the research institute CICERO collaborated with statisticians at the Norwegian Computing Center on a novel approach to global climate calculations in the project "Constraining total feedback in the climate system by observations and models". The project received funding from the Research Council of Norway's NORKLIMA programme.

The researchers succeeded in reducing uncertainty around the climatic effects of feedback mechanisms, and their findings indicate a lowered estimate of probable global temperature increase as a result of human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.

The project researchers were able to carry out their calculations thanks to the free use of the high-performance computing facility in Oslo under the Norwegian Metacenter for Computational Science (Notur). The research project is a prime example of how collaboration across subject fields can generate surprising new findings.

__________________

marcopolo

davew
davew's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/20/2006
Points: 85376
Re: Dealing with climate change

marcopolo wrote:

But the researchers were surprised when they entered temperatures and other data from the decade 2000-2010 into the model; climate sensitivity was greatly reduced to a "mere" 1.9C.

I think this is a sign that their model is not ready for prime-time. In order for a model to have value it needs to be predictive. If 1900-2000 wasn't enough data to predict 2001-2010 then it needs more work. This is not to say it will never be of value.

__________________

"we must be the change we wish to see in the world"

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

style="display:block"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-2401070691062219"
data-ad-slot="2079401426"
data-ad-format="auto">

V3 Cycle Analyst for Electric Bikes Ebike Display The Cycle Analyst V3 dashboard with speedometer sensor and magnet is a great addition to any Ebike
Who Killed the Electric Car? Essential documentary explaining what happened the last time electric cars were killed



Who's new

  • Azupower
  • jefffinney23
  • joseb007
  • haji
  • thedudeisnotin

Customize This