Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

SCIENCE DISCUSSION ONLY

Geology, Geophysics, Oceanography, Meteorology etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#841  Postby felltoearth » Jan 22, 2017 2:23 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
VazScep wrote:I grew up in a village several feet below sea level.

Almost 30% of my country lies below sea level.

And your country has increased the size of the waker dykes in response to climate change. You have to acknowledge there is a problem in order deal with it.
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 7185
Age: 50

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#842  Postby DavidMcC » Jan 23, 2017 3:36 pm

Didn't you know it's all a Chinese hoax? Trump said so, so it must be true! :smoke:
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14290
Age: 64
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#843  Postby Willie71 » Feb 08, 2017 5:03 pm

I'm just north of Edmonton, Canada, and we have had three years in a row if exceptionally mild winters. Our precipitation patterns are wildly off from the normal patters. I haven't used my snowblower in three years, completely unheard of in rural Alberta where I live. I know this is annecdotal, but I'm seeing real world changes. Decades old spruce teees are dying off due to lengthy dry conditions. The dugout on my parents property has dried up.
well, the 'mericuns chose alien, rather than predator. The rest of the world has to burn now.
User avatar
Willie71
 
Name: Warren Krywko
Posts: 2926
Age: 46
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#844  Postby Macdoc » Mar 21, 2017 5:15 am

where we are at

Record-breaking climate change pushes world into ‘uncharted territory’
Earth is a planet in upheaval, say scientists, as the World Meteorological Organisation publishes analysis of recent heat highs and ice lows

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -territory

ain't so good

snip
2016 saw the hottest global average among thermometer measurements stretching back to 1880. But scientific research indicates the world was last this warm about 115,000 years ago and that the planet has not experienced such high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for 4m years.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 11468
Age: 70
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#845  Postby Pulsar » Mar 21, 2017 7:00 pm

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2017/03/lowest-maximum-on-record-again.html

Lowest maximum on record (again)

After a drop of almost 262 thousand km2 in just three days, it looks highly likely that the maximum for [Arctic] sea ice extent was reached two weeks ago, according to the data provided by JAXA, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (via ADS-NiPR ; it used to be provided by IJIS).

It's a new lowest maximum record, and the third time in a row that extent stayed below the 14 million km2 mark. The previous lowest max on record was reached in 2015 (13.942 million km2), almost beaten last year (13.959 million km2), but this year SIE went lower still and peaked at 13.878 million km2.

Image

Image
"The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about anything, and that all the pains that I have so humbly taken to verify my notions have only wasted my time." - George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Pulsar
 
Posts: 4605
Age: 40
Male

Country: Belgium
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#846  Postby Macdoc » Mar 21, 2017 7:36 pm

and the Antartic is setting records too for low ice which is a big change and kills one of the denier arguments.

Antarctica's Sea Ice Shrinks to New Record Low - Latest Stories

Feb 15, 2017 - Antarctica's Sea Ice Shrinks to New Record Low ... What A Long, Cold Trip It's Been The mission to set up a base on the Ross Ice Shelf is a ...


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017 ... l-warming/
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 11468
Age: 70
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#847  Postby newolder » Apr 08, 2017 6:21 pm

Future climate forcing potentially without precedent in the last 420 million years
Review article in Nature Communications by Gavin L. Foster, Dana L. Royer & Daniel J. Lunt
Abstract

The evolution of Earth’s climate on geological timescales is largely driven by variations in the magnitude of total solar irradiance (TSI) and changes in the greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere. Here we show that the slow ∼50 Wm−2 increase in TSI over the last ∼420 million years (an increase of ∼9 Wm−2 of radiative forcing) was almost completely negated by a long-term decline in atmospheric CO2. This was likely due to the silicate weathering-negative feedback and the expansion of land plants that together ensured Earth’s long-term habitability. Humanity’s fossil-fuel use, if unabated, risks taking us, by the middle of the twenty-first century, to values of CO2 not seen since the early Eocene (50 million years ago). If CO2 continues to rise further into the twenty-third century, then the associated large increase in radiative forcing, and how the Earth system would respond, would likely be without geological precedent in the last half a billion years.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 3843
Age: 6
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#848  Postby Macdoc » Apr 08, 2017 11:12 pm

and for an even more dire view ...and unfortunately at the pace we are adding CO2 ...it's not out of the question.

New Study: What’s Scarier than the Permian Extinction? Burn All the Fossil Fuels to Find Out.
If we burn all the fossil fuels “not only will the resultant climate change be faster than anything Earth has seen for millions of years, the climate that will exist is likely to have no natural counterpart, as far as we can tell, in at least the last 420 million years.” — Gavin Foster, Professor of Isotope Geochemistry at the University of Southampton

*****

Back in the 1780s as coal-fired smoke stacks sprouted across England to belch their black soot into the hitherto virgin skies of Earth, it’s likely we had not yet an inkling of the vast destruction these dark Satanic Mills were ultimately capable of unleashing:

more
https://robertscribbler.com/2017/04/05/ ... -find-out/

long watch
Catastrophe - The Permian Extinction

Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 11468
Age: 70
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#849  Postby OlivierK » Apr 08, 2017 11:54 pm

Macdoc wrote:and for an even more dire view ...

I'm not sure if I'm missing something, but it seems your "even more dire view" is exactly the same view, from the same source (Gavin Foster) as what newolder posted :scratch:
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 7444
Age: 51
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#850  Postby Macdoc » Apr 09, 2017 12:59 am

Did you actually read Rober Scribblers post ,...or just being contrarian? I really wondering whether you read either of them ....and certain the youtube popular explanation is a far cry from the Nature paper firming up a time line.

Where in the Nature paper are consequences discussed??
They may be implied but that's all.
Both RS and NOVA are discussing consequences..... :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 11468
Age: 70
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#851  Postby OlivierK » Apr 09, 2017 1:10 am

Ah, fair enough, I hadn't had time to read beyond the sections quoted here yet.

If it's simply a case of Scribbler adding his usual hyperbolic spin to a more measured source, then I guess it may end up as a more dire view. I'll give it a read later on. :thumbup:

Edit: I've read the Scribbler article now, and it seems pretty vacuous. It notes that we've locked in dangerous levels of warming, and that the impacts in the next two centuries are likely to be larger than those in the previous two centuries, beyond that, it does indeed build up to a conclusion that is simply a quote from Foster's paper.

Purely as an aside, I note also that the Precarious Climate image Scribbler includes shares your ability to conflate pre-industrial and mid-20th-century baselines (for once, rather than this confusion being used to overstate recent warming, in this case it understates it, claiming current warming of 0.8C over pre-industrial, a level we went past about 30 years ago).

Image

That image also simply states, without evidence, that temperatures more than about 0.65C above pre-industrial levels are "unsafe". Global temperatures spiked to that level around WW2, and have not been below that level since the mid 1980's. The "safe climate zone" does seem somewhat arbitrary.

Please note, lest you be tempted to misrepresent what I'm saying here, that I do think that our current levels of CO2, and locked-in levels of at least short term fossil fuel use, are going to lead to dangerous climate impacts, and we'd be wise to do everything possible to limit those impacts in the most urgent way possible. I just wish that those arguing that corner would be more rigorous with the way they present data. The image above is tabloid quality at best.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 7444
Age: 51
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#852  Postby Greyman » Apr 10, 2017 5:29 am

Among such impacts, we now serveying the results of the fourth temperature driven coral bleaching event in the last twenty years --1998, 2002, 2016, and 2017--. As this is back to back with last-year's bleaching, the prognosis for recovery, of the affected two thirds of the Great Barrier Reef, is not good.
"And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit." - T. Tick.
User avatar
Greyman
 
Name: Graham
Posts: 437
Age: 49

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#853  Postby Macdoc » Apr 10, 2017 7:38 am

If it's simply a case of Scribbler adding his usual hyperbolic spin to a more measured source, then I guess it may end up as a more dire view. I'll give it a read later on


Scribbler is always polemic....but he is also thorough....sometimes he's wrong...he also is willing to admit it.

Seems you are unable to admit you are wrong about pre-industrial ...in fact are you now admitting that we are not going to take until 2040 to get to 1.5 above PRE-INDUSTRIAL instead of 20th century average which you like to tout.

Let's make it perfectly clear....the Paris accord is PRE-INDUSTRIAL as a base line and you now finally admit we are far beyong the .8 you keep trotting out time and again.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 11468
Age: 70
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#854  Postby OlivierK » Apr 10, 2017 9:04 am

Macdoc wrote:
If it's simply a case of Scribbler adding his usual hyperbolic spin to a more measured source, then I guess it may end up as a more dire view. I'll give it a read later on


Scribbler is always polemic....but he is also thorough....sometimes he's wrong...he also is willing to admit it.

Seems you are unable to admit you are wrong about pre-industrial ...in fact are you now admitting that we are not going to take until 2040 to get to 1.5 above PRE-INDUSTRIAL instead of 20th century average which you like to tout.

Let's make it perfectly clear....the Paris accord is PRE-INDUSTRIAL as a base line and you now finally admit we are far beyong the .8 you keep trotting out time and again.

Oh for fuck's sake let it go.

We're about 1.1C above pre-industrial on trend, which means El Ninos that add around 0.3C to individual years are now coming in at around 1.4C over pre-industrial (or higher in single months). If you think I've stated that we're about 0.8C over pre-industrial currently, then I'm sure you'll be able to quote me - but I know I haven't said that because that would be stupid, and I'm not so ignorant of the temperature record to think that (clearly the same isn't true of Scribbler's source, and Scribbler's not familiar enough or thorough enough to have picked that up).

And our current level of around 1.1C over pre-industrial temperatures, and warming rate of around 0.2C/decade means that trendline temperatures are due to go through 1.5C above pre-industrial around 2040.

After all the fucking errors you've made on this subject where I've walked you through the maths, the fact that you think it's me making the errors would be astounding if I hadn't seen it dozens of times before. As I said at the beginning, let it go. If you want to make a thing of it AGAIN, then I'll school you in it AGAIN.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 7444
Age: 51
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#855  Postby OlivierK » Apr 10, 2017 11:17 am

Macdoc wrote:[Let's make it perfectly clear....the Paris accord is PRE-INDUSTRIAL as a base line and you now finally admit we are far beyong the .8 you keep trotting out time and again.

Let me make this perfectly clear: the bits I've highlighted in red? It's a fucking lie. You can either back it up with quotes (which I know you don't have, because I've never said such a thing once, let alone "time and again") or you can fucking retract it.

I've reported your post as part of a long-running series of misrepresentations and lies you've made about my posts on this subject.

It fucking tiring dealing with repeated lies about what I've posted here, so I'll just say again what I've said to you before:
OlivierK wrote:When you try to put words in my mouth, you have a pretty much 0% success rate at accurately guessing or representing my views. I'd appreciate it if you stopped this dishonest practice, as I've asked you to in the past.


The more things change, the more your shit stays the same. Fucking cut it out. I'm still waiting for an apology from you over the last time you tried this shit on. I'm not expecting one, but you'd impress me if you fucking manned up and admitted that what you're saying about my position now, as in the past, was full of shit.

Not holding my breath, though.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 7444
Age: 51
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#856  Postby OlivierK » Apr 10, 2017 11:29 am

Do you not remember the post below, where I called you out on lying about my posts? Funnily enough, I explicitly refer to the Paris agreement using a pre-industrial baseline (the thing you've insinuated I'm unaware of in your latest lie about my posts) in the very first sentence of my August 2016 post complaining about your lies.

Fucking prescient of me to have put that in there 7 months ago, eh?
OlivierK wrote:Yes, Macdoc, scientists are warning, eight months after the [Paris] agreement (ie now) that the target of keeping temperatures under 1.5C over pre-industrial by the end of the century isn't achievable. They're not warning that it will happen within eight months, because 8 months have already passed.

And I agree.

That's why I've said that I think that the targets are, in my opinion, delusional.

That's why I've said that we'll break through those levels, on trend, in the first half of this century.

That's why I've said that we'll break through those levels in El Nino years much sooner than 2050 (and, indeed, we've already been through them for single months, which the Guardian authors don't seem to realise, because they're about as good as baseline calculations as you, and have mixed up Feb 2016's anomaly over the 1951-80 average of 1.38C with the anomaly over pre-industrial). Indeed you've posted an image showing monthly anomalies of over 1.5C over pre-industrial, and in post #69, I've said that I agree with it in its entirety. This "news" is not news to me, and oughtn't be to you.

That's why I've said that I think my own kids will see 2C warming as business as usual, and 2.5C outliers.

You've been in all those conversations where I've said those things, but in order to argue against my position, you've got this weird need to strawman it first, as if you're not actually able to argue against my position if you have to restrict yourself to honestly engaging with it.

Seriously, what you're doing here is really, really unimpressive. You've made error after error after error, misrepresentation after misrepresentation after misrepresentation, and conflated all manner of disparate measures.

When I've patiently pointed out your errors, including holding your hand through readings of the original sources of your own claims, you've never seen fit to admit your errors, or walk back your demonstrably wrong claims. You still owe me an apology for making factually wrong claims, and calling my corrections (with exhaustive links to data and original sources) "lies" and "mythology".

Given that you're misrepresenting my position again, now would be a good time to perhaps come up with one blanket apology, so that we can bury the hatchet and move on. If you don't, we won't be moving on: I'll keep pointing out your dishonesty until you quit it.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 7444
Age: 51
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#857  Postby Animavore » Apr 19, 2017 6:14 am

A case of river piracy in Canada. A receding glacier causes a river to disappear in 4 days. The water had been diverted to another river.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... d=36620218
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38820
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#858  Postby Animavore » Apr 26, 2017 7:10 am

Image

Ruins, Not Reefs: How Climate Change Is Fast-Forwarding Coral Science

Cobb is a climate scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology. On November 8, she was on her most recent of many research trips to Kiritimati Island reef, the largest coral atoll in the world. (Kirimati is pronounced like Christmas.) She first began studying the reef in 1997, during the last big El Niño warming event; she has returned nearly every year since. Last year, she went three times.

“We had been waiting for the big one. And boy… did it happen,” she told me earlier this year. “It really rolled out at an unprecedented magnitude. This particular El Niño event had its maximum temperature loading almost in a bulls-eye almost around Kirimati Island.”

By any measure, its caused a cataclysm. Eighty-five percent of the corals in the reef died: They will never recover, disintegrating into sand over the next several years. Two-thirds of the surviving corals bleached in some way, meaning they did not reproduce and may have sustained long-term damage.

“Almost none of this reef has made it through 2015 and 2016,” Cobb said, calling the event “the wholesale destruction of the reef.”

By any measure, 2016 was not a good year for coral reefs. El Niño raised ocean temperatures worldwide, devastating corals the world over. The Great Barrier Reef—the sprawling system off the coast of Australia, and among the world’s most biodiverse reef systems—suffered a particularly debilitating year. Miles and miles of the coral reef bleached so severely, and for so long, that they died.

Read in full: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... ign=buffer
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38820
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#859  Postby Animavore » Apr 29, 2017 7:55 pm

A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 38820
Age: 38
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Climate Change Science [Strictly Moderated]

#860  Postby Macdoc » May 10, 2017 12:26 am

2040s arriving early..... :roll:

Paris 1.5°C target may be smashed by 2026
A change to a positive phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation could see global warming accelerate rapidly
Date:
May 8, 2017
Source:
University of New South Wales
Summary:
What appears to be a recent change to a positive phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation is likely to accelerate global warming, breaking through the agreed Paris target of 1.5°C by as early as 2026.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 184929.htm

but not to worry ...it's all been predicted and accounted for ....nothing to see here... :coffee:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 11468
Age: 70
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Earth Sciences

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests