Global Warming

Discussion of science, technology, politics, and other topics that aren't strictly philosophical.
Post Reply
User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3768
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Global Warming

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle » Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:02 pm

Actually have not heard from or about Dan in years. How's he doing? And anyone else for that matter.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:
Anyway, one eye-opening proxy for the past temperature is the most recent GRIP2 ice-core analysis in Greenland. Some of the most recent reconstructions...
Interesting that you would use the term "most recent" twice to refer to a study you linked from 2011 to refute an article, admittedly from 2013 - but still more recent than what you tried to update with, that actually agrees with what you were trying to refute. From the abstract in your first link:
The record indicates that warmer temperatures were the norm in the earlier part of the past 4000 years, including century-long intervals nearly 1°C warmer than the present decade (2001–2010). Therefore, we conclude that the current decadal mean temperature in Greenland has not exceeded the envelope of natural variability over the past 4000 years, a period that seems to include part of the Holocene Thermal Maximum. Notwithstanding this conclusion, climate models project that if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue, the Greenland temperature would exceed the natural variability of the past 4000 years sometime before the year 2100.
(bold added)

More recent articles, like from the first of this month showing a major chunk of the Great Barrier Reef receiving a lethal blow from global warming, and another one from the last day of last month confirming the projections from the 2013 article I linked earlier indicate that the actual "most recent" science indicates that we are plunging into hot water fast, in more ways than one.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6028
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Global Warming

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Jun 11, 2016 8:53 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:Actually have not heard from or about Dan in years. How's he doing? And anyone else for that matter.
Although I was kidding, apart from posting now a week apart out of the blue, looking more closely I see now that both of you make an appearance spring last year and both stopped suddenly posting in even the same week back in 2014. Perhaps you are ruled by the same planets? As for how anyone is doing, I have no clue or contact. But I'm doing quite good, how about you? And Naturyl?
"climate models project that if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions continue, the Greenland temperature would exceed the natural variability of the past 4000 years sometime before the year 2100."
Well, I'm not commenting right now on climate models and the article I quoted wasn't discussing any validity of those models either. This is about actual measurements of the present compared to detailed measurements of the last few thousands years. Which shows at least a good possibility that the natural component of the current warming could be rather large, bigger than was assumed so far. This seems important to consider especially after I was reading the cold hard facts about people dying right now because of energy prices in Europe, caused mainly by all the environmental and CO2 taxation. Not to mention the millions dying elsewhere of general poverty and war, because an urgent need to industrialize and develop some decent living standards first. And without green energy as it's just not ready but people are dying right now while their governments ask for the right to pollute their way to some level of wealth. Of course the whole picture is more complex, too many chickens and eggs in place.
showing a major chunk of the Great Barrier Reef receiving a lethal blow from global warming
It's not clear to me that we're talking about a "lethal blow". Recovery is the most likely option although there are dangers for sure.

Great Barrier Reef authority says media, not activists, misinterpreting the data

Or as Australian Minister for the Environment wrote
The advice from the head of GBRMPA is that these results show that the Great Barrier Reef is a resilient ecosystem and has the ability to bounce back from impacts once other pressures are reduced.

However, if major disturbances such as bleaching events occur more regularly, this will affect the Reef’s ability to recover.

User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3768
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Global Warming

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle » Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:27 am

Thanks for the better article about the reef.

Yeah, about the same planets theory, although Dan's birthday is the day after mine, due to the international dateline, our birthdays do overlap, so maybe you have something there ;)

I'm fine. I was in a shelter a couple of months, and am in transitional housing now. Nat's girlfriend beat me up a couple of times, so after the first time, I started trying to get in a shelter, but could not get in due to wait lists until after the second time. Nat and I are getting a divorce, and shortly after, he will be marrying her. He and I will still consider each other family though. He's a great guy - it's just that their relationship is more marital than ours, and she is not of a mindset amenable to polyamory, and it makes no sense to me for me to try to make the impossible work.

How are you?


User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Global Warming

Post by Jamesh » Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:10 pm

Dan seems to be OK - I've seen him post on a non-philosophy forum not very long ago.
His heart condition has not knocked him off this mortal coil as yet.

David Quinn I have not seen anything whatsoever.

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Global Warming

Post by Dan Rowden » Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:41 pm

Hey Jimbo, and others,

I'm doing reasonably well, and I don't have a heart condition - I had a stroke. Try to avoid one, if you can; they pretty much suck. David is doing ok as far as I know. Playing a lot of Zen golf, I believe.

Jimbo,

I got banned from AIMN. Michael Taylor is a slimy arsehole. Don't ever trust him if you find yourself in a situation where that might be an option.

User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Re: Global Warming

Post by Jamesh » Thu Aug 04, 2016 1:03 pm

wow, I was not expecting MT would ban you. I’ll miss your posts. When in form you are one of the most brilliant folks around, so I hope you come back at some point.

Admittedly, although I did think you were a touch John McEnroeish on that issue - that you initially went in too hard - as a government employee myself, who has a boss who would use my forum comments against me, I did appreciate the sentiment behind what you were saying.

Michael tends not to respond to me, which suits me. I’m sure he finds me offensive.

Anyway thanks for the warning. I mainly post there as I need mental stimulation, not for any cause (other than a mutual disgust of conservative pollies).

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5663
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Global Warming

Post by Dan Rowden » Thu Aug 04, 2016 6:34 pm

Hey Jimbo,

I went in hard because I'd voiced my concerns privately to MT days before and got an assurance he'd speak to KL about it, but obviously did not. She has form in privacy policy stuff.

Anyway, I too only post there to keep my mind active. It's a tribalist shithole, really. But then , I guess politics is always like that. The lack of intellectual and ethical integrity is literally breathtaking.

You seem well. That pleases me.

User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3768
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re:

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle » Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:27 pm

Found my timeline prediction (March 9, 2007, this thread). Okay, I know now that the tidal wave theory was off, but I was on target for when we would see major effects from global warming. Too bad we can't just use Harvey water and Bangladesh water to put out the fires throughout the west coast of the US. Good luck with Irma, people.
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Katy wrote:Just how rapid is a rapid flood? I was under the impression it was still years, just not decades or centuries.
It is likely still years from now, but maybe not even a decade. By "rapid flood" I mean that if a substantial amount of ice falls into the water at once, we are talking about a tidal wave, and the final flood lines will not recede. Not all of the ice is under water. Some is on land, and some is floating above water (which could break away and fall in). This is where the water that will raise the oceans is coming from. Although it would be years from now, the actual flooding could take place in minutes.

Now if only there were a way to take a huge quantity of that while it was still ice and transport it to areas where there are droughts, that would at least reduce the raising of the sea levels. The reason heavy rains cause flooding in areas that have been in a drought is that dry land does not absorb moisture as well as moist land - it just runs off. Water takes time to seep into the land and make it feritle again. If they could take the ice shelf and transport some of it to Australia, where there is a drought, and drop the rest of it on - I think it was Africa - that has the perpetual huge forest fires, that would both use up enough water to prevent some of the flooding, and reduce the emissions contributing to global warming by the forest fires themselves. That water would be absorbed into the land instead, like a dry sponge.
.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6028
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Global Warming

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Sep 09, 2017 7:28 pm

Hello Elizabeth, so you are taking your utterly failed prediction and somehow convert it to a successful one by just claiming it was a hit? That seems like wishful thinking to me. Furthermore you seem to misunderstand some of the mainstream science in this, like some media outlets are doing as well. Which I'm happy to explain here:

The first thing you need to realize is that when you talk about "effects of global warming" you cannot talk about one event, no matter how impact-full it might seem. Global warming is a model about noticeable changes over decades, even centuries.

It's then good to know that Atlantic hurricanes, their frequency or intensity have not been rising and as intensity is not expected to do so as noticeable trend before the end of this century. For more information see: Global Warming and Hurricanes from GFDL, a NOAA Research Laboratory, specialist in hurricanes and global warming. Also the water and air temperatures from NOAA indicate they were near relatively normal for the atmosphere and sea surface being only slightly above normal in the Gulf. It's not unusual enough to explain anything about this hurricane with current climate science.

Now we established that the formation or strength of this hurricane and the ones following are not considered to be directly related to global warming theory, we still need to look at the amount of water and flooding.

The main cause with Harvey has been the particular trajectory and especially the stationary behavior: it kept for a long time in one place, thereby offloading its water (which was not that much more than normal) into one region. Why did the hurricane do that? The weather system in place which pushed Harvey into place ("MJO phase 2" – a major cool trough) does not seem to be part of any global warming related pattern or statistic apart from some speculation. One blog digging further into this: Global Warming and Hurricane Harvey.

Having said all that, we do need to realize that these kind of events will hit hard in any modern economy where many development projects have used flood plains to build housing and did not invest sufficiently in water protection against predictable disasters and tide rises known to happen during the warmer interglacial (period between ice ages). The Netherlands learned this in 1953, where a statistical combination of events put part of the region under water (2500 died in total). After that mega investments like the Delta Works were done to protect the coast and plains against events which were known to occur lets say once in a century following non-CO2 models. Now the risk left is one in 10.000 years with a human life valued at €2.2 million.

Places in the world where flooding is a real danger are often simply not valuing human life very high, refusing to invest in protection against normal weather and tide related events, those happening once in 50-100 years and when it does happen, they cry for God and blame the Devil's hellish warming. In my view it's too much of a religious mindset which needs some cooling, pardon the puns.

User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3768
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Global Warming

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle » Wed Sep 20, 2017 2:03 pm

Deebs, good job at totally ignoring the fires, and reclassifying the pattern of worse conditions as "one event" I didn't bother to update to include Katia, Jose, or Maria, but if you want an actual single marking event, seems like we've really done it this time: https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace ... cbdbabf6f4

As for your link, read the whole article, not just the grey box in the summary at the beginning; and remember that scientists understate everything. Remember that in order to be called a scientific theory, it has to have more evidence than most people require for facts. After all, gravity is only a theory.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6028
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Global Warming

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Mon Sep 25, 2017 12:35 am

You' seem dishonest here Elizabeth. just changing the goal posts at will > you always win!

My post was not addressing any "fires" and neither was yours. What are you talking about exactly?

You can include Katia, Jose, or Maria but I didn't mention the 12-year lull in Cat 4-5 hurricanes. NOAA counts 10 between 1920-1969 hitting the USA while only three between 1970-2016.

There's no increase whatsoever. And certainly not predicted at this stage by any global warming theoretical model.
seems like we've really done it this time: https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace ... cbdbabf6f4
As for reading, it seems you haven't even started reading the thing. You seem to have misread the time-scales suggested and went instead with the plot of a known action movie. Did you care to actually read the research he links to and noticed the "300 years" and also the remark on the faulty human timescale of the movie?

User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3768
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Re:

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle » Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:26 am

Deebs wrote:
Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:27 pm
You' seem dishonest here Elizabeth. just changing the goal posts at will > you always win!

My post was not addressing any "fires" and neither was yours.
You say I seem dishonest, and as evidence you flat out lie to me?

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:27 pm
Found my timeline prediction (March 9, 2007, this thread). Okay, I know now that the tidal wave theory was off, but I was on target for when we would see major effects from global warming. Too bad we can't just use Harvey water and Bangladesh water to put out the fires throughout the west coast of the US. Good luck with Irma, people.
Bold and underline added.

I'm done talking to you Deebs.

User avatar
jupiviv
Posts: 2001
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 6:48 pm

Re: Re:

Post by jupiviv » Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:35 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:26 am
Too bad we can't just use Harvey water and Bangladesh water to put out the fires throughout the west coast of the US. Good luck with Irma, people.
Did you actually ask why "we" can't just "use" Harvey or Bangladesh water to put out fires throughout the US west coast?

Well, I guess I should now ask why we can't just use Harvey or Bangladesh water to maintain the Saharan solar panels that we - equally puzzlingly - can't just use?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6028
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Global Warming

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:57 pm

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:26 am
Deebs wrote:
Mon Sep 04, 2017 2:27 pm
You' seem dishonest here Elizabeth. just changing the goal posts at will > you always win!

My post was not addressing any "fires" and neither was yours.
You say I seem dishonest, and as evidence you flat out lie to me?
But your post was not addressing (ie "deal with") those fires, Elizabeth, you were just mentioning them in some joke and mostly talking about tidal waves. My reply to you was about hurricanes in relation to your stated "major effects from global warming" while I just showed how GFDL/NOAA and Clifford F. Mass, professor Atmospheric Sciences at Washington Uni disagreed with you.

Perhaps you didn't come here to reason, discuss or part with information. You prefer to speculate, gossip and throw tantrums?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6028
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Global Warming

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sat Sep 30, 2017 7:24 pm

However the topic of droughts and fires is interesting, especially the global developments on vegetation and greening.

Published in Nature Climate Change last year: Greening of the Earth and its drivers, which confirms a global trend of something many people have seen the last decades happening in their countries through memory or looking at historical satellite imagery.
Global environmental change is rapidly altering the dynamics of terrestrial vegetation, with consequences for the functioning of the Earth system and provision of ecosystem services. Yet how global vegetation is responding to the changing environment is not well established. ...

We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning) ....

CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau. The regional effects of unexplained factors suggest that the next generation of ecosystem models will need to explore the impacts of forest demography, differences in regional management intensities for cropland and pastures, and other emerging productivity constraints such as phosphorus availability.

User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3768
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Re:

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle » Sun Oct 01, 2017 1:15 am

jupiviv wrote:
Sat Sep 30, 2017 12:35 am
Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Thu Sep 28, 2017 12:26 am
Too bad we can't just use Harvey water and Bangladesh water to put out the fires throughout the west coast of the US. Good luck with Irma, people.
Did you actually ask why "we" can't just "use" Harvey or Bangladesh water to put out fires throughout the US west coast?

Well, I guess I should now ask why we can't just use Harvey or Bangladesh water to maintain the Saharan solar panels that we - equally puzzlingly - can't just use?
jupiviv, no, I didn't ask such a silly question. I used a dry lamentation to better express the scope I was pointing at. I value brevity now.

.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6028
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Global Warming

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Oct 01, 2017 9:53 pm

As for addressing those disastrous, fires throughout the west coast of the US, it should indeed be taken more seriously. After reading a bit more about about this, I get the impression that not just the drought is to blame but also, to some degree, the federal forest policies, which created at places "tinderboxes" ready to go off. So far I haven't been able to determine how those factors exactly relate. It looks like two bad things colliding, causing a terrible collusion. From the recent statistics it would seem the amount of fires is still on the decline (possibly because of control and alert systems?) but the scale of those which are burning is just immense. (see also this blog: While the West Burns, No One Notices).

As for the droughts, I do notice that research like the seminal paper "North American drought: Reconstructions, causes, and consequences" (Cook et al. 2007, Earth-Science Reviews) provide a larger, wider view, like this graph. As for now, I don't know what to think about it. My first reaction in these cases is always that the level of population and the relatively vulnerable inter-connectivity of modern society would still remain the biggest issue, but it's never seriously up for discussion.

User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3768
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Global Warming

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle » Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:41 pm

While no one storm is a pattern, and many people have made excuses about why so many record-breaking weather events have happened recently. how many weird events have to take place this year before just about everybody, including most Americans, start believing that this is real, and that since we caused it, we should do something to try to help fix it?

Now we have Hurricane Ophelia about to hit Ireland. Not like hurricanes never hit Ireland, but they are rare, and there have been a lot of rare events this season.

It was not predicted that global warming would necessarily cause more hurricanes, but that it would make more of them worse, droughts worse, other weather events more extreme, and changes to where various climates can be found at a faster rate than normal migration can adequately adapt to. Yes, the climate does change, but not normally this fast, and we are on track for a degree of change outside the patterns established without the effects from the Industrial Age.

___________________________________________
edit to insert the following quote from the article:
No other major hurricane in recorded history has formed anywhere near the position of Ophelia

User avatar
Elizabeth Isabelle
Posts: 3768
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2006 11:35 am

Re: Global Warming

Post by Elizabeth Isabelle » Sun Oct 22, 2017 12:41 am

A few months old, but still relevant: When Will Climate Change Make Earth Too Hot for Humans?

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6028
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: Global Warming

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Sun Nov 05, 2017 3:11 am

Elizabeth Isabelle wrote:
Mon Oct 16, 2017 12:41 pm
how many weird events have to take place this year before just about everybody, including most Americans, start believing that this is real, and that since we caused it, we should do something to try to help fix it?
Yes, changing climate is real, it would be even without human contributions. Like poverty is real, building in flood planes, poor housing, lack of normal protection against regular disasters, a fragile economy and so on. And the question is not if we should do something but which area the trillions should flow to. Mind you, you can only spend a trillion once or twice before creating the greatest man-made disaster one can imagine: the complete sudden collapse of the financial system. No need to wait a 100 years.
other weather events more extreme, and changes to where various climates can be found at a faster rate than normal migration can adequately adapt to. Yes, the climate does change, but not normally this fast, and we are on track for a degree of change outside the patterns established without the effects from the Industrial Age.
That area is something that can be discussed. There's not enough precise data to establish some kind of certain base line of speed. What I do know is that humans and as such it can be expected any community, including the scientific one, will always be biased in thinking it's all about "us" and some glorious future with global drama, needs and rescue. It's the basis of our current mental-emotional processing of everything else. So in this context I'm personally extremely cautious when a certain community of activists and scientists claim evidence and ask for a multi-trillion investment to "save" something. A warmer globe and violent weather is a problem for poverty, neglected areas and an inflexible economy. It's a problem for a seriously overpopulated, overstressed world which can only reason (economically) in terms of growth instead of downsizing. For me that's the major issue and in that light I cannot get "warm or cold" from any climate disaster porn.
No other major hurricane in recorded history has formed anywhere near the position of Ophelia
Recorded history which is for most major weather events 80-200 years and not even as complete or detailed in location of the formation as it would require satellite images. On any serious timescale the term "recorded history" is a blip and in my view rather meaningless to compare to the ages or millennia while still every week I read the term often used by some serious newspaper. And even on the bigger timescales things change, cyclical, linear or randomly at their own pace. For example we're way overdue for a period of the new magnetic pole shift. All the telltales are already visible in the movement of both poles, weakening and modest splitting. This particular global phenomenon might start already in our times but it's certainly not related to any human activity. This is just one example of something which makes me wonder if humans can think at all on inhuman timescales with their heart.

Post Reply