Jump to content

The Climate thread

Laxtonto

By Laxtonto
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 10971

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Aphelion said:

You asked "Who is presenting us as being on the point of no return" and I gave you an answer.  You don't know the first thing about this subject and you don't even bother with doing a cursory search to learn basics.  You don't even know the primary climate mechanisms involved.  You are a dog barking in the backyard because the other neighborhood dogs are barking.  Yet you feel perfectly justified in nitpicking an phrase I used because you think I am downplaying the impact of anthropogenic climate change (which I am not).  

 

So, the answer is to the question "Who is presenting us an being on the point of no return?" is climate scientists.

 

And yes, when you call the science "scare-mongering" downplaying acc is exactly what you are doing.

 

Bark bark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

bolverk
bolverk

Now apply that way of thinking to other topics: You want me to stop treating minorities like shit when people in other countries can treat their minorities like shit? You want me to pay

CooterBrown
CooterBrown
mop
mop

what a thread.   the thread i jumped on back in like 2008 or something started with a claim that the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2012.  this didn't happen. in fact, while 2012

Posted Images

Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

So, the answer is to the question "Who is presenting us an being on the point of no return?" is climate scientists.

 

And yes, when you call the science "scare-mongering" downplaying acc is exactly what you are doing.

 

Bark bark.

I'm not calling the science scaremongering.  I'm calling certain presentations of the science by various PR and media outlets scaremongering. These are distinct things.  Not every thing a scientist says or does is science.  If a scientist takes a shit it is not a scientific shit.  I'm not sure why you bother mentioning science anyway, since you know nothing about the science of this subject and haven't looked into it at all.  Your only point seems to be that I'm not in full agreement with the recently chosen rhetoric.  But I am in agreement that we are overtaxing the carbon cycle and that we should do something about it.  Which is really the fundamental point on this subject and we are aligned there, but you latched onto a term that that lit up some reward center of your brain and so you probably don't recognize this.  

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 10971

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Aphelion said:

I'm not calling the science scaremongering.  I'm calling certain presentations of the science by various PR and media outlets scaremongering. These are distinct things.  Not every thing a scientist says or does is science.  If a scientist takes a shit it is not a scientific shit.  I'm not sure why you bother mentioning science anyway, since you know nothing about the science of this subject and haven't looked into it at all.  Your only point seems to be that I'm not in full agreement with the recently chosen rhetoric.  But I am in agreement that we are overtaxing the carbon cycle and that we should do something about it.  Which is really the fundamental point on this subject and we are aligned there, but you latched onto a term that that lit up some reward center of your brain and so you probably don't recognize this.  

OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Bookman said:

A seven point average increase doesn't mean it will never get cold or never snow.

A 7 degree change in average temps means areas that historically see snow fall will not how you not get that ?  In Va. if the temp increase just 3 degrees as an average there'd be no snow in anywhere but maybe the highest elevations in the western part of the state.

7 degree average change do you not get how huge that is ?  What it would do to the Gulf Stream, what that would do to the average water temp heading north ?   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 10971

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

A 7 degree change in average temps means areas that historically see snow fall will not how you not get that ?  In Va. if the temp increase just 3 degrees as an average there'd be no snow in anywhere but maybe the highest elevations in the western part of the state.

7 degree average change do you not get how huge that is ?  What it would do to the Gulf Stream, what that would do to the average water temp heading north ?   

 

Well, there's one idea I heard some years back that if sea level rises enough to submerge the Panamanian land bridge, severing S Am from N Am, that would completely change the course of oceanic currents, including most likely the Gulf Stream. Since the Gulf Stream carries tremendous amounts of heat northward up the atlantic and across to England, depriving England of that heat would result in an ice age for the British Isles. I'm not sure if that would act as a negative feedback to check average temp rise or not, but is sure as shit would fuck up England and N. Europe.

Before I'm accused of scare-mongering, let me add the caveat that this was years ago, and I don't know if this idea is generally supported by anything or anyone. But at least someone proposed it at one time.

Either way, its an example of how we are screwing with a very complicated system that we don't fully understand and can't completely accurately model (yet?) and that our civilization depends on.

 

But yes, I agree, a 7 or 3 average increase means a hell of a lot less snow in a lot of places. Some places could see more, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Horn Under a Bad Sign

Horn Under a Bad Sign 20342

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yellowstone is warming so quickly that some species will not be able to adapt.  We're going to see more fires, more grasslands, less forests, a retreat of megafauna etc....

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/15/climate/yellowstone-global-warming.html

 

Alaska coastline rapidly eroding away as permafrost melts. Unbelievable time lapse video:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/climate-change-in-alaska-coastline-disappearing-at-a-rate-of-30-football-fields-per-year/2018/11/13/fe40b8ee-e756-11e8-8449-1ff263609a31_video.html

Edited by Horn Under a Bad Sign
Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 10971

Posted
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, zork said:

The Sun:

 

I hope you are not implying that a grand solar minimum will save us. Just in case you are:

 

 

https://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Grand_Solar_Min_500.jpg

 

Feulner and Rahmstorf (2010) examined the impact on global warming if the sun fell into a Grand Solar Minimum.  The global mean temperature difference is shown for the time period 1900 to 2100 for the IPCC A2 emissions scenario (relative to zero for the average temperature during the years 1961 to 1990). The red line shows predicted temperature change for the current level of solar activity, the blue line shows predicted temperature change for solar activity at the much lower level of the Maunder Minimum, and the black line shows observed temperatures from the NASA GISS dataset through 2010.  The authors found that the average global surface temperature would be diminished by no more than 0.3°C due to the lower solar activity, which would offset only a small fraction of human-caused global warming.

 

More at the link:

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=21

 

edit: can't get the graphic to imbed.

 

Edited by High Plains Drifter
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

I hope you are not implying that a grand solar minimum will save us. Just in case you are:

 

 

https://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Grand_Solar_Min_500.jpg

 

Feulner and Rahmstorf (2010) examined the impact on global warming if the sun fell into a Grand Solar Minimum.  The global mean temperature difference is shown for the time period 1900 to 2100 for the IPCC A2 emissions scenario (relative to zero for the average temperature during the years 1961 to 1990). The red line shows predicted temperature change for the current level of solar activity, the blue line shows predicted temperature change for solar activity at the much lower level of the Maunder Minimum, and the black line shows observed temperatures from the NASA GISS dataset through 2010.  The authors found that the average global surface temperature would be diminished by no more than 0.3°C due to the lower solar activity, which would offset only a small fraction of human-caused global warming.

 

More at the link:

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=21

 

edit: can't get the graphic to imbed.

 

nasa, dude, not me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
Just now, Foosters said:

Your position is that the 3:00 minute video linked contains a declaration from NASA that this solar minimum will combat global warming?

Does the video claim anything about combating global warming?  I missed that. 

It mentions, in normal language, that we are apparently approaching a solar minimum which in the past has led to dramatically colder temperatures.  Thought it would be a useful video for people who had not considered cyclical sunspot activity as it pertains to their life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foosters

Foosters 17727

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, zork said:

Does the video claim anything about combating global warming?  I missed that. 

 

4 hours ago, High Plains Drifter said:

I hope you are not implying that a grand solar minimum will save us. Just in case you are:

 

23 minutes ago, zork said:

nasa, dude, not me.

1234

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zork

zork 629

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, zork said:

Does the video claim anything about combating global warming?  I missed that. 

It mentions, in normal language, that we are apparently approaching a solar minimum which in the past has led to dramatically colder temperatures.  Thought it would be a useful video for people who had not considered cyclical sunspot activity as it pertains to their life.

and the clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17437

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, zork said:

Does the video claim anything about combating global warming?  I missed that. 

It mentions, in normal language, that we are apparently approaching a solar minimum which in the past has led to dramatically colder temperatures.  Thought it would be a useful video for people who had not considered cyclical sunspot activity as it pertains to their life.

It says solar minimum is coming, yes. It doesn't say anything about "dramatically colder temperatures" or really colder temperatures at all. The fully transcript of the video is available here:

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/news-articles/solar-minimum-is-coming

The little it does discuss heating relates to the upper atmosphere:

 

Normally Earth’s upper atmosphere is heated and puffed up by ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Satellites in low Earth orbit experience friction as they skim through the outskirts of our atmosphere. This friction creates drag, causing satellites to lose speed over time and eventually fall back to Earth. Drag is a good thing, for space junk; natural and man-made particles floating in orbit around Earth. Drag helps keep low Earth orbit clear of debris.

But during solar minimum, this natural heating mechanism subsides. Earth’s upper atmosphere cools and, to some degree, can collapse. Without a normal amount of drag, space junk tends to hang around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theaveragejon

theaveragejon 974

Posted
Posted
On 10/25/2018 at 11:58 AM, High Plains Drifter said:

Well, there's one idea I heard some years back that if sea level rises enough to submerge the Panamanian land bridge, severing S Am from N Am, that would completely change the course of oceanic currents, including most likely the Gulf Stream. Since the Gulf Stream carries tremendous amounts of heat northward up the atlantic and across to England, depriving England of that heat would result in an ice age for the British Isles. I'm not sure if that would act as a negative feedback to check average temp rise or not, but is sure as shit would fuck up England and N. Europe.

Before I'm accused of scare-mongering, let me add the caveat that this was years ago, and I don't know if this idea is generally supported by anything or anyone. But at least someone proposed it at one time.

Either way, its an example of how we are screwing with a very complicated system that we don't fully understand and can't completely accurately model (yet?) and that our civilization depends on.

 

But yes, I agree, a 7 or 3 average increase means a hell of a lot less snow in a lot of places. Some places could see more, however.

The gulf stream shutting off wasn't that the plot of the day after tomorrow? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
theaveragejon

theaveragejon 974

Posted
Posted
Just now, High Plains Drifter said:

I thought that was something about polar vortices (vortexes?)

 

I dunno, I just remembered that gulf stream thing from a climate class I took at UT long ago.

Either way... I think that's what my prof. said about the movie in a climate change class I took at UT as well. lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
High Plains Drifter

High Plains Drifter 10971

Posted
Posted
43 minutes ago, zork said:

Does the video claim anything about combating global warming?  I missed that. 

It mentions, in normal language, that we are apparently approaching a solar minimum which in the past has led to dramatically colder temperatures.  Thought it would be a useful video for people who had not considered cyclical sunspot activity as it pertains to their life.

It doesn't say anything about dramatically colder temperatures either.

I don't believe you. I think you posted that just to obfuscate the issue. Exactly what the deniers have been doing for decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17437

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Vein said:

Well, your assumption would be off because the dumb ass flat-earth theory doesn't deal with this.

It's showing that the sea levels haven't changed from 1964 through 2018. 

No, it isn't.  And it is exactly like the dumb memes used by flat earthers. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Vein

Vein 114

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

No, it isn't.  And it is exactly like the dumb memes used by flat earthers. 

Ok, boss. The water levels scam is starting to fall apart. The new argument is that the sea bed is sinking.. coincidentally at the same rate the sea levels are rising.

https://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-sinking-ocean-rising-sea-levels-772862 

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17437

Posted
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Vein said:

Ok, boss. The water levels scam is starting to fall apart. The new argument is that the sea bed is sinking.. coincidentally at the same rate the sea levels are rising.

https://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-sinking-ocean-rising-sea-levels-772862 

That isn't really new. And again, that picture demonstrates nothing. First, can you actually eyeball a 7 inch difference in height based on the picture? Of course not. Do you know the time of day and tide level? No. Do you know the weather and current conditions? No. Do you know if there has been tectonic changes, subsidence, or any other of a number of factors that affect instantaneous local sea level? Of course not. No scientist would measure sea level like this, and for good reason. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Under a Bad Sign

Horn Under a Bad Sign 20342

Posted
Posted

Massive new federal study:  Climate change is real and it's going to be devastating:


https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/


 

Quote

The fourth National Climate Assessment is the culmination of years of research and analysis by hundreds of top climate scientists in the country. The massive report details the many ways in which global climate change is already affecting American communities, from hurricanes to wildfires to floods to drought.

"Climate change is already affecting every part of the United States, almost every sector of the United States, be it agriculture or forestry or energy, tourism," says George Mason University professor Andrew Light, who is one of the report's editors. "It's going to hurt cities, it's going to hurt people in the countryside, and, as the world continues to warm, things are going to get worse."



 

On the other hand, some guy named "Vein" produced two photos of a bridge and proved that it's all a hoax, so I haven't made up my mind. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dahobbs

Dahobbs 17437

Posted
Posted
42 minutes ago, Vein said:

Yeah, that website isn't biased at all and if you don't think scientists can't be biased then that's your problem. 

The Earth will do what it wants to do like it has for millions of years. 

It is a us government report numbnuts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thetexashammer

Thetexashammer 1062

Posted
Posted

Were you guys looking for this?

https://www.foxnews.com/science/nasa-warns-long-cold-winter-could-hit-space-in-months-bringing-record-low-temperatures

Quote

A long cold winter could hit space in months bringing record low temperatures, NASA has said.

A scientist from the agency says sunspot activity on the surface of our star has dropped so low that record low temperatures could soon hit space - though the Earth's climate will remain unaffected.

“We see a cooling trend,” Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center told Spaceweather.com.

“High above Earth’s surface, near the edge of space, our atmosphere is losing heat energy.

"If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold.”

Solar minimum can enhance the effects of space weather, disrupt communications and navigation, and even cause space junk to "hang around", NASA said.

Mlynczak and his colleagues have recently introduced the "Thermosphere Climate Index" (TCI), which measure how much heat nitric oxide (NO) molecules are dumping into space.

The results come from the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite, that monitor infrared emissions from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO).

By measuring the infrared glow of these molecules, SABER can assess the thermal state of gas at the very top of the atmosphere – a layer researchers call “the thermosphere.”

When the thermosphere cools, it shrinks, making the radius of the Earth's atmosphere smaller.

This means it can delay the natural decay of space junk, resulting in a more cluttered environment around Earth.

“Right now, it is very low indeed,” Mlynczak told the site.

“SABER is currently measuring 33 billion Watts of infrared power from NO. That’s 10 times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle.”

He added: “The thermosphere always cools off during Solar Minimum. It’s one of the most important ways the solar cycle affects our planet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...