Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

God Bless all affected by Florence

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-war...nd-hurricanes/

    Comment


    • #77
      trying to convince those who deny the validity of the science of climate change is futile
      You are absolutely right, Jeffrey and as I said earlier wrong beliefs ultimately die with those adhering to them. Amongst the younger generation, those who will see the full impact of climate change, the number of hard core deniers will dwindle. As to hopes that mankind might be able to avoid the worst, well, my hopes are not really high. Germany once was leading in a conversion towards a greener future but 13 years of Merkel mess have messed up that leading role as well. But I currently don't think, that all is lost. The biggest changes I hope for are actually not electric cars, but less cars. There is a growing trend in Germany that young people do not possess a private car but rather use car sharing, public transport or bikes. I seem to remember that producing a one ton car generates three tons of waste, so having no car at all helps much more than having an electric one and in German cities a combination of the (fairly well developed) public transport and a bike gives you all the mobility you need. My wife and I actually have lived without a private car for more than thirty five years now. So it's not game over yet but that point is drawing closer, so may all those with the white hats keep spreading the word, hoping that the worst can ultimately be avoided, for the sake of future generations.
      Cheers,

      Juergen

      ..Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte..
      ....non quand il n'y a plus rien à ajouter,...
      ...mais quand il n'y a plus rien à retrancher...
      - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry -

      Comment


      • #78
        Sea level rise–which very likely has a substantial human contribution to the global mean observed rise according to IPCC AR5–should be causing higher storm surge levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.
        Thank you, Jeffrey, for the link to this interesting article. In related news I read yesterday that New Orleans has spent 153 billion dollars on flood protection so far, but the people responsible for the project say, that another 35 billion would be needed to cope with future threats since the situation is getting worse every year, only that the deniers will probably kill the future of the project. Interestingly those deniers never show up after a disaster. I'd love to see Chuck, Brian and others delivering a speech in New Orleans that the city has irresponsibly wasted tax payers money....oh.... and while they are touring the US the might want stop to at Paradise and tell people there that global warming is just a Chinese hoax....;-)
        Cheers,

        Juergen

        ..Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte..
        ....non quand il n'y a plus rien à ajouter,...
        ...mais quand il n'y a plus rien à retrancher...
        - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry -

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Jean Claude View Post
          In France, the director of the weather service of a public TV channel (*) recently wrote a book about his specialty. Incidentally he evokes his doubts about an recentt increase in the frequency and the force of hurricanes, the increase of the hot episodes.
          Guess what? He was immediately fired.
          (*) Public TV channels are managed by the state with mostly tax revenues. They co-exist with private channels financed by advertisements
          The new religion of anthropogenic global warming tolerates no heresy.

          Comment


          • #80
            . Incidentally he evokes his doubts about a recent increase in the frequency and the force of hurricanes
            Perhaps these doubts are just to bl&@dy ridiculous when seen in the light of 2018 reality?

            The past year has been marked by hurricanes of record ferocity, apocalyptic damage and thousands of deaths, forcing increasingly frantic discussions about disaster preparedness and climate change.
            from here:
            https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-irma-florence

            Currently the conference on climate change is taking place in Katowice

            There is a point of no return for the climate, and that point already lies behind us.
            http://www.spiegel.de/international/...a-1241890.html

            As I said earlier, what if the deniers are wrong? Their children will ask them: "How could you not act?"
            Cheers,

            Juergen

            ..Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte..
            ....non quand il n'y a plus rien à ajouter,...
            ...mais quand il n'y a plus rien à retrancher...
            - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry -

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by kolibri282 View Post
              Thank you, Jeffrey, for the link to this interesting article. In related news I read yesterday that New Orleans has spent 153 billion dollars on flood protection so far, but the people responsible for the project say, that another 35 billion would be needed to cope with future threats since the situation is getting worse every year, only that the deniers will probably kill the future of the project. Interestingly those deniers never show up after a disaster. I'd love to see Chuck, Brian and others delivering a speech in New Orleans that the city has irresponsibly wasted tax payers money....oh.... and while they are touring the US the might want stop to at Paradise and tell people there that global warming is just a Chinese hoax....;-)
              I think we always want to be careful about blaming single disasters like Hurrican Katrina in New Orleans or the recent fires in California in blanket fashion just on climate change. Trends over years are much more important than single events or even events that happen in a single year. Thats where differentiating between weather and climate comes in. There are always multiple compounding factors - for example, New Orleans has always had problems with being below sea level, problems with their seawall system (possibly due to Army Corp of Engineers negligence in the case of Katrina). Similarly the California fires were compounded by overpopulation in risky areas, misguided though well intentioned forest management etc. We should be cautious lest we be labelled as belonging to this anthropogenic global worming 'religion' by the deniers, who will certainly not tolerate any nuance, lack of scientific absolute, or unrelated factors, in order to try disprove what is really a very respectable body of knowledge and understanding that is modern day climate science. Just because there are additional factors such as poor forest management or poorly constructed seawalls, does not disprove the contribution of anthropogenic global warming. Which of course can also exist along with increased sun activity. Anthropogenic climate change simply makes all these issues worse. I'm also not in agreement with firing news anchors because they dissent, but again, such overzealous actions, neither prove nor disprove the theory.
              Rising CO2 is only one component of the complex problems and threats our planetary environment faces. I'm always amazed at how otherwise smart, intelligent people cannot come to terms with the fact that there are limits to the amount of gaseous, liquid and solid trash we pump into our environments without overwhelming the homeostatic mechanisms of nature at some point. These same intelligent people understand that they could not survive in a closed building no matter how big, if they were pumping exhaust gases, toxic liquids, radioactive compounds, and just sheer trash like plastic into that building they call home. Yet as long as all these waste products are disposed of outside of their back yards where they cannot see it, all is well with the world. Hard for me to believe that these intelligent people are unable to conceive of the notion that our planet and it's atmosphere has limits, whether it's too many people, too much CO2 and all other manner of greenhouse gases, too much radiation, too much plastic etc, etc. Kolibri I am much more pessimistic than you because I think our problems are so much more varied and complex than just CO2. I also don't think any of us, including myself, are really prepared to make the sacrifices that would be required to reverse the process. We would have to give up all manner of comforts, conveniences, freedoms and resources of survival that we take for granted in our modern affluent societies. What's going on in France is a perfect example, of the 'not in my backyard mentality' that most of us live by. Relying on science is far fetched, it's actually science incompletely understood and implemented without forethought that got us into this mess. Science is simply understanding of reality, no different to the science of why a gyro flies. But science is dispassionate, it allows us to save or destroy ourselves, science does not care if we use our knowledge to fly or crash. Science, as our only tool to try to understand how things work, like arithmetic and mathematics, has no political party, has no religion (even though religions and political parties often hijack science to suit their own purposes) and is an equal opportunity master of our fates.
              Here is an interesting article that discusses how we all get lost in our ideological mindsets and as a result make stupid irrational decisions about things, just because the other competing ideology promotes it. Climate change is the perfect example.
              https://theness.com/neurologicablog/...EZ2lN4qckJjAi0

              Comment


              • #82
                And of course the ice ages of the past were caused by a CO2 deficiency.

                Comment


                • #83
                  In France near Marseille city, the entrance tothe prehistoric Cosquer's cave used 19,000 years ago is today 37 m below the level of the Mediterranean Sea.
                  So, we are certain that the sea level is rising faster than 1.94 mm / year, on everage, during these last 19000 years.
                  Since 1885, the tide gauge of Marseille records a steady rise of 1.66 mm / year.

                  Click image for larger version

Name:	Sans titre.png
Views:	5
Size:	77.7 KB
ID:	1140610

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Jean Claude View Post
                    In France near Marseille city, the entrance tothe prehistoric Cosquer's cave used 19,000 years ago is today 37 m below the level of the Mediterranean Sea.
                    So, we are certain that the sea level is rising faster than 1.94 mm / year, on everage, during these last 19000 years.
                    Meanwhile, the Himalayas are getting taller, the Alps are holding steady, and the Appalachian mountains are eroding away. Looking at one spot doesn't say much about planet-wide sea level behavior.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by C. Beaty View Post
                      And of course the ice ages of the past were caused by a CO2 deficiency.
                      The existence of prior climate changes doesn't mean that man is incapable of influencing climate now. I'm pretty sure that Neanderthals weren't burning fossil fuel at our rates. We've gone through about 1.5 trillion barrels of oil, 300 billion tons of coal, and 130 trillion cubic meters of natural gas in my lifetime (a pretty short period when looked at from a climate or geology point of view). I find it hard to imagine that all that activity over such a short time would not have a noteworthy effect..

                      Comment


                      • #86

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Here's what is claimed to be the CO2 content of the Earth's atmosphere over the past millions of years. The amount humans can add to that seems pretty miniscule.

                          http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge2/07_1.shtml

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            A scientific consensus is that the obscuration of the atmosphere by the dusts raised by atomic bombs would produce a nuclear winter. They also explains the disappearance of dinosaurus by the winter produced by the fall of a meteorite.
                            Without this dusts, it is only air (N2 and O2) and the clouds (H20 liquid) which opacify the atmosphere, and gives the temperature on ground. CO2 is for nothing in there. Just a consequence
                            So, it seems to me that calculate a greenhouse effect by neglecting clouds and albedo of the ground is a stupidity.

                            Comment


                            • #89


                              Here’s what the University of California’s climate science department says about the contribution of CO2 to global warming:

                              Carbon cycle and Computer Models

                              So many processes have to be considered in the carbon cycle that it is extremely difficult to keep them in mind, and impossible to calculate without building a computer model to simulate them. Scientists interested in the carbon cycle have built a number of such models over the years. Such models can have between 50 and 100 interacting equations describing all the different processes of the carbon cycle that are relevant to the problem of how carbon dioxide changes through geologic time.
                              To what extent should the answers generated from such models be trusted? All one can say is this: Models are the best we can do, everything else is ballpark back-of the envelope stuff. This means we should use models to educate ourselves about possibilities, realizing that their output produces probabilities not measurements.


                              http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge2/07_1.shtml

                              The more I read about this subject, the more I believe the 98% consensus claim is the invention of Al Gore and his sycophants in the media, in Hollywood and in politics.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by C. Beaty View Post
                                Here's what is claimed to be the CO2 content of the Earth's atmosphere over the past millions of years. The amount humans can add to that seems pretty miniscule.

                                http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge2/07_1.shtml
                                On a scale of hundreds of millions of years, "climate" as argued here, is meaningless (the typical time scale used in the literature under discussion is a 30 year width interval, not millions of years). The Sahara is thought to go from lush to desert on a cycle more like 40,000 years, which is one ten thousandth of the width of the 400,000,000 year chart you cited, and impossible to see because it is so far below the resolution of the pixels. Events that make a place comfy or perilous for humans simply don't show up, nor can you even mark out the edges of human history on that graph. Oceans become mountain tops and vice versa over that big a scale. There were no mammals at all for much of the width shown because they hadn't yet evolved. It will be small comfort to people in 75 years while trying to cope with climate effects to know that CO2 levels might have been higher before there were vertebrate land animals.

                                Meanwhile, the generally accepted numbers for recent time show the atmospheric CO2 content rising from 280 ppm (pre-industrial) to 410 ppm now, a very short period with a very sharp rise, and the obvious change over that period has been human activity.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X