Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Christoph, Oct 31, 2018.
from Iowa State University:
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
That is certainly part of it. Capitalism has some good points, but one of the worst parts of it is that there is no incentive for long term planning. If it doesn't make money in ~10 years, it's not pursued.
Climate change denial is a perfect case-in-point. It will take decades to slow, and then reverse, climate change. Cutting coal power hurts coal stocks today. So there is a very strong financial incentive to not understand climate change. As Upton Sinclair once said, "it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on his not understanding it."
(One reason that market-based incentives tend to work better than other mitigations, but that's a topic for a different thread.)
In a way. And science employed in the service of good might just save us.
You have a reference for your graph?
(admittedly just found with Google search) states that temperatures in Iowa went up on average by one degree Fahrenheit between 1900 and 2016. ( half the global figure of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit)
The author incidentally is from the University of Iowa - possibly the same Iowa State University as that to which you have attributed your graph.
Where did you find your graph?
And what does it represent exactly?
Graph was found via Iowa State University website
(I was just poking around and clicking on links---if memory serves, this one mentioned USHCN---a discontinued database))
here's the link to the graph
graph shows number of days at maximum or minimum temperatures 0n left
decades on bottom
from graph, we had significantly more high records set in the 30s---(most likely associated with the drought of the early/mid 30s)
(i'll try to backtrack to the beginning---------???)
meanwhile a map pf the drought circa 1934
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh I see. So the 30's had a higher number of high temperature records set than any other decade. That doesn't alter the fact (if fact it is) that average temperatures have steadily increased over the 1900-2016 period does it?
I see Quantum Quack has covered the same ground (and unearthed the same link as I did)
Seems there was a series of temperature records in the 30's but this would not change the overall pattern of ever increasing temperatures over the 1900-2016 period.
That seems very sadly to be the case and further today it has been reported by BBC and CNN (not sure of their source or its validity**) that the Oceans have soaked up 60% more heat that previously estimated. Sounds very alarming but I am not up to speed with the science behind it:
** seemingly attributed to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
Good article. However I would like to see some confirmation from other sources ( studies) before fully endorsing it, even though it goes some ways to supporting my position.
Universal constant - water
There is a simple fact (universal constant if you wish) that has to be held in mind. ( even for laymen)
Generally, fresh water freezes at 0 deg Celsius. It also thaws at any temperature above 0 deg. C.
One could readily suggest that the globe's climate stability is dependent on how average temperatures impact using this fixed and central data point (o deg.C.) as a fulcrum.
In other words, while the thawing point of water (ice) remains fixed at >0deg C. any global mean temperature increase will lead to severe consequences.
Arguing about the causation or consequences does nothing to change the sheer fact that the heating of oceans, land and atmosphere will lead to chronic atmospheric instability.
I would contend that any leading climate scientist knows already that the situation is incredibly dire, and much worse than publicly acknowledged and it wont be very long before we start to hear and read the hard and terrible truth being publicly stated. Most intelligent and erudite persons know already but can not bear informing others of their understanding.
Saving as many as possible: ( re: OP)
The bottom line is that we as a global population need to stop worrying about attempting to stop climate change as this horse has truly bolted and start devoting what ever resources we have to:
Building environmentally protected cities and agriculture.(*)
Guaranteeing energy supply for those habitats. ( low maintenance, underground cabling, renewable and nuclear if necessary to support air conditioning etc)
Set up communications systems between habitats
Designing and manufacturing environmental protection clothing for use out side habitats.
Storing genetic material from all available animal/plant species.
and so much more....
We need to use all our resources ( especially tech) to build a future for humanity beyond the apparent climate apocalypse that appears to be imminent. This would give ourselves time to work out how to solve the climate problem that we have apparently created.
But as I suggested earlier the world will not act until it becomes blatantly clear and obvious that it has to and unfortunately this means that only a small percentage will survive. ( est: <25% of human population) due to the time required to build this future.
Contingency planning will go along way to saving millions...
(*) Example: hardening shopping centers so that they can be converted to habitats ( shelters) with any spare space devoted to food production.
Makes sense. It was an unusually warm year, in part due to the dust bowl - so a lot of records were broken. (Of course, average temps are far higher now - but the change has been generally more gradual than that one year in 1930.)
60% of the worlds population live on the coast
world population = 9 billion
thats 6 billion people immediately effected
of that 6 billion around 5.9 billion are all poorer than dirt.
applying some sane logic to the numbers.
soo i think your millions is more like billions.
at that rate of death governments and entire nations will collapse. most governments will be found guilty & executed by the people.
all the rich people will be blamed and be the target to be wiped out.
All the rich and powerful people do not wish to spend all their money or their power of other peoples money on fixing the issue.
thats unlikely to suddenly change over night.
Large countrys like the usa will be really screwed as plague and disease and rebbels run amuck back n forward.
Drinking water supplys become poisoned...
50% of the usa vote to say that climate change is a hoax. they are about to vote again very shortly to vote to say AGAIN that climate change is a hoax.
that technical 35% of the population control the other 65% and they say climate change is a hoax.
im an optimist
however, no matter how optimistic i am it does not suddenly change entire cultures and how they do things.
you never know, maybe some aliens might come along and offer to wipe humanitys shity ass for them before they all die from living in their own shit.
But not average temperature spikes - the nights and winters were cold. (Some low temp extremes also)
As has been repeated ad infinitum here: The warming winter nights at high latitudes are the biggest and most notable change from AGW - and the primary source of trouble (sea level rise, melting ice, ruined ecological systems, extreme weather systems, etc). That's one of the more obvious factors pointing to CO2 boosting as the primary driver, if the fancy science guys look like corrupt grant money parasites to you.
Meanwhile, the partly manmade dust bowl was largely central North American - globally, things were different.
Sculptor has posted about a dozen of these misleading data clips relevant to climate change, in which the concepts of "average" and "global" and "rate" and so forth - the central issues in AGW - are simply ignored in favor of selected local variations in some fluctuating statistic.
There were extreme summer day highs in the center of NA during the 1930s. There were also some fairly dramatic winter night lows. More of a desert climate, in other words. One of the causes was the destruction of the vegetation cover by unsuitable plowing and monocropping over huge areas subject normally to drought and high winds. Something similar happened to Iceland hundreds of years earlier - it is now attempting to recover, an arduous and expensive process.
One of the first songs I heard played on a guitar by a friend was WG's "Dust Bowl Refugee"
"This Land" wasn't half bad either.
Water vapor at anything short of Venusian temps and pressures will not maintain itself in the atmosphere. It will rain out, condense out, react out, etc - the feedback is "negatively accelerated", and without the CO2 to support the necessary melting and evaporation temperatures the planet becomes a snowball - the surface water frozen, just another mineral.
This has happened, in the distant past. It is physics, not guesswork - just like the CO2 boost calculations.
From this, among others: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8
In addition to boding ill for long term future influence of ocean temps, note that this suggests the moderating effects of ocean absorption of CO2 - slowing the air boost - is going to be much reduced soon. More of the anthro produced CO2 is going to stay in the air, in the near future.
Over what time frame are you thinking for the rainout to ease the atmospheric vapor loading currently under way..?
100 years, 1000 years?
Either way any blooded creature on this planet is in deep shit...
I have considered what you are suggesting and sure I can agree, but I feel that by the time nature reaches a capacity to neutralize our impact on the environment there wont be any need to reduce CO2 emissions because simply put, there will be no one left alive to create it. ( and those who survive, if any, will know better than to continue to pollute our atmosphere as we have done in the past.)
Just the Ch4 bomb you referred to earlier is enough to drive this hyperthemic situation for 100's if not 1000's of years.
Nature will force humans to stop the insanity whether we like it or not.
The planet will return to equilibrium as it must, but not soon enough to secure our future as a race.
You're off by 1.06 Chinas, or 1.25 Indias or 5.12 USAs.
Without the CO2 you're talking years, a couple of decades, from what the literature and models say. It's negatively accelerated - water rains out, condenses out, reacts out, clouds the surface, takes the heat with it to the bottom of the ocean and the deep aquifers and the piles of ice.
The longer term water vapor problem - if any - looks like stratospheric loading (which lasts decades, being above the weather) and its effect on the ozone layer - a chemical, rather than thermodynamic, issue. That gets filed with ocean acidification and weathering of rock as a "side effect" that is apparently going to do lots of serious damage we can't do much about any more - we missed our previous "deadline", if you recall.
We don't have to do anything about the water vapor, and we can't do much of anything about the methane bomb except prevent it - this whole scene is being driven by the CO2.
There is another issue that is often overlooked, probably because it is harder to quantify (fully) and that is O2 depletion ( or offset)
As you probably know atmospheric:
O2 makes up about 20.946%
CO2 making up approximately 0.04%
Ch4 makes up approximately 0.00079% ( mentioned just for relativity)
Humans require a minimum of 20% oxygen to avoid hypoxia and related symptoms.
Between 15% to 20% and motor co-ordination can be severely affected.
That essentially means that there is only an approximate 1% margin before symptoms of hypoxia become evidenced.
Hypothetically I would interpret this to mean that as CO2 and CH4 increases in the troposphere, O2 levels as a percentage will decrease.
1% margin for error is a pretty slim margin IMO
As C02 and CH4 and water vapor become more evident in the troposphere (0kms-12kms from sea level) the ambient O2 (ratio) will inevitably be reduced.
So as CO2 and CH4 and H2O become more dominant in our troposphere oxygen (O2) becomes less represented, and given the safety margin is a mere 1% a general state of global population Hypoxia is most probable.
Nonsense. People successfully live in cities at 12,000 feet. At 12,000 feet there is an equivalent of 12.8% oxygen. In Denver people people live with 16% oxygen equivalent. People do fine, and do not come down with "hypoxia and related symptoms." In fact, athletes go to such places to train, because their bodies quickly adapt to the lower oxygen levels.
Simply will not happen.
Not that I'm supporting QQ's stance. People will adapt.
Healthy people will absorb the stress. But I'd wager it'll definitely show a statistical spike in the old, the young, and those in poor health. It will be measurable - like any air quality issue - in hospital visits, treatment and deaths.
Do you anticipate forced mass migrations?
edit not forced as in "force marched" just whole populations with nothing to remain for?
Woah. I have no stake here, no side.
I simply pointed out that I think billvon was too hasty to dismiss the effects.
Separate names with a comma.