What climate change is not

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by billvon, Jan 28, 2020.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,340
    The occasional max peak is predicted to increase significantly more than the baseline average.

    Increased variability in almost all climate features - in time, in space, in measured attribute - is the routine IPCC prediction.
    If the water vapor content of the air also peaks accordingly, taking the wet bulb temp with it, 50 - 55C temp peaks will occasionally turn lethal - killing most mammals caught in the open within a few hours. They will also kill many plants, including some trees.

    That's without catastrophe, such as runaway methane feedback.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,562
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,895
    and now:
    a brief musical(?) interlude
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,895
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,340
    For those new to the climate "debate" as it is framed in the US but otherwise reasonably well acquainted with the physical realities involved, that site would be a more complete introduction to the methods and modes of Republican media framing (in that and several other scientific matters that have unfortunate political implications) than this forum. We get a shadow of it here, from the Tribe holding each other's hands and the occasional Russian troll, but the full glory might backstop anyone tempted by liberal inclinations toward bothsider approaches, granting the benefit of doubt, and other features of bona fide debate.

    But - fair warning - you do need a basic understanding of the physical realities involved, both of the topic and the research, for self defense. The propaganda encountered by Americans is the best and most sophisticated in the world - those guys (this generation's fascist propagandists) are professionals, they are working in a deeply rooted tradition, and history warns against underestimating them.

    If you find that site "entertaining", for example, you are getting played. It's a grim and repetitive slog through the gutters of crazytown, replete with threads like this https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-church-of-global-warming-is-doomed-d6-e3019.php#post_51726
    and their "related content": which push the definition of "debate" well past what the sane would countenance.

    If you can't see that immediately, and deal with it appropriately, you should get out. No one is invulnerable to uncountered repetition - the 1950s North Korean "brainwashers" proved that, if it wasn't obvious to the liberally educated already.
     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2020
  9. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,562
    Thanks for your referral, I'll check it out ....should be fun!
     
  10. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,566
    Is nothing beneath them?
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,294
    Nope. Even today there are massive methane releases in tundra areas - and people don't "have to leave."
    Nope. Again, even today, in areas where there are massive wildfires, we are seeing tens to hundreds of dead. Not millions.
    I have not dismissed anything. I am using the absolute upper limit of IPCC projections.
    That is correct. It can also lead to dramatic cooling if the additional heat causes primarily day-side clouds. That's why it is one of the most uncertain feedbacks in the IPCC's predictions.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,340
    Is there any hope of you ever paying attention in good faith?

    They will have to leave when and if it burns. It will burn when and if it dries out (much of it is extremely flammable, even after the methane has outgassed). It will dry out when and if it heats up (not much rain or snow up there). It will heat up when and if the methane release sufficiently overpowers the degradation capabilities that have been partially damping its effects so far (any time now).

    As specifically and explicitly noted, above, for the reading pleasure of anyone actually curious or interested.
    You are not using the absolute upper limits of the ranges of possibilities visible in the IPCC's graphs, the major research reports and scientific literature, etc.

    There aren't any, for starters - there are just decreasing probabilities in the tails of the distributions. Meanwhile, the IPCC is well known to have been "conservative" in its reports - consistently downplaying and underestimating the rate and size of the CO2 boost's effects, especially in the high latitudes. (The permafrost melting, the Greenland and Antarctic melts, and the high latitude temperature spikes, have all been multiples - not just greater, but two and three times greater - than the IPCC projections, for example). You omitted all of those considerations - you say the omission was unintentional, not dismissal but ignorance? Ok. Consider yourself informed, in the future, and no more bs.
    It would most likely - by a huge margin - lead to smaller increases in the daytime highs, not "cooling". Cooling would require not only a specific regime of daytime cloud cover, but a clearing and reduction of heat trapping at night somehow - a vanishingly improbable combination, much less likely than a partial slowing of an otherwise dramatic temperature boost. But that is not the main issue -

    the main issue is that there is no safety in uncertainty, and deriving reassurance from a mere possibility that things might not turn out as bad as the data and theory indicates they well might is bizarrely naive. Pollyanna.

    That is, your claim of pessimism is ill supported. Ignoring bad possibilities because they are not certain is optimism, not pessimism, and more than a little ditzy - prudence would pay attention to the actual odds, and assess risk accordingly.
    So?
    What do you mean, "nope"? Why are you reposting matters of agreement and common observation?

    You claimed if they got a thousand times worse, they would kill only a thousand times more people. You were using that inexplicably mistaken linearity to downplay the significance of the risks being run by boosting CO2 as we are.
    That was, at best, a moment of odd carelessness on your part - you weren't thinking, despite being confronted. Surely you are not going to double down on such an assertion and such an approach to risk assessment?

    If they were a thousand times worse in Australia, for example, they would kill almost everyone who failed to escape their region of the continent on maybe twelve hours notice. Major rivers and lakes would dry. The electrical system - including the phones, etc - would be wrecked. Major airports and roads would be shut down with little warning. The landscape currently most densely populated would be largely uninhabitable for the indefinite future - lacking food, water, fuel, and shelter. And most of the possible refuges within range, in continent or overseas, would be getting hammered as well.

    Hell, that would happen if they were only four or five times worse. And we haven't begun to consider the heat waves, rainfall pattern changes, storm energy alterations, crop failures, ecological disasters, or economic dislocation effects. Nor have we factored in the probably simultaneous onset in Indonesia, China, India, Pakistan, and the Persian Gulf region - all of which would cripple Australia's ability to cope.
     
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,895
    Category 5 hurricanes may have slammed Florida repeatedly during the chilly Younger Dryas, 12,000 years ago. The cause? Hurricane-suppressing effects of cooler sea surface were out-weighed by side effects of slowed ocean circulation. That's the finding of USGS researcher Michael Toomey and colleagues in their Geology article published online...

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171005125028.htm
     
  14. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,294
    Again, no.

    Esieh Lake in Alaska is doing exactly what you say - releasing tons of methane due to warming. It even burns. And far from people "having to leave" - they are journeying there to study it.

    The image of a town being consumed by an apocalyptic, climate-change-fueled inferno would make a great movie - but is simply not reality. And again, if you say "this is what's going to happen! FLEE!" and it doesn't happen - the consensus on climate change will take another blow, and our chances of mitigating it will slip another notch from every failed spectacular prediction.

    Yes, I am. I am using the worst case scenario from the IPCC.
    I know you believe that. The IPCC does not. Cloud effects are still listed as low confidence.

    No. Nothing more than more clouds during the day - and exactly the same climactic conditions at night (i.e. no change from present) - and you get warming.
    You are absolutely right. We could all die in the next month from a massive impact from an asteroid. There is no safety in the uncertainty there, either. But the probability is very low. So instead of spending every cent of our GDP on asteroid diversion approaches, we grow the space program fairly slowly, looking more at its benefits to commerce and science than to save the planet from an asteroid.

    I know, I know. Again, that's not what movies would have you believe the purpose of the space program is. But we make plans based on the most likely outcomes, not the least likely.
    Because you seem to disagree with them.
    I did nothing of the sort. Were you perhaps responding to a different post? Or were you constructing a strawman that you could argue against?
     
  15. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,562
    eh?
    Are you saying that immediate and local Climate Change effects are to be expected from Methane release ?
    Surely you are not....

    Perhaps the Methane release will turn every one into zombies over night..... lol - Speaking of catastrophic apocalyptic cinema.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    ...24 hours after the sudden methane bomb. lol

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2020
  16. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,294
    No, I am not. We will not see such effects. Nor will we see methane fires that force people to flee.

    I'm not sure why people feel the need to resort to such extremes. Plenty of Arctic towns will see widespread structural damage as permafrost melts and foundations collapse, and as formerly ice-bound shores erode away. Heck, we're seeing that right now.
     
  17. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,562
    Yes and most of Northern Russia needs to be rebuilt and that was reported over 10 years ago. ( not to mention permafrost melting (Canada) in 1986 which is yet to be explained )
    The unexplained North Russian ( Yamel ) sink hole phenomena also has been known about for ages...permafrost melt due to methane burning is suspected to be the cause among other possibilities.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    seen from inside one of the many sink holes..in 2014 (?)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    src: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/12/research-climb-giant-siberian-sinkhole

    Theory:
    The Russians even built a floating nuclear power plant (FNPP) to service the region affected because building on land was impossible due to land instability. They probably had to decommission a nuke power plant because of ground instability and had to replace it with a FNPP that doesn't rely on land stability. Mass production planned apparently...
    (If true, it was quite an ingenious but extremely high risk strategy IMO)
    Also a serious display or how desperate they were/are for a more sustainable solution to their Northern permafrost melting at the rate that it appears to be.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Imagine thousands of these FNPP's with out a land barrier in case of melt down... ugh! Such folly.. Collateral damage motivated by Climate change may be human extinction due to nuclear ocean contamination...

    good ole human nature at work....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And publicly the Russian Government is similar to the USA, Australia in AGW denial!
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2020
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,562
    Besides, it will be many years before any one can build anything of substance on melting permafrost. The Northern Russian region etc.. may very well be in chaos for decades if not centuries as land continues to destabilize over time.
     
  19. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,895
    It might be enlightening to read about how the developers of the AlCan highway overcame the permafrost melting problem
     
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,562
    Shall do...thanks..
    Edit:
    Googled: Alcan highway permafrost.
    Found no specific technique for dealing with degrading stability conditions.
    Do you have a link that shows the method they used to stabilize the highway?
    From what I did read (scim) they had/have a major problem.
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2020
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,294
    Which could be the best thing to happen to that area.

    Keep in mind that the area around Chernobyl is the healthiest ecosystem in the Ukraine. Not because of the radiation; that's done a fair amount of damage. But because it keeps people out. And people are far more damaging to the ecosystem than a catastrophic nuclear accident.
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,562
    I guess we are going to find out soon enough when those floating nuclear reactors (re: Chernobyl disaster ) end up on the bottom of the ocean.....mind boggling stupidity IMO
     
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,294
    Better there than sitting there on the ground.

    I imagine there are quite a few people in Japan that wish they could tow Fukushima out to sea and sink it a few miles in a marine trench.
     

Share This Page