Climate Change

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 6630
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 10:25 am
Location: Baltimore
Occupation: Historic Restoration Woodworker
Contact:

Re: Climate Change

#376

Post by RoadScholar » Thu May 17, 2018 10:48 pm

What a turkey. If things worked that way, by now there’d be no mountains left.

Uplift, dude. Tectonics. That’s why there’s stuff to erode. :brickwallsmall:


The bitterest truth is healthier than the sweetest lie.
X3

User avatar
Tiredretiredlawyer
Posts: 6163
Joined: Tue May 10, 2016 2:56 pm
Location: Animal Planet
Occupation: Permanent probationary slave to 2 dogs, 1 cat, and 1 horse

Re: Climate Change

#377

Post by Tiredretiredlawyer » Fri May 18, 2018 8:34 am

Gneissly done your own self!! :thumbs:


"The people must know before they can act, and there is no educator to compare with the press." - Ida B. Wells-Barnett, journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, feminist and founder with others of NAACP.

User avatar
vic
Posts: 3328
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 am
Location: The great San Fernando Valley
Occupation: Web developer

Re: Climate Change

#378

Post by vic » Fri May 18, 2018 4:49 pm

I forgot to post this yesterday:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pol ... 4968f377f9

It might not be scientifically rigorous, but it seems to be a nice first-order approximation. And since I majored in (but didn't complete a degree in) Physics, that's all that matters, right?
Here’s how big a rock you’d have to drop into the ocean to see the rise in sea level happening now
:snippity:
So to make the oceans rise 3.3 millimeters, we would need to displace that 1.2 trillion cubic meters of water upward by dropping in 1.2 trillion cubic meters of dirt or stone or whatever.

How much is that? It’s a sphere of earth a bit over 8 miles in diameter. If we were to balance it at the top of the Capitol building, it would look like this.
Image
If the sphere were stone, it would weigh about 6.6 quadrillion pounds. Just drop that in the ocean and — bloop! — 3.3 millimeters of sea-level increase. (We’re ignoring here that dropping it in some parts of the ocean would result in a mountain in that location. For the sake of explaining things, we’re pretending that the oceans are just one big uniform pool of water and that the sea level rise is similarly consistent. This isn’t how it works, of course.)

Put another way, it’s a volume of earth equivalent to taking the top five inches of every one of the United States’ 9.1 million square miles of land area and using it to coat the bottom of the world’s oceans. That would push sea levels up by 3.3 millimeters.

But, remember: That sea level rise happens annually. So every year, we’d need to take the top five inches of the United States, roll it in a ball and drop it in the ocean to get the sort of sea level rise we’re currently seeing. Don’t worry, though; assuming that the depth of Earth’s crust is about 40 kilometers in the United States, it would take 309,000 years for us to get to the mantle.

Except, of course, that sea level rise is occurring at an increasing rate. If someone could check on the white cliffs of Dover for us, we’d appreciate it.



User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 19768
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Climate Change

#379

Post by TollandRCR » Fri May 18, 2018 5:44 pm

The rocks do not exist to raise the sea level. The ice shelves certainly do. Glacier melt is nice and slow, and expansion due to warming of the oceans is leisurely. We can build buffers and walls that will keep coastal cities going for a while. Collapse of the Ross ice shelf will get NYC's attention very quickly. Note that Ross sits above the ocean. It is doing nothing now to raise the sea level. An ungodly percentage of humanity lives in areas that will experience disastrous sea level rise with business as usual.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

User avatar
Jim
Posts: 2967
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 4:05 pm

Re: Climate Change

#380

Post by Jim » Fri May 25, 2018 2:43 pm

In a Warming West, the Rio Grande Is Drying Up

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... rande.html

"But the state of the Rio Grande reflects a broader trend in the West, where warming temperatures are reducing snowpack and river flows.

A study last year of the Colorado River, which provides water to 40 million people and is far bigger than the Rio Grande, found that flows from 2000 to 2014 were nearly 20 percent below the 20th century average, with about a third of the reduction attributable to human-caused warming. The study suggested that if climate change continued unabated, human-induced warming could eventually reduce Colorado flows by at least an additional one-third this century.

“Both of these rivers are poster children for what climate change is doing to the Southwest,” said Jonathan T. Overpeck, dean of the School for Environment and Sustainability at the University of Michigan and an author of the Colorado study."



Danraft
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:45 pm

Re: Climate Change

#381

Post by Danraft » Fri May 25, 2018 10:26 pm

Brownstein says he now believes in man made Climate Change and that it must not be a partisan issue.

Actually, NASA has tons of great stuff going on, but it's good news and the Directive announced today fits in with his statement earlier this week.

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-nasa-chie ... imate.html


If "Who" said something occludes "What" they said...
If earplugs are preferred to contrary opinions...
If Polling Results always confuse you...
It's time to reconnect. Empty your cup. Remove your filters.

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 15133
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 7:04 am

Re: Climate Change

#382

Post by Suranis » Fri May 25, 2018 11:37 pm

Its sad that this is classed as good news rather than matter of course news, but it is. NASA does a hell of a lot of temperature and other monitoring, and they will provide evidence that cant be waved away so easily.


"The devil...the prowde spirite...cannot endure to be mocked.” - Thomas Moore

User avatar
vic
Posts: 3328
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 1:36 am
Location: The great San Fernando Valley
Occupation: Web developer

Re: Climate Change

#383

Post by vic » Fri May 25, 2018 11:50 pm

Danraft wrote:
Fri May 25, 2018 10:26 pm
Brownstein says he now believes in man made Climate Change and that it must not be a partisan issue.

Actually, NASA has tons of great stuff going on, but it's good news and the Directive announced today fits in with his statement earlier this week.

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-nasa-chie ... imate.html
Since NASA is responsible for satellites which monitor the sources (both anthropogenic and natural) of greenhouse gases, as well as the results of global climate change, it's important that he accepts the science.

Unfortunately, NASA isn't responsible for reducing greenhouse emissions - the EPA is. Hopefully Brownstein can convince Pruitt about this. (I'm not optimistic, but I am hopeful).



User avatar
RVInit
Posts: 6177
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2016 4:31 pm

Re: Climate Change

#384

Post by RVInit » Sat May 26, 2018 10:13 am

Most Republican politicians do not disbelieve climate change or that it is caused by human activity. Just like they didn't really object to the JCPOA. The just say climate change is not real because that is what they need to say to get those fossil fuel dollars. They ranted about the JCPOA because that is what partisan politics is all about - demonizing and poo pooing ideas that come from the "other side".

While there are plenty of Republican politicians that are dumber than rocks, the majority know damn well climate change is real and that it is caused by human activity, in large part burning fossil fuels.


"I know that human being and fish can coexist peacefully"
--- George W Bush

ImageImage

User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 1578
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: Climate Change

#385

Post by AndyinPA » Sat May 26, 2018 11:12 am

:yeah:



Carl von Ossietsky
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:55 am
Location: Kremlin, Moscow, ex USSR
Occupation: Bot

Re: Climate Change

#386

Post by Carl von Ossietsky » Sat May 26, 2018 12:19 pm

TollandRCR wrote:
Fri May 18, 2018 5:44 pm
The rocks do not exist to raise the sea level. The ice shelves certainly do. Glacier melt is nice and slow, and expansion due to warming of the oceans is leisurely. We can build buffers and walls that will keep coastal cities going for a while. Collapse of the Ross ice shelf will get NYC's attention very quickly. Note that Ross sits above the ocean. It is doing nothing now to raise the sea level. An ungodly percentage of humanity lives in areas that will experience disastrous sea level rise with business as usual.
The Dutch will be the only people in the world to manage living with rising sea levels. They have built their society around this problem for centuries already.


будем здоровы!

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 19768
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Climate Change

#387

Post by TollandRCR » Sat May 26, 2018 1:01 pm

Carl von Ossietsky wrote:
Sat May 26, 2018 12:19 pm

The Dutch will be the only people in the world to manage living with rising sea levels. They have built their society around this problem for centuries already.
Yes, the Dutch are probably best prepared to handle rising seas. However, they built their systems for today's sea levels. I do not know what they must do to handle projected sea levels. Also, note that storms create special challenges for what are otherwise adequate systems for protection.

New York's flooding in Sandy was a warning for what is to come. The city is building a buffer and a sea wall. I trust they are planning for projected sea levels. They raised the access points for the Third Water Tunnel to cope with rising seas; being NYC, they decided this years ago.
https://www.theverge.com/2014/10/1/6874 ... m-flooding

I had thought of retiring to Battery Park. Now Riverdale is looking better.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

Danraft
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:45 pm

Re: Climate Change

#388

Post by Danraft » Sat May 26, 2018 4:25 pm

"Most Republican politicians do not disbelieve climate change or that it is caused by human activity. Just like they didn't really object to the JCPOA. The just say climate change is not real because that is what they need to say to get those fossil fuel dollars. They ranted about the JCPOA because that is what partisan politics is all about - demonizing and poo pooing ideas that come from the "other side"."

Maybe. But we've seen plenty of evidence of the Right beli3v8ng their own Propoganda.
One of the interesting post-2016 election studies was about news sources.

The "mind map" type diagram of connections and links garnered from shared articles and cookies showed the the Left tended to sample a wider spectrum of news sources than the Right.
The Right was more of an echo chamber and it certainly does not discuss Climate Change at all. In fact, the phrase "climate change" has seen a 70% decrease since Trump was elected.
I have been on enough comment threads where a very "right wing news source" type person will toss out Global Warming is a hoax as if Everyone knows that.

Watching hearings, like say Betsy Devos, has certainly shown that many are unaware that there is another viewpoint.
And, certainly didn't think it was "evidence based" and rational.
Hence, "Liberalism is a mental disease".
No. I don't think saying they are just pretending to not believe is a safe bet and will not move the needle of public opinion and demands to their representatives to act a.c. ordingly


If "Who" said something occludes "What" they said...
If earplugs are preferred to contrary opinions...
If Polling Results always confuse you...
It's time to reconnect. Empty your cup. Remove your filters.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 19768
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Climate Change

#389

Post by TollandRCR » Sat May 26, 2018 9:12 pm

The fossil fuel industry is not as blindly rejectionist of anthropogenic climate change as we might think. Here is an ExxonMobil statement:

"In 2015, environmental activists and class action lawyers succeeded in securing an investigation of ExxonMobil by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, as originally envisioned in the La Jolla report. The investigation was widely founded on claims that scientists and researchers from ExxonMobil knew that man-made emissions caused global climate change in the 1970s and 1980s, but that the company kept those findings secret. Contrary to their claims, ExxonMobil's understanding of climate change has tracked the scientific consensus on climate change, and its research on the issue has been published in publicly available peer-reviewed journals."

Despite the horror of the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and the inexcusable behavior of its then chief executive (Tony Hayward), BP (Beyond Petroleum) is even more assertive that anthropogenic climate change is real. I credit this largely to John Browne, Baron Browne of Madingley, chief executive of BP 1995-2007. There were other industrial accidents during Browne's tenure with deaths; he was not flawless. His BP career ended in a scandal about his sexuality and his treatment of his partner. I saw that as a tragedy.

General Motors now declares itself a transportation company, not an auto company. Ford is committed to producing a fleet of electric vehicles. US corporations are not yet as invested in climate change as are European corporations but many of them are getting there. Coal mining is often a holdou; there is little that can be done gtoday dado save their industry . The Trump maladministration is out of touch and out of date, as are many Republican members of Congress


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

Danraft
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:45 pm

Re: Climate Change

#390

Post by Danraft » Sat May 26, 2018 10:41 pm

The fossil fuel industry is not as blindly rejectionist of anthropogenic climate change as we might think. Here is an ExxonMobil statement:
Agreed.
I think they know change is coming and trying to maximize their profits over the next 10 years.
Change is coming, and they have to cash in NOW.

Fracking has given a new place for America in the Global market.
As to Global Warming...
Right now it is a boon to them. With the very low amount amount of Arctic Ice there are new places to drill and better trade routes to ship. In short, AGW is a good thing so long as they are still selling oil.


If "Who" said something occludes "What" they said...
If earplugs are preferred to contrary opinions...
If Polling Results always confuse you...
It's time to reconnect. Empty your cup. Remove your filters.

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 19768
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Climate Change

#391

Post by TollandRCR » Sat May 26, 2018 10:46 pm

I think fracking is an abomination against nature. But it is allowing us to burn more natural gas than oil in generating electricity, which is a good thing.


“The truth is, we know so little about life, we don’t really know what the good news is and what the bad news is.” Kurt Vonnegut

Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”