Climate Change

User avatar
RoadScholar
Posts: 7376
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: 7573
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: 3687
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: 20731
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: 3130
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."



User avatar
Danraft
Posts: 665
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


The Mercury Project

User avatar
Suranis
Posts: 16066
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.


Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

User avatar
vic
Posts: 3687
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: 7446
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: 2230
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:



User avatar
Till Eulenspiegel
Posts: 406
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:55 am
Location: France
Occupation: Lawyer (retired )

Re: Climate Change

#386

Post by Till Eulenspiegel » 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.


„Er aber, sag’s ihm, er kann mich im Arsche lecken!“ - J.W. Goethe - Götz von Berlichingen

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
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

User avatar
Danraft
Posts: 665
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


The Mercury Project

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
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

User avatar
Danraft
Posts: 665
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.


The Mercury Project

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
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

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18876
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Climate Change

#392

Post by Volkonski » Sun May 27, 2018 1:29 pm

Danraft wrote:
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.
The fossil fuel industry is always trying to maximize its profits. ;)

For the large petrochemical companies it is not just oil and gas anymore. lThose companies have over the last 3 decades made moves to get more of their profits from the chemicals part of the business. In 2015, for example, chemicals provided 27.4% of ExxonMobil's net profit. That number will increase. ExxonMobil recently announced that it, in partnership with SABIC, will invest $10 billion to build the world's largest integrated ethylene plant at a site north of Corpus ChristI, TX.

ExxonMobil, for example, already makes films that are used in electric car batteries and in association with Synthetic Genomics has successfully genetically altered algae to double production rates of lipid fats needed to make biofuels. Companies like ExxonMobil will adapt to any future energy mix. Note that EM, once the 5th largest coal company, stopped producing coal in 2009.


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 18081
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Climate Change

#393

Post by RTH10260 » Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:09 pm




User avatar
AndyinPA
Posts: 2230
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2017 1:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh PA

Re: Climate Change

#394

Post by AndyinPA » Wed Jun 06, 2018 7:37 pm

I'd seen this before. Climate change is what's going to end their way of life, but having voted for twitler will guarantee that it will happen and probably happen faster.



User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 18081
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Climate Change

#395

Post by RTH10260 » Sat Jun 16, 2018 1:32 pm




User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18876
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Climate Change

#396

Post by Volkonski » Sun Jun 17, 2018 11:29 am

The climate news just gets worse and worse. :(

Antarctica’s ice is melting three times faster than we thought

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/climate- ... al-warming
About three trillion tonnes of ice has disappeared since 1992. The rate of melting has accelerated threefold in the last five years, and may – a separate study suggests – lead to sea rises of 25cm by the year 2070, which would have a disastrous impact around the world.

"We can see where the ice melting is happening, and it's in West Antarctica – and that tells us why it's happening, because we know that the ocean in West Antarctica is too warm," says professor Andrew Shepherd from Leeds University, who led the latest research. "This is too much for the ice to resist, and the ice is melting away and causing this sea level rise... It tells us that the ice sheet isn't impervious to the effects of climate change as we once thought it might be, and that's a wake-up call."

Previous research suggested antarctic ice was melting faster over the last twenty years than the last 10,000 – we now know the prognosis is worse still. If melting continues at this pace, we could expect an extra 15cm of sea level rise by 2100 on top of present projections.


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
TollandRCR
Posts: 20731
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2009 11:17 pm

Re: Climate Change

#397

Post by TollandRCR » Fri Jun 22, 2018 3:01 pm

Hollywood (perhaps without knowing why) again rides to rhe rescue. In the closing minutes of the new Jurassic Park series Goldblum makes points summaruzed as:
Last year, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Scientists claimed that we have entered Earth’s sixth mass extinction, a “biological annihilation” that represents a “frightening assault on the foundations of human civilization.” In 2014, a contributor to a report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that the “window of opportunity” to curb the effects of climate change was “closing fast,” and last year, a co-author of a new IPCC report said that the planet might be “fatally wounded by negligence” if we failed to act by 2020. Given that President Donald Trump and much of his party refuse to acknowledge that climate change even exists, the chance of immediate, concerted global action seems awfully slim, so it’s not surprising that a good number of us have simply given up hope. In 2017, a national survey found that nearly 40 percent of Americans believe that global warming is more likely to lead to humanity’s extinction than it is not.
There is probably nothing of greater importance happening on the planet now.


“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
Volkonski
Posts: 18876
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Climate Change

#398

Post by Volkonski » Sun Aug 05, 2018 2:59 pm

Today's New York Times Magazine cover is all black with a white headline reading-

Thirty years ago, we could have saved the planet.

:shock:

The magazine is devoted to a set of four articles grouped together under this banner--

Losing Earth: The Decade We
Almost Stopped Climate Change
By Nathaniel Rich


Prologue
The world has warmed more than one degree Celsius since the Industrial Revolution. The Paris climate agreement — the nonbinding, unenforceable and already unheeded treaty signed on Earth Day in 2016 — hoped to restrict warming to two degrees. The odds of succeeding, according to a recent study based on current emissions trends, are one in 20. If by some miracle we are able to limit warming to two degrees, we will only have to negotiate the extinction of the world’s tropical reefs, sea-level rise of several meters and the abandonment of the Persian Gulf. The climate scientist James Hansen has called two-degree warming “a prescription for long-term disaster.” Long-term disaster is now the best-case scenario. Three-degree warming is a prescription for short-term disaster: forests in the Arctic and the loss of most coastal cities. Robert Watson, a former director of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has argued that three-degree warming is the realistic minimum. Four degrees: Europe in permanent drought; vast areas of China, India and Bangladesh claimed by desert; Polynesia swallowed by the sea; the Colorado River thinned to a trickle; the American Southwest largely uninhabitable. The prospect of a five-degree warming has prompted some of the world’s leading climate scientists to warn of the end of human civilization.

Is it a comfort or a curse, the knowledge that we could have avoided all this?

Because in the decade that ran from 1979 to 1989, we had an excellent opportunity to solve the climate crisis. The world’s major powers came within several signatures of endorsing a binding, global framework to reduce carbon emissions — far closer than we’ve come since. During those years, the conditions for success could not have been more favorable. The obstacles we blame for our current inaction had yet to emerge. Almost nothing stood in our way — nothing except ourselves.

Nearly everything we understand about global warming was understood in 1979. By that year, data collected since 1957 confirmed what had been known since before the turn of the 20th century: Human beings have altered Earth’s atmosphere through the indiscriminate burning of fossil fuels. The main scientific questions were settled beyond debate, and as the 1980s began, attention turned from diagnosis of the problem to refinement of the predicted consequences. Compared with string theory and genetic engineering, the “greenhouse effect” — a metaphor dating to the early 1900s — was ancient history, described in any Introduction to Biology textbook. Nor was the basic science especially complicated. It could be reduced to a simple axiom: The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the warmer the planet. And every year, by burning coal, oil and gas, humankind belched increasingly obscene quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Part One 1979–1982
1979
Pomerance was amazed by how much momentum had built in such a short time. Scientists at the highest levels of government had known about the dangers of fossil-fuel combustion for decades. Yet they had produced little besides journal articles, academic symposiums, technical reports. Nor had any politician, journalist or activist championed the issue. That, Pomerance figured, was about to change. If Charney’s group confirmed that the world was careering toward an existential crisis, the president would be forced to act.

:snippity:

The scientists summoned by Jule Charney to judge the fate of civilization arrived on July 23, 1979, with their wives, children and weekend bags at a three-story mansion in Woods Hole, on the southwestern spur of Cape Cod. They would review all the available science and decide whether the White House should take seriously Gordon MacDonald’s prediction of a climate apocalypse. The Jasons had predicted a warming of two or three degrees Celsius by the middle of the 21st century, but like Roger Revelle before them, they emphasized their reasons for uncertainty. Charney’s scientists were asked to quantify that uncertainty. They had to get it right: Their conclusion would be delivered to the president. But first they would hold a clambake.

:snippity:

1980
After the publication of the Charney report, Exxon decided to create its own dedicated carbon-dioxide research program, with an annual budget of $600,000. Only Exxon was asking a slightly different question than Jule Charney. Exxon didn’t concern itself primarily with how much the world would warm. It wanted to know how much of the warming Exxon could be blamed for.

:snippity:
1981
After the election, Reagan considered plans to close the Energy Department, increase coal production on federal land and deregulate surface coal mining. Once in office, he appointed James Watt, the president of a legal firm that fought to open public lands to mining and drilling, to run the Interior Department. “We’re deliriously happy,” the president of the National Coal Association was reported to have said. Reagan preserved the E.P.A. but named as its administrator Anne Gorsuch, an anti-regulation zealot who proceeded to cut the agency’s staff and budget by about a quarter. In the midst of this carnage, the Council on Environmental Quality submitted a report to the White House warning that fossil fuels could “permanently and disastrously” alter Earth’s atmosphere, leading to “a warming of the Earth, possibly with very serious effects.” Reagan did not act on the council’s advice. Instead, his administration considered eliminating the council.
Part Two 1983-1989
1983
The authors did try to imagine some of them: an ice-free Arctic, for instance, and Boston sinking into its harbor, Beacon Hill an island two miles off the coast. There was speculation about political revolution, trade wars and a long quotation from “A Distant Mirror,” a medieval history written by Pomerance’s aunt, Barbara Tuchman, describing how climate changes in the 14th century led to “people eating their own children” and “feeding on hanged bodies taken down from the gibbet.” The committee’s chairman, William Nierenberg — a Jason, presidential adviser and director of Scripps, the nation’s pre-eminent oceanographic institution — argued that action had to be taken immediately, before all the details could be known with certainty, or else it would be too late.

:snippity:

1985
It was as if, without warning, the sky opened and the sun burst through in all its irradiating, blinding fury. The mental image was of a pin stuck through a balloon, a chink in an eggshell, a crack in the ceiling — Armageddon descending from above. It was a sudden global emergency: There was a hole in the ozone layer.

:snippity:

1987
Four years after “Changing Climate,” two years after a hole had torn open the firmament and a month after the United States and more than three dozen other nations signed a treaty to limit use of CFCs, the climate-change corps was ready to celebrate. It had become conventional wisdom that climate change would follow ozone’s trajectory. Reagan’s E.P.A. administrator, Lee M. Thomas, said as much the day he signed the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer (the successor to the Vienna Convention), telling reporters that global warming was likely to be the subject of a future international agreement. Congress had already begun to consider policy — in 1987 alone, there were eight days of climate hearings, in three committees, across both chambers of Congress; Senator Joe Biden, a Delaware Democrat, had introduced legislation to establish a national climate-change strategy. And so it was that Jim Hansen found himself on Oct. 27 in the not especially distinguished ballroom of the Quality Inn on New Jersey Avenue, a block from the Capitol, at “Preparing for Climate Change,” which was technically a conference but felt more like a wedding.

:snippity:

1988
In Nebraska, suffering its worst drought since the Dust Bowl, there were days when every weather station registered temperatures above 100 degrees. The director of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment warned that the drought might be the dawning of a climatic change that within a half century could turn the state into a desert. “The dang heat,” said a farmer in Grinnell. “Farming has so many perils, but climate is 99 percent of it.” In parts of Wisconsin, where Gov. Tommy Thompson banned fireworks and smoking cigarettes outdoors, the Fox and Wisconsin Rivers evaporated completely. “At that point,” said an official from the Department of Natural Resources, “we must just sit back and watch the fish die.”
Epilogue
Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, Calif., has a habit of asking new graduate students to name the largest fundamental breakthrough in climate physics since 1979. It’s a trick question. There has been no breakthrough. As with any mature scientific discipline, there is only refinement. The computer models grow more precise; the regional analyses sharpen; estimates solidify into observational data. Where there have been inaccuracies, they have tended to be in the direction of understatement. Caldeira and a colleague recently published a paper in Nature finding that the world is warming more quickly than most climate models predict. The toughest emissions reductions now being proposed, even by the most committed nations, will probably fail to achieve “any given global temperature stabilization target.”

More carbon has been released into the atmosphere since the final day of the Noordwijk conference, Nov. 7, 1989, than in the entire history of civilization preceding it. In 1990, humankind burned more than 20 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. By 2017, the figure had risen to 32.5 billion metric tons, a record. Despite every action taken since the Charney report — the billions of dollars invested in research, the nonbinding treaties, the investments in renewable energy — the only number that counts, the total quantity of global greenhouse gas emitted per year, has continued its inexorable rise.

Like the scientific story, the political story hasn’t changed greatly, except in its particulars. Even some of the nations that pushed hardest for climate policy have failed to honor their own commitments. When it comes to our own nation, which has failed to make any binding commitments whatsoever, the dominant narrative for the last quarter century has concerned the efforts of the fossil-fuel industries to suppress science, confuse public knowledge and bribe politicians.
:madguy: :madguy: :madguy: :madguy: :madguy:


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
Volkonski
Posts: 18876
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Texas Gulf Coast and North Fork of Long Island
Occupation: Retired Mechanical Engineer

Re: Climate Change

#399

Post by Volkonski » Thu Aug 09, 2018 12:04 pm

https://abcnews.go.com/US/fire-danger-g ... d=57119560
California just experienced its hottest July on record as the U.S. experienced its hottest May through July.

At least 60 uncontained fires continue to burn, mostly out West. More record highs are possible today, with advisories issued from California to Montana.

Gusty winds and dry conditions could add another degree of difficulty to fighting wildfires that continue to ravage much of the region.
Image


Image“If everyone fought for their own convictions there would be no war.”
― Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace

User avatar
HST's Ghost
Posts: 574
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 6:58 pm

Re: Climate Change

#400

Post by HST's Ghost » Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:25 am

Heating the ocean temperature also...

81-degree reading likely sets record for highest temperature ever measured in California waters

"We've been measuring water temperature with our wave buoys since the 1990s, and this is the warmest we've seen in those two-plus decades," says James Behrens, the principal engineer for Scripps Coastal Data Information Program, who helps check the buoys for quality control.

Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at UCLA, calls the reading "extraordinary, and Miguel Miller, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service office in San Diego called it "remarkable."

The warm ocean temperatures are keeping conditions warm and humid at night in some locations around San Diego. Nearly every night in the second week of August broke daily records for warmest overnight conditions.

"Similar records are being broken all up and down the coast from the Mexican border up through Los Angeles County," says Swain. "These extremely warm and muggy overnight conditions have been exacerbating the human health impacts of what has already been an extraordinarily hot summer in Southern California."
https://www.sfgate.com/weather/article/ ... 152086.php
I was reading a little while ago about the disappearance of sand crabs from SoCal beaches. Sand crabs were an iconic beach experience as a little kid...Catching them and putting them in sand castle moats or buckets...
It is, of course, a symptom of a larger looming problem:
Beach crustaceans going locally extinct
Two species of small, sand-dwelling crustaceans – key prey for shorebirds – are disappearing from beach ecosystems in southern California, according to a new study, funded in part by California Sea Grant.

“These beach invertebrates have gone locally extinct at about 60 percent of the beach sites where they were reported a century ago,” said UC Santa Barbara beach ecologist Jenifer Dugan, a co-author on the paper, which draws on historical and modern field data to reconstruct trends in the animals’ abundances since 1905 at sites from Santa Barbara to San Diego.

The places that still have high numbers of the crustaceans are usually un-groomed and un-armored beaches that are often also backed by bluffs, the scientists reported. These beaches tend to be more “remote” and may have limited vehicle access. Some examples include Blacks Beach in San Diego, Crystal Cove in Orange County and Dume Cove in Malibu. The crustaceans’ populations on the Channel Islands also appear to be relatively healthy, the scientists said.

“The major point is not necessarily that the invertebrates are themselves vanishing, but that they are indicators of bigger changes to the beach ecosystem, which have not been documented before,” said David Hubbard, the paper’s lead author, who is also a marine researcher with UC Santa Barbara.

https://caseagrant.ucsd.edu/news/beach- ... ly-extinct
Blacks Beach, which also features a nude beach, was one of my main surfing beaches in high school...many many moons ago :geezertowel:


Either give me more wine or leave me alone. - Rumi

Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”