Eaarth

[user removed]

IN 1983 I lived in the Florida Keys. That winter the temperatures dropped to record low levels. On one day the low temperature in Key West was higher than the high temperature in Anchorage Alaska. The cold spell lasted long enough to reduce the ocean temperature very close to 60 degrees in the Florida Keys.

The concern was that level of temperature would kill the Coral Reefs, which had existed for millions of years.

27 years ago.

I have lived close to the ocean for most of my life. The mouth of Back River used to be a fairly tight restriction to the water that flowed into the larger bay beyond the restriction. I would take my jon boat and surfboard to the channel just northwest of the peninsula called Factory Point, where a tidal bore created waves that you could surf for 15-20 minutes until the tide reversal had completed.

Today that peninsula is gone. Now there is a very small island with close to .5 mile of the peninsula washed away by a series of northeasters some time ago.

In the time period of English settlement of the Tidewater Virginia area, of 403 years, the water level in the Chesapeake Bay has risen 15 feet due to a hurricane. That storm occurred in 1759, long before any significant global warming that was induced by human beings. My grandmother used to tell me a storm created Willoughby Spit and a storm will take it away. It almost happened in the 1933 storm when almost every structure on the spit was washed away by a surge that was 9.3 feet, much less than the 15 feet of the 1759 storm.

These are my personal experiences. From cooling destroying the reefs and the calamity predicted, to storms and rising ocean levels actually changing the shape of the coastline.

In modern history much of the time we were emerging from the "little ice age". Then we had two volcanic explosions Tambora in the early 19th century and Krakatoa in the latter part of the same century. Both occurred at the end of the little ice age and greatly reduced global temperatures.

What's the point.

Who do you believe? The "experts" who predicted the death of the coral reefs 27 years ago, or those today who predict the death of the planet due to warming.

I have seen estimates of the effect of polar and glacial ice melts creating a rise in the ocean's sea level of 135 feet a while ago to 2o feet today.

Which do I believe?

Neither.

If their conclusions can be so different, who should I trust, especially based on my OWN indisputable personal observations.

The best solution for me (and only me) is to try to conserve energy in every way I can, and to try to change the way we as a planetary society utilize energy to it's best effect per unit consumed.

I have seen little evidence of any real interest in my ideas or observations, which seems sad when you consider that a significant amount of time and intellect has been dedicated to that effort.

regards
Mech

[NeilBlanchard]

Climate Change: Evidence

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Climate Change: Evidence

Is that the same NASA that had to redo their homework and try harder ?

We also have to remember who runs NASA GISS. Not an "independent scientist" by any means.

This whole thing needs a lot of independent analysis. At least some from the scientific establishment are starting to take note of just how uncertain all this stuff is.

A good shoeing is what it all needs.

[Arragonis]

PS - Worth noting Hansen's ex boss is not a fan either, although he spoils it by getting too much into the politics.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Do you believe that Global Climate Change is real, and that it is caused by humans?

I believe part 1, but not part 2 for the most part.

Obviously we humans do have some influence on the climate, but IMO we're overrating ourselves once again by thinking we're causing it - and overrating ourselves even more by thinking we can change it.

It is not a problem if mankind perishes because mankind at large is quickly losing the ability to adapt to nature while trying to adapt nature to itself.

Other species will live on, take over, and evolve.

If you do not believe in the Theory of Gravity, will you float away?

The difference is that gravity is proven.

[user removed]

The Northwest Passage was explored by the Europeans because they were told it existed by the natives of the northern regions of what is now Canada. Maybe the natives were just jerking the explorers chains, but it would be logical to presume that when Greenland was habitable there would also have existed a northwest passage.

The fact (or hypothesis) that the mini ice age closed the passage for hundreds of years seems to be something that has been conveniently forgotten.

I have probably close to 50 plus trees on the lot where my house is located, and only have to manage grass cutting on less than 5% of the land area on the same lot. I do that with a push mower bought for $20. I use no liquid fuel for ground maintenance.

When the industrial age began, humans had still affected the balance of natural C02 absorption by removing significant amounts of trees all over the planet. England is a prime example.

Studying the early industrialization is fascinating. What they accomplished with only the power that nature provided should be a good example of how to efficiently use energy.
The discovery of oil changed the game, energy cost was practically nothing and efficiency became a secondary consideration. While that is true, the fact that much of the progress of civilization was due to the burning of fossil fuels, much can also be blamed on the explosion of population growth in the last few centuries.

The real secret is to extract the abundance of energy available from natural sources and eventually replace fossil fuels with natural sources of energy. To do so requires the ability to store energy for the periods when it is less abundant. Much like the early civilizations learned to store the abundance of food when it was available to get through the times when it was not reproducible.

You can not store electricity efficiently, but there are ways to store the potential energy provided by solar energy, either directly, or through evaporation and rainfall, as well as tidal energy from the lunar cycle.

The core of the earth itself provides a virtually limitless supply of energy.

The vehicles we drive waste energy in many ways, but two of the most significant are idling (13%) and direct heating of the atmosphere through friction braking.

There are solutions to those two sources of waste that I have been pursuing for close to a decade.

To burden those who were born in areas of the planet with draconian laws which condemn them to poverty, especially when we who propose such actions are the worst of the prolific energy wasters is true hypocrisy, and Al Gore leads the list of those who want others to conserve, while he consumes an astronomical amount of energy and creates hundreds of times the pollution of an average citizen.

If you want to lead the poor to a better life, then do it by example, and true efforts of integrity, not by preaching something you do not practice yourself.

regards
Mech

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Weather Spotter

Tell me now which one we are in?

You can grab them off wikipedia if you don't want to drown in data.

We're in an interglacial warm period - and have been for the last 12000 years or so .
It's a lot warmer and we have had good conditions for mankind to flourish into billions of specimens.
But in the very long run - think 10s of thousands of years - it's not going to last.
It never has.
This warm period could last another 5 or 10.000 years, or maybe just 500 years longer ... no-one can tell.
So we're heading back to an ice age in due time.

The Vostok Ice core data :


All we can see from these historical data, is that these Warm periods come about quickly in geological terms, then fade away over 100.000+ years before a new dramatic rise in temperature comes about.
Compare them to a very rough and uneven saw-blade .

CO2 follows the temperature trend, rather than leading it.
It's quite ridiculous to state the rise in CO2 is now caused by mankind as it'd leave no explanation for how things happened in the past.
The rise in temps started well before the massive proliferation of mankind and man's excessive use of fossil fuels.
The start also coincides with a previous glacial low - matching the previous warm periods.
Nothing unusual there.


Then there's of course variations within this long warm period.
Times when it's warmer (like now) and times when it's cooler (the Little Ice Age)



Looking at that graph, the bigger trend is already down towards a colder period despite the fact that the shorter term trend shows a serious increase in temps.
But it can happen fast.


In the short run (centuries) we're in a slightly warmer era within the warm period (comparable to the Medieval Warm period), and after that's over we'll probably be heading back to another so-called Little Ice Age.




Think of it as 3 oscillations, each on top of the other, with each getting less severe.

Man's greatest mistake is to think that everything should remain constant.
It doesn't. It doesn't at all.

Why did 30-40 yr ago people get freaked out about global cooing?

Because they were misled by the same kind of people who are misleading them now about global, manmade climate change.

Alarmists will always need to come up with bigger threats.
The next one always needs to be bigger than the previous one.
People laugh at Jehova's witnesses who've predicted the end of the world multiple times.
In due time the same is going to happen with the climate researchers.


Nobody really knows what drives climate changes.
Trouble is, admitting that openly, and admitting you can't change the change, means their excessive funding will vaporize.

Question is wether we need to know, 'cause we might try some short-term solution that messes up the really long term scheme of things.


The glaciers are melting !
They have been melting for some 12.000 years.
Other glaciers have melted before them.
In many regions it's how the land was landscaped.

The seas will be rising !
Workers have found shark teeth less than 60feet deep and 2 miles away from here, while digging a canal.
We're over 30 miles from the - current - coastline.
Do you know any sharks with feet ? I don't.
Some 2000 feet below, is a very thick chalk layer almost entirely made out of sea creatures.
It resurfaces famously on the Channel coast, as plaster of Paris, or in the Champagne, and with less aplomb north of the Meuse some 60 miles south.
Damn, the whole of Europe used to be a sea !

if Evolution is true (not in my Book, the Bible) then you have a 4-5 Billion year old planet so I need to see 1 Billion years of data

There's half a million years above in the Vostok graph, you'll have to make do with it.

This sort of timescale simply can't be grasped.
It's hardly 200mm long.
If one lives to be 100 years, that's hardly 1/4000 of the elapsed time.
Or hardly the equivalent of the thickness of a hair.

Earth itself is some 10.000 times older again ...

Why stop progress?

Are we really making progress ?
Looking around, I think we're only making a much bigger mess.

Believe what you want to but DO NOT force me to change for your belief.

How many people were - and still are - forced to change for your belief ?

[Weather Spotter]

euromodder:
Thanks for bringing a level head to all of this. Its the alarm sounding that drives me nuts.

You are right it is the funding thing. We need to spend that money on how to use energy responsibly.

[dcb]

I think generally speaking, our understanding of such things is improving over time. Models get refined, new discoveries and techniques made. I agree with the side of caution as being a reasonable one, since there is a lot of uncertainty here. There are some hard facts about emissions and population growth and efficient use of resources that we have to deal with regardless. And just because these may turn into someone elses problem, doesn't mean we should make every effort to remain ignorant of the issues. It will take time to get a good understanding, and the results are independent of any non-disciplined belief system/or convenience bias. And even then the results are only assessed as being a "likely" explanation or not and subject to further revision, as it should be.

[NeilBlanchard]

There is no way to prove the Theory of Gravity -- we have a very good explanation, hence the Theory, but proving that it is the attraction of the mass is not possible. Same thing about plate tectonics, and atomic theory, the nature of light -- all of these have lots of unknowns and doubt about specifics; but the scientific explanations are accepted -- and the same is true for Global Climate Change.

The point is, whatever you believe, the effects still affect all of us.

James Hansen is a neutral scientist. And humans have caused this incredibly rapid increase in carbon dioxide, to levels higher than the last millenniums, and much higher than anytime we humans have been on Eaarth. The speed of the change is the key.

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

Sea level rise:

Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4
The effects of climate change will likely include more frequent droughts in some areas and heavier precipitation in others.
Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise

Global temperature rise:
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880. 5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. 6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase. 7
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.

Warming oceans:
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8

Shrinking ice sheets:
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

Declining Arctic sea ice:
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades. 9

Glacial retreat:
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.10
Record high temperatures increasing.

Extreme events:
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.11

The carbon dioxide content of the Earth’s oceans has been increasing since 1750, and is currently increasing about 2 billion tons per year. This has increased ocean acidity by about 30 percent.