| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
drm
Member
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR |
|
drm
Member
|
 Tue Oct 01, 2019 4:25 pm |
|
|
My understanding is that total human GDP has probably been growing as long as homo sapiens has been around, with the only real drops during ice glaciations - when populations may have crashed. But most of that was very slow and pretty much proportional to population growth, almost really a proxy for population. Only recently has there been a multiplier due to technology, and it is that much steeper slope that looks kind of unsustainable over the long term unless the nature of what that growth represents changes. Since GDP measures at least in part an abstraction of dollar value, in theory it could go up at any rate forever. But in practice it has a large physical component that must at some point reach a limit - unless you believe that earth is just our launching point I guess.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
| drm wrote: | | with the only real drops during ice glaciations |
Indeed. Cooling is terrifyingly dangerous. Warming is the safe direction.
| drm wrote: | | unless you believe that earth is just our launching point I guess. |
That is the goal. Expanding into this solar system delays many physical resource limits, and is within our technological grasp.
Expanding beyond Sol, of course is the ultimate goal, though is insanely difficult and beyond our current state by far.
In the meantime, increasing technology also removes or delays resource limits.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | Human population is simply following a population boom bust cycle common in biology. |
Is it? We have added a new factor that no other earth species has ever had. We are in uncharted territory. The old correlations no longer apply.
It is possible that technology and industry(properly managed as we gain scarier and more potent abilities) transcends all known limits. Of course it is also possible we fail and go the way of the dodo bird and the dinosaur. Wonder what the answer will be?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker
Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1696 | TRs | Pics
Location: Silverdale, WA |
| Quote: | Climate modeling for predictions is a mass of error from stem to stern.
| Quote: | | The iconoclast is Dr. Mototaka Nakamura. |
|
So I went ahead and bought and read Dr. Nakamura's paper. That was a waste of a good $0.99 and my time. He explains that he presents nothing new in his paper that isn't already available in English. He felt that his arguments had not been presented in Japan so he wrote a title that was designed to capture attention and presented arguments we have already heard. Dr Nakamura does believe in AGW, he just doesn't believe in catastrophic AGW. He says that he does not want to repeat arguments already to written so he defers to his thesis advisor, Richard Lindzen. He goes on to talk about problems he sees in climate models. This includes well known deficiencies like small scale ocean movements that we just don't have the computing power to model. And he goes on to say that the parameters used are useless to model climate. That assertion is, of course, disputed by most climate scientists working with these models. As far as I can tell it boils down to the fact that he climate models don't give the results he expects so they must be trash.
He doesn't really say where other researchers are going wrong (besides using their models incorrectly. He does insist the models are useful for certain things) Instead we have to turn to Richard Lindzen. And Richard Lindzen's Wikipedia page pretty well sums up the Nakamura paper I bought so save yourselves the dollar and go read that if you are interested. I presume that Nakamura subscribes to Lindzen's Iris Hypothesis that with global warming cirrus clouds in the tropics will be reduced and more infrared radiation will leak to space and produce cooling. As far as I can tell this hypothesis has been experimentally disproven (yes, actual science!). But, full disclosure, I have not read the original papers so I can't say that with absolute certainty (I always like to double check with primary sources whenever possible).
tl;dr Nothing new here. Read about Richard Lindzen if you are interested in the arguments.
that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out
Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA |
| drm wrote: | | Regarding Antarctic melt contribution to sea level rise, I found this paper: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/4/1095
Short story: a little over a half inch (14mm) cumulative since 1979. The roughly decadal trend in mass loss: 40, 50, 166, 252 (Gt/y). |
So according to Rignot, roughly six times the annual SLR contribution from Antarctica in the most recent decade compared to the 1980s, similar to the dramatic increase in meltwater runoff from Greenland in Randy's graphic. You would think such an increase would be reflected in sea level rise around the world, but it doesn't appear to be. Mysterious.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:34 pm |
|
|
| thunderhead wrote: | | RandyHiker wrote: | | Human population is simply following a population boom bust cycle common in biology. |
Is it? We have added a new factor that no other earth species has ever had. We are in uncharted territory. The old correlations no longer apply.
It is possible that technology and industry(properly managed as we gain scarier and more potent abilities) transcends all known limits. Of course it is also possible we fail and go the way of the dodo bird and the dinosaur. Wonder what the answer will be? |
Apparently you were too lazy to read my post completely
| RandyHiker wrote: | | So the question is will human population follow the biological model -- or will we be able to step back from acting on instinct and tradition and figure out a way to avoid turning the whole planet into a repeat of Easter Island. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
Your first bit should have been more of a question and less of a statement then.
Glad part of you agrees though.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doppelganger
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
| Doppelganger wrote: | | Should we place more trust in measurements produced by gauges or satellites |
Gauges. Definitely gauges.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Backpackapalooza
Member
Joined: 06 Aug 2008
Posts: 184 | TRs | Pics
|
"There is no climate emergency." As far as I'm concerned, this is a reasoned response to the situation. The hysterics and doomsday scenarios are getting tiresome.
One: “The world has warmed at less than half the originally predicted rate, and at less than half the rate to be expected on the basis of net anthropogenic forcing and radiative imbalance. It tells us that we are far from understanding climate change.”
Two: “Climate models have many shortcomings and are not remotely plausible as policy tools. Moreover, they most likely exaggerate the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2. In addition, they ignore the fact that enriching the atmosphere with CO2 is beneficial.”
Three: “There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm. We strongly oppose the harmful and unrealistic net-zero CO2 policy proposed for 2050. If better approaches emerge, we will have ample time to reflect and adapt. The aim of international policy should be to provide reliable and affordable energy at all times, and throughout the world.”
https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ecd-letter-to-un.pdf
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9513 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Wed Oct 02, 2019 9:46 am |
|
|
| thunderhead wrote: | | Doppelganger wrote: | | Should we place more trust in measurements produced by gauges or satellites |
Gauges. Definitely gauges. |
Why? You got any data to back that up?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Parked Out
Member
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 508 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles, WA |
| Doppelganger wrote: | | Parked Out wrote: | | drm wrote: | | Regarding Antarctic melt contribution to sea level rise, I found this paper: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/4/1095
Short story: a little over a half inch (14mm) cumulative since 1979. The roughly decadal trend in mass loss: 40, 50, 166, 252 (Gt/y). |
So according to Rignot, roughly six times the annual SLR contribution from Antarctica in the most recent decade compared to the 1980s, similar to the dramatic increase in meltwater runoff from Greenland in Randy's graphic. You would think such an increase would be reflected in sea level rise around the world, but it doesn't appear to be. Mysterious. |
I can't figure this one out either; where is the water? I don't think we will really answer this question for a while, and by then the question will have changed to "where did the water go". Our understanding of our planet is still in the infant to juvenile stage now, we are just starting to physically explore the ocean in earnest, and we haven't been floating around on the surface of it for very long either. I don't think we can expect to understand how the ocean works in totality at this point, do you?
FWIW, we are talking about a fluid that's sloshing around the surface - a tiny bit at that considering the radius of the earth, less than a flea's hair on the body of a mammoth, pushed and pulled by gravity (earth and the moon) and centrifugal force. Do we know what role subsidence plays, where and how is this measured? Should we place more trust in measurements produced by gauges or satellites, and is one more accurate than the other for different subjects? Where else could we expect this water to go (an open question, not a challenge)? Why do you keep expecting to see a uniform global rise considering the basic properties of liquid, and why do you expect to see that rise immediately (geologically speaking)? I think that the expectation of an immediately measurable, uniform global rise in sea level is only plausible in a scenario where there are no other factors than Earth's gravity affecting the distribution of water across its surface. Maybe we're seeing signs of a cycle of sublimation/deposition. |
Maybe some of the answers are here: http://landscapesandcycles.net/groundwater-and-sea-level-rise.html
"In a 2002 paper, what is frequently referred to as “Munk’s enigma”, Scripps Institution of Oceanography’s senior researcher bemoaned the fact researchers could not fully account for the causes of sea level rise. He lamented, “the historic rise started too early, has too linear a trend, and is too large.” Early IPCC analyses noted about 25% of estimated sea level rise was unaccounted for. Accordingly, in 2012, an international team of prominent sea level researchers published, Twentieth-Century Global-Mean Sea Level Rise: Is the Whole Greater than the Sum of the Parts? (henceforth Gregory 2012). They hoped to balance struggling sea level budgets by re-analyzing and adjusting estimates of the contributions from melting glaciers and ice caps, thermal expansion, and the effects of dam building and groundwater extraction. However, a natural contribution from any imbalance in groundwater re-charge vs discharge was never considered. Yet the volume of freshwater stored as groundwater, is second only to Antarctica’s frozen supply, and 3 to 8 times greater than Greenland’s."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doppelganger
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thunderhead
Member
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1519 | TRs | Pics
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | thunderhead wrote: | | Doppelganger wrote: | | Should we place more trust in measurements produced by gauges or satellites |
Gauges. Definitely gauges. |
Why? You got any data to back that up? |
Yes. 1000 to 0.000000. Distance, in nautical miles, between a typical polar orbiter and what it is trying to measure and the distance in nautical miles between a gauge and what it is trying to measure. Duh.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
