Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostFri Jun 23, 2017 8:14 am 
Quote:
World coal production fell by 6.2% in 2016, the biggest drop ever recorded, according to BP's annual review of energy trends. China's coal production fell by nearly 8%, while US production fell by 19%. Renewable energy production increased by 14%, with China overtaking the US as the world's largest producer of renewable power.
-- Associated Press, as reported in The Week

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostThu Jul 06, 2017 5:11 pm 
Southwest enjoying the hottest June on record, Las Vegas breaks record with 24 days in a row above 105. Freezing levels are currently running high 16000's to 18000'.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostMon Jul 10, 2017 6:27 am 
We may be doomed already largely as a species but likely as a society: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html Steven Hawking said the other day that we may make the earth temperature 250 degrees. He is not a dumb man....

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostMon Jul 10, 2017 7:42 pm 
gb wrote:
Steven Hawking said the other day that we may make the earth temperature 250 degrees. He is not a dumb man....
I have always counterposed Hawking and Dyson. Both are brilliant physicists. Dyson minimizes climate change by denying some of the science as valid (he doesn't deny warming or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas) while Hawking goes well beyond any existing science by saying we could become a Venus case. I suppose you might say that each is in the tail of the probability curve, but they are both well out in that tail, Hawking is maybe further with the Venus talk.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostTue Jul 11, 2017 8:33 am 
I guess what alarmed me in that article is that there is 86 times more effective climate change locked in methane in permafrost than in CO2. I've read a good deal in Skeptical Science and the general line there (supported by research (on CO2) is that the most warming that could occur is around +4.5C. But the report of temperatures (granted weather related - but never happened before) 60-70 degrees above normal at Svalbard is very disturbing.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1511 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostTue Jul 11, 2017 2:00 pm 
Quote:
said the other day that we may make the earth temperature 250 degrees.
Lol. 250 degrees. For every clown on one side saying global warming is a chinese hoax, you have a clown on the other side saying something like this. Sigh.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostTue Jul 11, 2017 3:27 pm 
thunderhead wrote:
Quote:
said the other day that we may make the earth temperature 250 degrees.
Lol. 250 degrees. For every clown on one side saying global warming is a chinese hoax, you have a clown on the other side saying something like this. Sigh.
I'd like to see your math on this subject in as much as you claim to be an "expert" - not some bogus study - your math.......waiting

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostTue Jul 11, 2017 4:02 pm 
A problem is that every time people discuss the possibility of IPCC projections being wrong, it is almost that they are too extreme and that the impacts will be less. But the way probability works, it is equally possible that if they are wrong, that the impacts will be worse than the central projection. That article deals with a lot of those plausible cases where it could be worse (no, not 250 deg, that's Hawking). A lot of what is in that article are regional model forecasts. Any climate scientist will tell you that those regional models are less reliable than the global ones, but less reliable does not mean impossible.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostTue Jul 11, 2017 4:12 pm 
gb wrote:
I guess what alarmed me in that article is that there is 86 times more effective climate change locked in methane in permafrost than in CO2.
And the article didn't even talk about the vast methane frozen deep in the ocean. But these have been studied and while permafrost is melting, the question is how fast deep permafrost can melt. The deepest permafrost cannot melt until the stuff right above it, and the stuff above that. It's kind of like melting the ice in Antacrtica - it melts from the edges in. All research to date indicates that permafrost melts down from the top slowly enough that it's just not going to spike on the time scales discussed. Of course, they could be wrong, it could melt faster. But if we're sticking with the science, we have to go with what the field research is telling us.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1511 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostTue Jul 11, 2017 5:13 pm 
Quote:
your math.......waiting
59 plus a couple(or even a couple dozen) does not equal 250. There. It aint hard. Did you seriously just ask for an explanation about how we are not going to be 250 degrees? Like that was hard and required explaining?

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostSat Jul 15, 2017 6:40 am 
Scientists have determined that the factors that caused the runaway warming on Venus can't happen on earth. This is determined from computer models, so if you trust global warming models, then it probably can't happen here. But if the models are all wrong - then maybe it could happen.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1511 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostSun Jul 16, 2017 3:37 am 
You dont even need a computer model. Venus has an atmosphere some 50 times more massive than ours, including about 100,000 times more co2. To make our atmosphere that thick we would need to vaporize the top 300 meters or so of the entire planet. Now thats an energy level FAR beyond puny little humans and our kardeshev <1 technology. Now im sitting on an airport floor and its the middle of the night so i reserve the right to be off by a little, but if ive done my quick calcs correctly in my head, that would require energy equivelent to about a million years of global human energy use, or about 500 chicxulub impactors. Can we return a good chunk of the previously sequestered carbon to the atmosphere and thus return our temperature levels to mesozoic numbers? Sure. It will take 500 years but that is at least possible. The venusian talk is just silly.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
gb
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 6303 | TRs | Pics
gb
Member
PostSun Jul 16, 2017 4:51 pm 
Where did you come up with 500 years? Some of the biggest changes meteorologically would come from a change in ocean circulation patterns. That has happened in the past but the configuration of land masses was also different. Nobody really knows what we will do to our planet.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostMon Jul 17, 2017 7:22 am 
Venus' atmosphere is totally different from ours, but was it always? I have seen that some believe it once had a vaguely earth-like climate billions of years ago. I would agree that even in the worst case, a runaway greenhouse on earth would take thousands of years to develop. But of course we would be gone long before it even got one quarter the way there.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Joecreek
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 114 | TRs | Pics
Joecreek
Member
PostMon Jul 17, 2017 10:46 am 
I haven't seen this addressed, although it is current. They are saying that the temperature record adjustments from which we make the statement of these being the hottest years on record and that more is coming.... are demonstrably false. Someone said back a bit that probability means that the worst doesn't have to happen for the likelihood of bad to be, well, likely. Except, when you make your probabilities off of a false data set, what does that do to the probability product? Full report: https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf Snip it: "According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk: In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU. As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data. The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming. Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings." Over and over, the argument has been that the data "adjusting" has not been scientific but rather driven to produce a desired outcome. The answer to those claims that the data was being manipulated, "HERETIC!" "DENIER!!".

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday noahk!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

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