Tango01 | 14 Feb 2018 3:31 p.m. PST |
,,,Talk About Geoengineering. "Planet Earth is humankind's biggest experiment. From the moment we figured out how to use fire and alter the land through farming, humanity turned the planet into an immense, long-term experiment of what happens when we tinker with the types and quantities of gases in the atmosphere. Recent advances in technology, along with the sheer number of humans alive today, sped up this experiment, and the initial results indicate that our impact may not be a positive one. Studies suggest it's unlikely that humanity will be able to keep Earth's average temperature from rising less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial temperatures, the oft-cited "tipping point" beyond which humanity cannot return. If that happens, the planet will be plagued by massive droughts, more frequent extreme weather, and catastrophic sea level rise; humans populations will likely suffer due to widespread disease and increased famine…# Main page link Amicalement Armand |
ZULUPAUL | 14 Feb 2018 4:17 p.m. PST |
|
Cacique Caribe | 14 Feb 2018 5:43 p.m. PST |
|
Mithmee | 14 Feb 2018 6:16 p.m. PST |
The Climate has always been changing and has been for millions and millions of years. You want to gets some race cooling down well just slam a five mile wide meteor into the planet. But be aware that this has been done several times before and the results will not be petty. Or You can take a wait and see what really happens in the next 50-100 years, which will not be any different than what has been happening over the past 50-100 years. |
Jlundberg | 14 Feb 2018 6:19 p.m. PST |
Man has never had a case where the consequences were unintended. No scientific theory has ever been revised. |
Charlie 12 | 14 Feb 2018 7:52 p.m. PST |
You can take a wait and see what really happens in the next 50-100 years, which will not be any different than what has been happening over the past 50-100 years. Have any science to back that assertion? Of course you don't…. |
mandt2 | 14 Feb 2018 9:20 p.m. PST |
The Climate has always been changing and has been for millions and millions of years. Yes, it indeed has. But nothing like we have seen in the last 100 years: link Yes, the earth's climate has been hotter, millions of years ago, than it is now. But from about 10,000 years ago until about 100 years ago, earths temps became uniquely constant:
Chart from link You can take a wait and see what really happens in the next 50-100 years, which will not be any different than what has been happening over the past 50-100 years. Funny you should put it this way. If in fact temps did rise over the next 50-100 years like it did over the past 50-100 years we would be in seriously deep doodoo. |
Cacique Caribe | 14 Feb 2018 9:23 p.m. PST |
Would a nuclear winter help? :) Dan |
striker8 | 14 Feb 2018 10:53 p.m. PST |
And here I just read "new ice age coming" reports due to solar minimums being more minimum and extensive than predicted. Go figure! |
StoneMtnMinis | 15 Feb 2018 9:25 a.m. PST |
|
Cacique Caribe | 15 Feb 2018 9:32 a.m. PST |
Don't worry. Everything will be fixed when the giant weather stations start up, and we are brought back to the Ice Age. "By 2045, humans have built weather machines to control the warming climate due to climate change and global warming. The machines break down when one day it begins to snow and doesn't stop." link Dan
|
ZULUPAUL | 15 Feb 2018 11:12 a.m. PST |
|
Mithmee | 15 Feb 2018 2:25 p.m. PST |
Have any science to back that assertion? Of course you don't… Well either do you, plus you are still focusing only on a very short period of time. Yes, it indeed has. But nothing like we have seen in the last 100 years: Really! I would bet this planet saw a huge impact on it climate when that comet/meteor hit way back when. Oh and that lasted for a very long time. Plus why are you worrying what happens in 50-100 years from now. Both you and I will not be here and it will not end up killing the planet. That will happen in a few billion years when the Sun decides to expand. |
Charlie 12 | 15 Feb 2018 7:45 p.m. PST |
Plus why are you worrying what happens in 50-100 years from now. Because I'm not a nihilist. Both you and I will not be here and it will not end up killing the planet. And, since you've yet to provide ANY substantive evidence to back ANY of your assertions, I should give this any credence? Not likely… |
Mithmee | 15 Feb 2018 8:56 p.m. PST |
Well either have you other than questionable data from groups/individuals who have been prove wrong time and again. You say it is happening and I say it not and will not. Gore stated that all of the Ice Caps would be melted by now. YouTube link They haven't. Pushing Agendas with computer model data that are design to push only your Agenda/Belief is not Science. |
ScottWashburn | 16 Feb 2018 12:58 p.m. PST |
My philosophy towards climate change has not changed. It doesn't MATTER if it's really happening or not. We should ACT as if it is. Weaning ourselves off fossil fuels makes so much sense for so many reasons we'd be crazy not to. I mean honestly, BURNING things for energy? Two million year old technology? We can do better than that! |
Charlie 12 | 16 Feb 2018 3:19 p.m. PST |
Gore stated that all of the Ice Caps would be melted by now. As usual, you got it WRONG. Here's Gore's EXACT statement (from 2009): "Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years," Not that they'd be all gone. Not that is an absolute. In fact, not anyway close to what you stated. They haven't. No they haven't. But they are shrinking. And at an accelerated rate. link Pushing Agendas with computer model data that are design to push only your Agenda/Belief is not Science. Once again, back to your favorite conspiracy rant. And if this isn't science (based on many, many observations, studies, etc), I'd like to know what is. I'd also like to see YOUR evidence for the contrary. You've been asked before. And you've never presented a shred of evidence. |
Charlie 12 | 16 Feb 2018 3:20 p.m. PST |
|
Mithmee | 16 Feb 2018 6:31 p.m. PST |
No they haven't. But they are shrinking. Yes they do and then they grow again, which they have been doing for millions of years. So a short span of 15-20 years is nothing. When you can provide me the "Complete Data" on the size of the Ice Caps from 2000 BC to now then we talk. Oh and not some computer model data or made up data. I want the complete and "Actual" data for every day of that timeframe. It is only 1,467,243 Days worth of data should be easy to get if you had a time machine. But since you don't you can't provide it because it does not exist. |
Charlie 12 | 17 Feb 2018 4:11 p.m. PST |
The data is there (ice cores going back 10000+ years, for example). But its useless to post links since you'll neither read them nor accept the science. So why bother. Instead I'll just ask the obvious question: Where's the science to support YOUR position? Still waiting on that…. |
Cacique Caribe | 17 Feb 2018 5:15 p.m. PST |
Better find the right spell … or you'll make it worse. Dan
|
Charlie 12 | 17 Feb 2018 5:47 p.m. PST |
Thank you, Dan. More white noise from the cheap seats…. |
Private Matter | 18 Feb 2018 6:37 a.m. PST |
+2 ScottWashburn. Anyone who thinks it makes perfectly good sense to rely on power sources that even they agree are eventually going to run has got to see the fallacy of their logic. When it comes to resources, energy and the environment in general why not play it safe and be cautious. I for one want my grandkids have a better planet when they have grandkids, |
Mithmee | 19 Feb 2018 1:17 p.m. PST |
The data is there (ice cores going back 10000+ years, for example). But its useless to post links since you'll neither read them nor accept the science. See there you go again. I want to know what was the size of the Ice Caps and no ice core sample is going to do that. Oh and no we do not have ice cores that were taken back in the 8000 BC time frame because there was no one around to take them. What you have are Ice Cores that cover from different areas that where taken in the past 50 or so years. Sure they will tell you somethings but the one thing that they will not tell in the size on the Ice Caps. You want to use what in this planet life span amounts to nano second of time. So taking data from basically 50-150 years and making decisions on what is going to happen in the future. Well Al Gore and his so call experts did that nearly a decade ago and they have been proven wrong. Now we are coming up on a Solar Minimum in around 25-35 years. What the impact will be well only time will tell. But mankind has gone through several long term cold spells and the planet has been warmer before. But to the reporters and experts everything that we are seeing today is a record when it not. |
Martin From Canada | 19 Feb 2018 2:08 p.m. PST |
Sure they will tell you somethings but the one thing that they will not tell in the size on the Ice Caps. Are you aware of the field of geomorphology? I want to know what was the size of the Ice Caps and no ice core sample is going to do that. That's true, but there's this little thing called a terminal moraine . It does a great job of showing the maximal extent of a glacier. Add to that different forms of paleodating (i.e. C14 and other radioisotopes) and competent scientist can get a very good idea of when a certain terminal moraine was deposited. Furthermore, by it's very nature (being at furthest advance), when glaciers retreat, we get successive signposts saying "I was no further than this point in year x". Oh and no we do not have ice cores that were taken back in the 8000 BC time frame because there was no one around to take them. Actually, the oldest ice cores date to ~800ky, and as I've explained patiently many times before, we're looking at ancients temperatures indirectly, mostly by examining the 016/018 ratios and while we're at it, it's easy enough to look for the level of CO2 trapped in the ice. (Since Co2 is considered a well mixed gas, the global variation is usually less than 5ppm). What you have are Ice Cores that cover from different areas that where taken in the past 50 or so years. See above.
Well Al Gore and his so call experts did that nearly a decade ago and they have been proven wrong. Let's see the quotes in context. For the record, most of those are for implausible worst case scenarios.
Now we are coming up on a Solar Minimum in around 25-35 years. What the impact will be well only time will tell. We can do more than educated guesses. The extra CO2 in the atmosphere will more than compensate for the lack of radiation. But mankind has gone through several long term cold spells and the planet has been warmer before. Anybody denying that? Can you name one climate scientist that denies that the Cretaceous was warmer than our current times? But I should point out that we don't have the same flora and fauna anymore, and that this suite of flora and fauna evolved for a temperate climate. This may come as a shock to you, but most staple crops world wide evolved in temperate environments – not subtropical or tropical. Wheat, Corn, Rice are already seeing heat-stress based stunting. This isn't a problem that will go away overnight…
But to the reporters and experts everything that we are seeing today is a record when it not. When talking about climate records, it's always compared to other RECORDED temperatures. In most cases, that's less than 150 years. Outside of the wingnutosphere, I don't see anybody think that the records we're breaking are all-time records according the the history of the planet. |
Charlie 12 | 19 Feb 2018 4:23 p.m. PST |
Actually, the oldest ice cores date to ~800ky, Martin- We have a new record holder. A core pulled last year from the Allan Hills area of Antarctica goes back 2.7 million years. link Quite an accomplishment. |
Charlie 12 | 19 Feb 2018 6:33 p.m. PST |
Well Al Gore and his so call experts did that nearly a decade ago and they have been proven wrong. Actually you misquoted Gore (better to serve YOUR agenda). |
Martin From Canada | 19 Feb 2018 7:23 p.m. PST |
Thanks Charlie 12, I wans't aware about that one. |
Mithmee | 19 Feb 2018 8:41 p.m. PST |
Are you aware of the field of geomorphology? Well if we were talking about land formations that might be insightful. But we not, we are talking about Ice Caps and their sizes over the past 10000 years. Oh and back in 2014 the Ice Cap for the Antarctic actually was larger than normal. link So much for Gore stating that they would melt. The one thing that we do know that they will increase and decrease in size depending on certain events that happen here on our planet. Yes it has since 2014 lost Ice but I would wager that has happen in the past as well. Which is why I want the Daily size for the last 10,000 years. Once you guys can provide that, we can then discuss what the impacts were over those 10,000 years. |
Martin From Canada | 19 Feb 2018 9:46 p.m. PST |
Oh and back in 2014 the Ice Cap for the Antarctic actually was larger than normal. While this might be counter-intuitive to some, the presence of terrestrial melt-water (AKA melting ice mass on the Antarctic continent) will show up as extra sea ice in the sea surrounding Antarctica, since fresh water "floats" on saltwater and freezes at a higher temperature than saltwater, and hasn't had the chance to fully mix with the surrounding area. Well if we were talking about land formations that might be insightful. Half of my intro to geomophology was learning about glacial processes… But we not, we are talking about Ice Caps and their sizes over the past 10000 years. which are recorded in terminal moraines. They exist as signposts saying "I advanced no further than this point in year x" This is from 2004, but it's still relevant: PDF link So much for Gore stating that they would melt. You are aware that the Arctic and the Antarctic are bound by completely different processes, namely the arctic is more or less completely floating and the antarctic isn't. Which is why I want the Daily size for the last 10,000 years. For the floating sea ice, you can get a pretty good picture using sediment cores. You might not get day by day recordings, but it's definitely going to be possible to see if different varves were exposed or not. A fairly robust spatial set and some basic statistical interpolation techniques should get you a pretty good image of where there was ice in the past. Which is why I want the Daily size for the last 10,000 years.Once you guys can provide that, we can then discuss what the impacts were over those 10,000 years. Is it hard work continuously moving goal posts? |