What's new
By:
Filters

Global Climate Status Report

So, the El Nino died down already, well as usual. We have a sort of "Four Corners High" that gave us a mudslide near Salt Lake City..... but it is more of "Panhandle High" centered in north Texas this year. Still it is pumping some Gulf moisture up towards Utah. The East Pacific has had a lot tropical storms, but they have all gone out by Hawaii before moving north. Still we have had some rain come all the way here from them.

Overall, the SST reports still show above average temps on the broad scale.
 
Heathme said:
So dumb...

Wouldn't eating less meat mean more cows, which means more cow farts??

Click to expand...


Actually, it's even dumber than that.

If grass dries or rots, it's emitting methane and other greenhouse gases that are more powerful in their effects than CO2. Within a year or two, the grass is mostly gone. A little humus remains in the soil.

When cows eat grass, they respire and emit CO2, mostly. Yes, some farts. A lot of Carbon is incorporated into tissues as carbohydrate, and the turnover rate is longer, two or three years. The cow is then slaughtered and frozen, eventually butchered or processed. It's a long net cycle.

It means the more cows we have, the less greenhouse gases. Really.

Cows may be termed Trees on the Hoof. Biomass in general, of every kind, is like that. Increasing the earth's biomass counters combustion. Increases in plant growth, in net photosynthesis, counters combustion.
 
Last edited:
So, I've been going over recent reports on SSTs and such. oh the warmists are out in all our agencies this year. The oceans are alimost 1 degree warmer than 140 years ago, world wide.

I started this thread with the notion that maybe there is another reason Oceans may be getting warmer, rather than just storage of sun radiation.... looking for information on trends or changes in temp data taken from deep wells.... trying to see if there is a trend....

I've been looking for information on heat flux from within the earth.

some great stuff about "hot spots" and regions with higher thermal flux associated with plate tectonics.

today I found some new---to me--- information on our oceanic thermoclines studied along with "haloclines" and mixing currents. The idea there is that our models are messed up because we don't have data on the deep oceans, and there is evidence for decadal cycles in mixing currents.... where surface heat is carried to the deeps and SSTs "inexplicably" decline even in the face of higher solar cycles.

stuff supports my general resistance to enthusiastic fear mongering. There are big issues we know little about. Not time yet to give our destiny to Al Gore and his corrupt cronies.... who will likely prove as morally despicable as any of our political honchos.

.
 
Last edited:
So it is looking like we will have the more usual persistent low over the ocean offshore the Pacific Northwest, and a generally more northerly storm track this winter, which can leave the Southwest in drought conditions. Also no tropical storms will move north over the Southwest this summer. It looks to me like we will have a deep low over the Hudson Bay as well, meaning warmer weather in the West and some impressive blizzards on the upper plains.....

This year, the annual rainfall, with little snowfall at my elevation, was about 20% above the 50 year average, but just "average" for my ten year history. I could get a spell of deep Arctic cold in January, but I estimate it less than 40% probability. I'll have time to work in the winter sun.
 
babe said:
What I see in the Google-Approved fare is some stuff about methane in the Arctic ice. I've seen articles about that in the past. At cold temperatures, methane will actually form a distinct crystalline structure with associated water molecules..... hydrogen bonding to the oxygen atom in the water molecule. Scientists are measuring and calculating how much methane there is in that area which is being or will be released into the atmosphere.

The Arctic Sea is a former rain forest area in the geologic epochs of carboniferous ages before we had polar ice. Continent have in geologic time experience changes in elevation that practically mean some sea areas we have now were once above sea level. Here in Utah we have two great geologic areas, east and west of the deep fault feature that runs from the Sea of Cortex between Baja California all the way up into Canada somewhere, which have alternately risen and fallen in manner that has left vast salt deposits from sea water repeatedly trapped inland and left to evaporate in desert climate.

Under the vast Siberian and North American permafrost zones, a lot of organic matter is decomposing, releasing methane, which is entrapped under ice and even stored in large quantities of clathrate type crystals. Good if we could utilize it instead of just let it go into the atmosphere.... but pretty impossible in terms of quantity and extent.

CH4 decomposes in sunlight and oxygen atmospheres, with a believed chemical mechanism that puts OH- ions in the seat as rate limiting. OH- is generated from water in the air by uv light reactions. The net result is we have methane being our second in importance greenhouse gas, and part of various cycles which affect our atmospheric temp and composition.

The issue is a lot bigger than just surface ice melting.....
Click to expand...
Methane is over 100 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2. And when it degrades, a big part of what’s produced is................. CO2.
 
Zombie said:
I think he believes we get our beef from wild roaming herds of cattle that we cull for their meat.

It's the only way that makes sense.
Click to expand...

We’ve gone way beyond normal stupid into twilight zone heathme dumb land.
 
Heathme said:
Nope. Making fun of the ridiculous New Green Deal.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you need to try harder or if you're trying too hard.

I mean nothings working right now so just go in one direction or the other and we'll see if your humor starts getting better or worse.
 
NAOS said:
Methane is over 100 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2. And when it degrades, a big part of what’s produced is................. CO2.
Click to expand...

I don't know where the figure comes from.... the 100X.... but yes, I know it's more powerful. It's turnover rate is also a lot faster, and yes.... it goes towards CO2 and H2O.

The quantities being estimated under Arctic Ice, or part of the ice, are huge, numerically. But I think not more than an order in magnitude....10X....the normal methane being generated from other sources worldwide. And, it's a one-time event, of a sort, that will deplete itself over, say one or two decades, if the ice is all gone.

So, for example, in California, with winter rains, there's a lot of grass north of Bakersfield and Santa Maria all the way to the Delta areas, and some up towards Redding as well. This grass always dries out by June or so, and is a fire hazard until the winter rains come again.

In drying out, a lot of methane is also being released. When the rains come, and the grass decays more, more methane is released. As the humus remains on or in the soil, the release of methane continues.

My point above is that if we let cows eat it, the cow farts are actually less than what would have been released from the decaying grass. Same with every other life form that lives off the grass. Sure, the CO2 taken in by photosynthesis will almost all eventually be returned to the atmosphere.... but the more use we make of the grass, the larger the amount of C stored in the cycle in a "non-CO2" form. The Arctic methane, really is one other reservoir of storage that has kept some CO2 outta circulation for a while.

The second area of caution, I believe, against extrapolating some factor or another to claim a permanent effect or tipping point effect, is the size of CO2 cycle and the size of the sequestration pools, some of while are practically irreversible. Deposits of carbonates under semi-tropical seas, for example. Acid rain releases carbonate of Mg and Ca, but CO2 absorbs proportionally into the ocean as well, and most of that Mg and Ca released is re-deposited in carbonate minerals, and that amount of CO2 is for practical considerations permanently taken out of our air. Well, so carbonate rock to carbonate rock is just a relocation of the stuff, but with the rains there is also some chloride leach from our soils, and a larger amount of carbonate rock being created. Lots of MgCl2 extra in our oceans... some is being consumed by deposition as dolomite or magnesite continuously. The only ways we get that C back into circulation is from continental plate action, subduction, and subsequent volcanism. yah, and in collecting sea shells and burying them in landfills, maybe.

So, the science that calculates combustion and predicts increases in CO2 needs to figure on some being permanently settled in rock. I think the issue is, really, whether we want a petroleum economy to use up all our petroleum already. We might need some later. Like during the next ice age. I say the obvious answer is no. We need to move on to sustainable economies....

I am enthusiastic about the amount of research being done now, much more than ever before. I think we will begin to get good quantitative measures of various cycles, and make better estimates of how we are going to be affected.
 
babe said:
I don't know where the figure comes from.... the 100X.... but yes, I know it's more powerful. It's turnover rate is also a lot faster, and yes.... it goes towards CO2 and H2O.

The quantities being estimated under Arctic Ice, or part of the ice, are huge, numerically. But I think not more than an order in magnitude....10X....the normal methane being generated from other sources worldwide. And, it's a one-time event, of a sort, that will deplete itself over, say one or two decades, if the ice is all gone.

So, for example, in California, with winter rains, there's a lot of grass north of Bakersfield and Santa Maria all the way to the Delta areas, and some up towards Redding as well. This grass always dries out by June or so, and is a fire hazard until the winter rains come again.

In drying out, a lot of methane is also being released. When the rains come, and the grass decays more, more methane is released. As the humus remains on or in the soil, the release of methane continues.

My point above is that if we let cows eat it, the cow farts are actually less than what would have been released from the decaying grass. Same with every other life form that lives off the grass. Sure, the CO2 taken in by photosynthesis will almost all eventually be returned to the atmosphere.... but the more use we make of the grass, the larger the amount of C stored in the cycle in a "non-CO2" form. The Arctic methane, really is one other reservoir of storage that has kept some CO2 outta circulation for a while.

The second area of caution, I believe, against extrapolating some factor or another to claim a permanent effect or tipping point effect, is the size of CO2 cycle and the size of the sequestration pools, some of while are practically irreversible. Deposits of carbonates under semi-tropical seas, for example. Acid rain releases carbonate of Mg and Ca, but CO2 absorbs proportionally into the ocean as well, and most of that Mg and Ca released is re-deposited in carbonate minerals, and that amount of CO2 is for practical considerations permanently taken out of our air. Well, so carbonate rock to carbonate rock is just a relocation of the stuff, but with the rains there is also some chloride leach from our soils, and a larger amount of carbonate rock being created. Lots of MgCl2 extra in our oceans... some is being consumed by deposition as dolomite or magnesite continuously. The only ways we get that C back into circulation is from continental plate action, subduction, and subsequent volcanism. yah, and in collecting sea shells and burying them in landfills, maybe.

So, the science that calculates combustion and predicts increases in CO2 needs to figure on some being permanently settled in rock. I think the issue is, really, whether we want a petroleum economy to use up all our petroleum already. We might need some later. Like during the next ice age. I say the obvious answer is no. We need to move on to sustainable economies....

I am enthusiastic about the amount of research being done now, much more than ever before. I think we will begin to get good quantitative measures of various cycles, and make better estimates of how we are going to be affected.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I’m missing some layers of babe magic in this post, but I’m sure you know that the natural forms of carbon sequestration that you’ve sketched here operate on incredibly long timescales. Too long to be of actual mathematical value with respect to the problems we are facing. Same goes for the argument about the (potentially) upcoming Grand Solar Minimum: we are blowing way beyond whatever offset that affects; and it isn’t even close.

Also, the gigatons of methane below the arctic permafrost are several dozen times the total gigatons of methane currently in the atmosphere. The grass metaphor is totally inadequate. If the permafrost lid on all of this blows, then the atmosphere will be officially remade into something else (hot as ****) for at least a decade while the methane degrades. And after that, we’re certain to be facing a global climate that has warmed by more than an average 4 degrees C relative to the year 1900. The models that predict what that planet looks like, with respect to the needs of human habitation, are bleak.

This is all dire. Anybody who is planning their future without doing this research is practicing some version of Climate Change Denial.
 
NAOS said:
Perhaps I’m missing some layers of babe magic in this post, but I’m sure you know that the natural forms of carbon sequestration that you’ve sketched here operate on incredibly long timescales. Too long to be of actual mathematical value with respect to the problems we are facing. Same goes for the argument about the (potentially) upcoming Grand Solar Minimum: we are blowing way beyond whatever offset that affects; and it isn’t even close.

Also, the gigatons of methane below the arctic permafrost are several dozen times the total gigatons of methane currently in the atmosphere. The grass metaphor is totally inadequate. If the permafrost lid on all of this blows, then the atmosphere will be officially remade into something else (hot as ****) for at least a decade while the methane degrades. And after that, we’re certain to be facing a global climate that has warmed by more than an average 4 degrees C relative to the year 1900. The models that predict what that planet looks like, with respect to the needs of human habitation, are bleak.

This is all dire. Anybody who is planning their future without doing this research is practicing some version of Climate Change Denial.
Click to expand...

I think I just question the scales here a bit. I think the official warmites exaggerate a bit. But several dozen times is within an order of magnitude of ten times. My idea of rate of degradation is probably almost an order of magnitude greater than the one the warmites prefer.

But OK.. Let's give it all to the warmites and they get their doomsday scenario. But the ball keeps on bouncin', I say.

And here is what I think is possible. Warm cycles which reach the "no polar ice" point lose one of the major balances against warming oceans, the annual (well biannual) ice melt from the poles. cold water that goes to the deeps of the deep blue sea, keeping the thermoclines pretty steep and the 4C water pretty deep. But 4C water on the bottoms is not in equilibrium with the earths heat flux. The nominal rock temps a few hundred feet beneath the ocean floor, at an average "elevatiion" of about -6000 feet below sea level are at, by my own estimates after looking at deep well temp data.... around 120 F or 50C. This means that without the cold water inflows, the deep sea ocean will go into a steep run up the temp scales..... now, for sure, there is a lot of water to be warmed..... but the SSTs will respond with a rise as well.

At the moment, the global scientists are saying average SSTs globally are approaching nearly 1C above 140 years ago. This is huge, really. Climate changing. If everything goes hard in the ways the warmites are saying, the SST will be going right on up with the air temps, plus.... plus, when the ice melt volumes fail because of no ice..... the warming of the deep will add in.

Then, according to my estimation of things..... and the fact that I found interesting 40 years ago when scientists were reporting a steep temp rise preceding each ice age, from pollen count in ocean drilling cores...... . Now such an anomaly needs some thinking. Counter-intuitive maybe. Maybe not.

Warm oceans are what start the rapid onset of an ice age. Evaporation rates, like all chemical reaction rates, positively exponential. 15C doubles the rate. And warmer air enables more efficient transport to the polar regions.... and synergistically redoubles the effect of warm oceans. So the ice returns.... As has been the case for several ice age/warm interglacial cycles already. Well, prior to the past ages, recent in geological time.... there were no ice ages because of the CO2 levels being just too high to begin with. It took the Carboniferous geological epoch to sequester enough C to bring the primordial CO2 atmosphere to what we have now. With enough oxygen for new kinds of life.

So hell yeah.... we've got a helluva ride in front of us. The coming solar minimum would be just icing on the ball, so to speak, in favor of this prospect.

So anyway.... sociologically and politically.... we really don't want to give ourselves into the hands of the schmucks who've been running the earth any more than we have to, short term.

We are probably social creatures who will somehow choose to use collective strategies for our economics and politics anyway, we just don't want the fascists we have now being empowered in this critical time to make more of a mess of us than we can help.
 
babe said:
I think I just question the scales here a bit. I think the official warmites exaggerate a bit. But several dozen times is within an order of magnitude of ten times. My idea of rate of degradation is probably almost an order of magnitude greater than the one the warmites prefer.

But OK.. Let's give it all to the warmites and they get their doomsday scenario. But the ball keeps on bouncin', I say.

And here is what I think is possible. Warm cycles which reach the "no polar ice" point lose one of the major balances against warming oceans, the annual (well biannual) ice melt from the poles. cold water that goes to the deeps of the deep blue sea, keeping the thermoclines pretty steep and the 4C water pretty deep. But 4C water on the bottoms is not in equilibrium with the earths heat flux. The nominal rock temps a few hundred feet beneath the ocean floor, at an average "elevatiion" of about -6000 feet below sea level are at, by my own estimates after looking at deep well temp data.... around 120 F or 50C. This means that without the cold water inflows, the deep sea ocean will go into a steep run up the temp scales..... now, for sure, there is a lot of water to be warmed..... but the SSTs will respond with a rise as well.

At the moment, the global scientists are saying average SSTs globally are approaching nearly 1C above 140 years ago. This is huge, really. Climate changing. If everything goes hard in the ways the warmites are saying, the SST will be going right on up with the air temps, plus.... plus, when the ice melt volumes fail because of no ice..... the warming of the deep will add in.

Then, according to my estimation of things..... and the fact that I found interesting 40 years ago when scientists were reporting a steep temp rise preceding each ice age, from pollen count in ocean drilling cores...... . Now such an anomaly needs some thinking. Counter-intuitive maybe. Maybe not.

Warm oceans are what start the rapid onset of an ice age. Evaporation rates, like all chemical reaction rates, positively exponential. 15C doubles the rate. And warmer air enables more efficient transport to the polar regions.... and synergistically redoubles the effect of warm oceans. So the ice returns.... As has been the case for several ice age/warm interglacial cycles already. Well, prior to the past ages, recent in geological time.... there were no ice ages because of the CO2 levels being just too high to begin with. It took the Carboniferous geological epoch to sequester enough C to bring the primordial CO2 atmosphere to what we have now. With enough oxygen for new kinds of life.

So hell yeah.... we've got a helluva ride in front of us. The coming solar minimum would be just icing on the ball, so to speak, in favor of this prospect.

So anyway.... sociologically and politically.... we really don't want to give ourselves into the hands of the schmucks who've been running the earth any more than we have to, short term.

We are probably social creatures who will somehow choose to use collective strategies for our economics and politics anyway, we just don't want the fascists we have now being empowered in this critical time to make more of a mess of us than we can help.
Click to expand...
What’s the ball that keeps on bouncing? Life on Earth? Human civilization as we’ve come to know it in the past 300 years? Human existence?

It’s very problematic to compare the warming event that we’re producing right now with previous warming events in Earth’s history.

It’s clear to me that you want to believe a certain narrative on what is transpiring. Of course, you’re trying to apply that same critique to anyone who is broadcasting “doomsday scenarios”; but that critique isn’t going so well for you, as far as I can tell.
 
Eminence said:
Where should I move NAOS :)

What are the odds New Zealand winds up underwater?
Click to expand...
You should definitely have a pretty good emergency food storage.

I’m not a prepper, but those folks are looking less crazy by the week.
 
NAOS said:
What’s the ball that keeps on bouncing? Life on Earth? Human civilization as we’ve come to know it in the past 300 years? Human existence?

It’s very problematic to compare the warming event that we’re producing right now with previous warming events in Earth’s history.

It’s clear to me that you want to believe a certain narrative on what is transpiring. Of course, you’re trying to apply that same critique to anyone who is broadcasting “doomsday scenarios”; but that critique isn’t going so well for you, as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

None of these are the "ball that keeps on bouncin'" in my reference. The natural world and the mega-systems that exist in geology and surface enegy cycles. natural systems that have been on-going for millions of years, and will keep on going. Whether we can burn enough of the stored hydrocarbons or not. Whether all oil is photosynthetic or not.

Actually, I think some of our oil resources are abiotic, that some thousands of feet beneath our geologic carboniferous or sedimentary layers since Pre-Cambrian time, there has been some hydrocarbon entrapped since the ball coalesced in the first place. While 90% plus of the material in space is hydrogen even now, the most frequent carbon compounds will be hydrocarbon in the first place.

I know a lot of scientists see our anthropogenic carbon dioxide as extra-cyclical, and consider it disruptive of the whole natural system. We would be indulging in quibbling over orders of magnitude to argue it., without enough information I would consider reliable.

What the warmist are conveniently discounting is ocean heat beneath the surface. The satellites are recording the SSTs and we are getting better data, which is still compared to less convincing data of a hundred years or 140 years ago, during a little "cold spell" so to speak, a probable convenient low point, to create a nearly 1 C comparative plus in todays temps. That is just dishonest science to begin with. But let's go with it anyway. 1C is huge in terms of climate, in terms of ocean evaporation rates, in terms of changed precipitation quantities and patterns, in terms of hurricane strengths..... I think we don't need to quibble about that.

I'm trying to find any kind of data on changing temps in deep wells, or in volcanic activity changes, or in plate tectonic changes.... which I think relates to something more powerful than human activity.... cycles within the earth itself. I think we may be coming into a volcanic age, an age of increased release of heat from our nuclear engines in the core.

I think climate change is definitely going on. I don't know that we can change what we do to make a difference. I don't think we should be doing fossil fuel burnoff as our core economic system in the first place. Let's just move on.

But lets no give ourselves into the hands of our current elite fascists, OK?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top