"methanogens" are a fairly speculative unknown, compared to the sheer magnitude of organic decay well known. It doesn't even matter because by that process it's still cycling CO2, maybe on a shorter cycle.
Global Climate Status Report
- Thread starter babe
- Start date
"methanogens" are a fairly speculative unknown, compared to the sheer magnitude of organic decay well known. It doesn't even matter because by that process it's still cycling CO2, maybe on a shorter cycle.
I wouldn't fit the "Creationist" profile very well. I think 10K years is just a very small part of the whole story, let alone the typical "God spake" and it happened inside a day or thousand years even. Some people want to believe in the Bible narrative without allowing for metaphorical or symbolic sorts of simplifications which hardly anyone ever had any clear notion about.
Probably holds equally true for evolutionary ideologues today, in terms of actually having an accurate picture.
I think the frozen in place sort of notion is probably not a generality either, but it happens sometimes, maybe some animal freezes in an early storm every year. But for a lot of foliage to grow in the subArctic probably does equate with the sort of climate changes we are experiencing now, and it has likely happened before. We have also had natural causes provide more CO2 to our atmosphere than our current human contributions.
Any real plan for improving our impacts on our climate needs to involve a preference for local production over global transport, and living close to our work, and changes in our transportation and living practices and infrastructure, plus say some nuclear energy done right.
I reject the global fascism and the depopulation "final solutions" as being in fact worse than a genocidal cretin's "final solution".
On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare — Environmental Progress
Climate change is real, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s not even our most important environmental problem.
environmentalprogress.org
Further comments....
Today is June30. Many fairly low valleys reported light frost around the Great Basin. Snow is visible on mountains over 9000 feet, locally demonstrating the sort of anomaly a very strong polar vortex can produce. The northern storm track is stronger here than I've ever seen in my lifetime..
I believe the data still supports a SST about 1K above our experience "normal", but still about 2K below the temps seen in a pre-Ice Age spike, a hort term pattern evidenced in ocean sediments by stuff like seeds and pollen, which can correlate to temps. It is the jpattern of all interglacial warm periods that short-term waves of plus or minus 2K occur. So these kinds of Arctic meltoffs likely occur in every cycle, and maybe six to ten times.
I don't exect a new ice age soon, though I'll feel a bit vindicated if it does. I like rain. The Great Basin becomes a vast land of lakes during Ice Ages. You would need boats rather than trains or cars. And while Salt Lake woud be under ab out 400 feet of water, we can build on the gravels of past shorelines, where mammoth bones are often found.
The glaciers don't really take over here, due to the warm Pacific. The polar vortex settles quite firmly over Hudson Bay, and not Siberia in that weather pattern.
I notice that we have disreputable managers of public information running the webz nowadays. A few months ago, some "mainstream" compliant researchers who had not quite lost their minds yet, reported unexpected outgasing of CO2 over the entire Southern Ocean..... all the way around Antartica. Massive amounts of CO2 coming out of the Ocean waters. They said about twice what could be expected from the warming water from the temperature changes they could access. They said we need to re-think the reality we believe in, because the facts demand another evaluation.
You can't find their article in Google anymore.
In a related story, a long-time progressive activist has today been deplatformed, and his article censored , because he is saying the alarmists are hurting the cause with their dishonesty, with their alarmism. He has a book coming out....."Apocalypse Never". And while I do believe we may be in an apocalyptic time in several respects, I agree with his good sense that cooler heads are needed to deal with the realities.
The Southern Ocean outgassing may be due to a cyclical rise in volcanism, or some other disturbance in Ocean chemistry or currents. The poor true believer scientists are not saying climate change is jfake, they're just saying we need to incorporate some more facts. Maybe adjust our thinking a bit.
I really am concerned about our society in terms of the cycle of perverse poltiical agendas.
The strength of the Polar Vortex is always interdependent with the strength of the southern jet stream. Usually it's either one or the other, rarely both.
What I'm guessing is that with our northern oceans quite generally warmer, we will get a northern track that trends more towards the lower lattitudes say about five degrees off from the usual, which will mean many powerful storms in are mid-California to Virginia latitudes, with more Nor'Easters as well. And more actual snow across southern Canada and the northern tier of States.
The Arctic, which is under conditions we have known in the past few hundred years, is a frozen desert. No, not a frozen dessert. I said "Desert" which means maybe only 4" or water falling from the sky in a year, no more than 8". Under conditions of warmer water everywhere, it will be above that range, unless colder air over land because of something like precesion or solar wind or space "clouds" or geothermal variance on the cooler side or the solar cycle contributes less heat.
So yah, we are on a solar minimum with warm oceans.
Enjoy the snow this winter.
What I'm guessing is that with our northern oceans quite generally warmer, we will get a northern track that trends more towards the lower lattitudes say about five degrees off from the usual, which will mean many powerful storms in are mid-California to Virginia latitudes, with more Nor'Easters as well. And more actual snow across southern Canada and the northern tier of States.
The Arctic, which is under conditions we have known in the past few hundred years, is a frozen desert. No, not a frozen dessert. I said "Desert" which means maybe only 4" or water falling from the sky in a year, no more than 8". Under conditions of warmer water everywhere, it will be above that range, unless colder air over land because of something like precesion or solar wind or space "clouds" or geothermal variance on the cooler side or the solar cycle contributes less heat.
So yah, we are on a solar minimum with warm oceans.
Enjoy the snow this winter.
The BBC is not "science", just as the IPCC is more "political" than "science".
Scientists need to collect data, and do that with accuracy and precisions, minimizing biases of every sort including instrument and any kind of selective screening to achieve an intended result.
I have some serious questions about every sort of motive and measurement we are collecting, but I am glad to have data to throw in the stew for thought.
Nobody has any causitive research on human impacts specific to any event, because events like we are seeing now have also happened before we learned about fire, and our CO2 generation is still small compared to natural cyclical events. We just haven't been collecting data long enough to differentiate this current cycle from other cycles without human contributions.
It is without any question a fact that atmospheric CO2 has a net retentive impact on atmospheric temps. But these charlatan commentators are out of bounds concluding our Siberian excursion today has no other plausible possible cause. We have perhaps as many as five or ten total arctic meltoffs in every interglacial warm period, and it is probable that such events are even necessary to trigger a new ice age.
The little weather gal in the BBC video above cites six basic weather states frequently affecting Britain, saying four of them are Arctic oscillations. I have no reason to question that except to speculate that we will invent more observed patterns and learn to define them by data coincidences and energy transport processes.
But the Arctic Ocean is not very large in terms of surface or volume. It is the first recipient of many rivers that flow mostly during the summer, from watersheds that are frozen most of the year, accumulating ice. If the meltoffs don't happen, and ice is on balance increased from year to year, a lot of water is stored in the Arctic Ice, which for most of our ice age cycles is about 85% of the time. It does require a significant excursion from this "normal" pattern to accomplish a very extensive meltoff.
I don't have the data on Arctic Sea temps on a depth profile handy, but the densest water is 4C water, about 39 degrees F. There is likely a fair depth of water at this temp, and even in a huge meltoff, the surface temp is probably not much above 4C on average. During winter, the surface is likely about -2C where there is any kind of liquid form present, due to the salt melting point depression.
It is also likely that the net effects of Arctic excursions is dominated by water currents. Flows of water from the Arctic Sea into the North Atlantic and the North Pacific, more than air flows from the Arctic. Water carries so much more effect than air.
At the present time, I think the world oceans are about 1C above the normal for the past 100 years. I think it will increase, and possibly reach 4C above normal on the surface and 1C above normal at depth, before we are set for a new Ice Age driven by ocean evaporation and high latitude precipitation.
Clapping seals and guffawing baboons run our media, and know nothing. And our science establishment has bent over real good for the politicians who want to scare us into a new world order endowing them with unlimited power.
I can't say our next Ice Age will start this century, but I think if we care at all about doing something sensible about the world we live in, we should rebuild nuclear power plants safely, and make electricity cheap enough every African village has a refrigerator in every hut.
If we made electricity as cheap as we know we can with nuclear, we could have good electric cars and hybrid systems and save our oil supplies to good effect.
And no, socialism in the hands of fascist cartelists cavorting around the Bangkok and Thai coast hotels is not going to be good for anyone.
But the Arctic Ocean is not very large in terms of surface or volume. It is the first recipient of many rivers that flow mostly during the summer, from watersheds that are frozen most of the year, accumulating ice. If the meltoffs don't happen, and ice is on balance increased from year to year, a lot of water is stored in the Arctic Ice, which for most of our ice age cycles is about 85% of the time. It does require a significant excursion from this "normal" pattern to accomplish a very extensive meltoff.
I don't have the data on Arctic Sea temps on a depth profile handy, but the densest water is 4C water, about 39 degrees F. There is likely a fair depth of water at this temp, and even in a huge meltoff, the surface temp is probably not much above 4C on average. During winter, the surface is likely about -2C where there is any kind of liquid form present, due to the salt melting point depression.
It is also likely that the net effects of Arctic excursions is dominated by water currents. Flows of water from the Arctic Sea into the North Atlantic and the North Pacific, more than air flows from the Arctic. Water carries so much more effect than air.
At the present time, I think the world oceans are about 1C above the normal for the past 100 years. I think it will increase, and possibly reach 4C above normal on the surface and 1C above normal at depth, before we are set for a new Ice Age driven by ocean evaporation and high latitude precipitation.
Clapping seals and guffawing baboons run our media, and know nothing. And our science establishment has bent over real good for the politicians who want to scare us into a new world order endowing them with unlimited power.
I can't say our next Ice Age will start this century, but I think if we care at all about doing something sensible about the world we live in, we should rebuild nuclear power plants safely, and make electricity cheap enough every African village has a refrigerator in every hut.
If we made electricity as cheap as we know we can with nuclear, we could have good electric cars and hybrid systems and save our oil supplies to good effect.
And no, socialism in the hands of fascist cartelists cavorting around the Bangkok and Thai coast hotels is not going to be good for anyone.
Red
Well-Known Member
Red
Well-Known Member
Climate change on track to wipe out polar bears by end of century, study warns
On current trends, the study concluded, polar bears in 12 of 13 subpopulations analyzed will have been decimated within 80 years.
www.cbsnews.com
Such assertions are impossible to make on evidence. They are absolutely unscientific.
So here's a list of the unknowns...... or unknowables...... in our data over the past 30 years and the less reliable information/data of the past 100, and the even less evidenced last 200 years.
We do not know what causes interglacial warms, or the variations characterisristic within those warms, which are of comparable magnitude with our current excursion. Any "Scientist" who does not begin the discussion with this caveat is a blowhard ******* so far as scientific qualifications can go.
The current climate in the research community is more pressured than "Science".
Look, I know you musta be a paid staooge posting political activist ****;, because you so rarely respond in an even thoughtful way to considerations which don't support the political agenda of using climatge alarmism to support political objectives like the fabled virtues of world Fascism.
But I'm willing to look at the data, reserving my skepticism about what it means while accepting actual data.
Like I said above, Artic meltoffs happen, and repeatedly.
Every interglacial warm achieves that several times before the sudden and dramatic return to the more usual temperature regimes of Ice Ages. Our current melfoff is not out of the league with others we have have evidence of. There's a reason the wooly mammoths have been caught unprepared in the Arctic. There was lots of feed there, and it was pretty warm to boot. We don't have that up there yet in this event.
Continuing the checklist........ Part One..... Known Cycles in Nature
(1) Galactic rotation of the Milky Way around some center of clustered galaxies..... Brings us into varying densities of space dust and hydrogen "clouds", and maybe variations in proximate "dark matter" phenomena.
Could cause variations in solar cycles and other less extensive cycles in nature susceptible to impacts of changing space environment...... magnetism, upper atmospheric order, intensification of solar processes(or waning). We have no knowledge of how incoming materical being collected by the Sun may alter radiance or internal nuclear processes.
(2)Milky Way rotation, about 65 Million years....... moving us through nonuniform space resulting in some but likely lesser variations in space context.
(3) Solar system variants in relation to other planets. No astrology here, just recognition of asteroids and other debris we encounter, and the probably slight effects of interplanetary events.
(4) Solar cycles......
The 22 year cycles has had some observational research, but there is little we can now know about longer-term cycles, at present.
Inside our planetary space.....
(5) Atmospheric cyclic variations........fluxes in the qualitative/quantitative character of what's above us. Possibly related to disturbances caused without, or within the various layers being considered. Variations in magnetism both outside the earth space, and from within the earth's core.
(4) Variations in surface and lower atmospheric dynamics...... now being studied with appreciable funding.....but still relatively new and without long term data. We have a short list of "Oscillations" with speculative interrelations now being used to predict "weather".
(5) Variations of internal Earth processes.
A little volcanism can have severe impacts on short term climate, an age of volcanism as we have in geohistory would have as much as a million years or even 50 million years duration. Such an event would take current greenhouse gas contributions from an order of magnitude presently dwarfing human emissions to excursion of and order or two in magnitude greater still. We have no data on worldwide volcanic emissions. A lot of this happens undersea, or under hotspots like the Anarctic. A signal possibly related to shifts in volcanism would include an unexpected, otherwise unexplained, change in oceanic carbon dioxide outgassing (or other gases like SO2)
A recent professional peer reviewed article reported such outgassing and called for some second thoughts about the ability of anthropogenic carbon diosice emissions in relation to recent atmospheric increases. The article has been ignored. Not political useful.
Really.
I mean "Wow". This fact discredits the objectivity of the whole climate change alarmist "established consensus Science"
The obvious first explanation for the increased outgassing is warming oceans. Some scientists have been saying the increased CO2 recently is a lagging indicator of climate change, not a leading one. Climate change perhaps more attributable to heat inputs from the seafloor than from the surface.
We know the Antarctic is a geologic hotspot, with massive heat anomalies coming from the core. Not enough to melt the ice entirely, but forming underice lakes and rivers which help ice flows out to the sea.
We have learned recently, that only half of the heat being provided to the surface of the earth by the core is residual from the molten past. We now know that about 2 billion years ago, there has been an increasing nuclear generation of heat within the core. Nuclear reaction rates are highly dependent on location and concentration of reactive nucleii. We can imagine that at the outset of our planet, there could have been a rather uniform or dispersed state, and that with solidification and the establishment of a gravitational center, we have heavy atoms settling downward....
But the more important reaction now appears to be due to the iron core providing a crystalographic site for deuterium fusion under heat and pressure.