What's new
By:

Global Climate Status Report

Red said:
Well, the first thing I think is I ask myself what does @Heathme gain by lying, by misrepresenting what's being said? I'm mean I'm sure you know that nobody ever said "14 months to live". And you know that, I believe. BTW, it was 18 months, not 14. You're cheating me out of 4 precious months! Haha. C'mon. You're entitled to believe what you want, without mistating things simply to satisfy your desire to produce dramatic effect:



Also of interest here is the number of species going extinct as we apparently enter the Earth's 6th major known extinction event. I just doubt that it will include us, as your silly and meaningless statement suggests. But, you do you....

I did see that figure when you posted it earlier, knew it was not 14 months that had been cited, but I ignored it. Now, people can read the correct info above if the choose.

I've been keeping up with other environmental news. One of my biggest concerns is the president of Brazil's goal of clearcutting the entire portion of the Amazon within his borders, which is 80%. Concerned not just for what doing something that insane will do to CO2 levels, but also because of his apparent goal to eradicate every "Stone Age" tribe living in that Amazon. I don't believe he has the right to simply wipe out every single uncontacted tribe in the Amazon.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/amazonian-rainforest-near-unrecoverable-tipping-point

https://newrepublic.com/article/154547/brazil-bigger-threat-either-iran-china

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...onaro-can-t-blind-brazil-s-eyes-on-the-amazon

Since global warming is having its greatest effect in the Arctic latitudes, it is concerning that the Greenland ice sheet is experiencing one of its greatest melt years, as the European heat wave now moves over Greenland:

https://www.livescience.com/66041-heatwave-europe-greenland.html

https://www.ecowatch.com/greenland-record-breaking-melt-heat-wave-2639610009.html

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...oceans-climate-change-arctic-antarctica-study

Not to mention the absolutely unprecedented wildfires raging in the Far North of our home planet:

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEE-gb9tVfobggKdqXp5MX_sqGQgEKhAIACoHCAownqX_CjCltfgCMJm5pAY?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

Finally, something very few Americans have paid any attention to is the damage being done by Andrew Wheeler at the EPA. Here are 10 ways his decisions are/will affect the health of Americans, placing fossil fuel profits above real health issues at every single turn:

https://www.salon.com/2019/07/22/10-ways-andrew-wheeler-has-decimated-epa-protections_partner/

But, back to your claim "14 months to live", I refuse to believe you can possibly be that stupid. You're stating that for dramatic affect. So, not only do you rely on fossil fuel industry-paid science lackeys for your "science", but you twist the actual findings just to create a "clever"(???) misstatement. Beats the hell out of me as to why you feel the need to do that....
Click to expand...


This, on the surface, appears to be serious reporting.

Let me explain, once again, while it is not.

All of your articles are political.

Not scientific.

I don't give a crap about whether we have 14 months, or 18.... or 12 years..... or 1,000..... or merely 200 million years, or 10 billion..... because it's damn certain every figure we can throw out is unsupported by good research. And I absolutely do not want to give any class of politicians the authority or power to control the whole damn world, whatever the scare they can make up.

When there is a huge political movement, however loosely associated, out in the streets crying "wolf", or anything else, you should not just believe it.
 
Red said:
Well, the first thing I think is I ask myself what does @Heathme gain by lying, by misrepresenting what's being said? I'm mean I'm sure you know that nobody ever said "14 months to live". And you know that, I believe. BTW, it was 18 months, not 14. You're cheating me out of 4 precious months! Haha. C'mon. You're entitled to believe what you want, without mistating things simply to satisfy your desire to produce dramatic effect:



Also of interest here is the number of species going extinct as we apparently enter the Earth's 6th major known extinction event. I just doubt that it will include us, as your silly and meaningless statement suggests. But, you do you....

I did see that figure when you posted it earlier, knew it was not 14 months that had been cited, but I ignored it. Now, people can read the correct info above if the choose.

I've been keeping up with other environmental news. One of my biggest concerns is the president of Brazil's goal of clearcutting the entire portion of the Amazon within his borders, which is 80%. Concerned not just for what doing something that insane will do to CO2 levels, but also because of his apparent goal to eradicate every "Stone Age" tribe living in that Amazon. I don't believe he has the right to simply wipe out every single uncontacted tribe in the Amazon.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/amazonian-rainforest-near-unrecoverable-tipping-point

https://newrepublic.com/article/154547/brazil-bigger-threat-either-iran-china

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...onaro-can-t-blind-brazil-s-eyes-on-the-amazon

Since global warming is having its greatest effect in the Arctic latitudes, it is concerning that the Greenland ice sheet is experiencing one of its greatest melt years, as the European heat wave now moves over Greenland:

https://www.livescience.com/66041-heatwave-europe-greenland.html

https://www.ecowatch.com/greenland-record-breaking-melt-heat-wave-2639610009.html

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...oceans-climate-change-arctic-antarctica-study

Not to mention the absolutely unprecedented wildfires raging in the Far North of our home planet:

https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEE-gb9tVfobggKdqXp5MX_sqGQgEKhAIACoHCAownqX_CjCltfgCMJm5pAY?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

Finally, something very few Americans have paid any attention to is the damage being done by Andrew Wheeler at the EPA. Here are 10 ways his decisions are/will affect the health of Americans, placing fossil fuel profits above real health issues at every single turn:

https://www.salon.com/2019/07/22/10-ways-andrew-wheeler-has-decimated-epa-protections_partner/

But, back to your claim "14 months to live", I refuse to believe you can possibly be that stupid. You're stating that for dramatic affect. So, not only do you rely on fossil fuel industry-paid science lackeys for your "science", but you twist the actual findings just to create a "clever"(???) misstatement. Beats the hell out of me as to why you feel the need to do that....
Click to expand...


The heat wave over Greenland has made it to even "conservative" news reporting.

I actually believe people can be infinitely stupid, and that's the one hopeful thing I see in Darwin's theory. But such a smartass hope is the worst kind of stupidity..... thinking we as a society can improve our society by culling the herd, so to speak. Ambrose Bierce, were he alive today, would no doubt have a quotable report on this topic. Maybe it would run like this:

A smart man applied to God for hope, asking God to fix the human race: "Sir, some people are just too stupid."

"What?" God exclaimed. "Humans are all created in My Image, and endowed with all my infinite gifts. What you mean to say, of course, is that you are not thinking right. And you wish me judge others for being like you. May I suggest, dear human, that you do better thinking."

What I think, and believe, is that we can cope with climate change, whatever it is, that is going on. without giving opportunistic honchos absolute political power over our lives or justifying any of the "elite" sanctioned plans for directing human enterprise.
 
So, Red, may I ask you(and others) not to dump a lot of political oriented "news" on this thread. Just actual reports on climate change.
 
So here's my latest "report" on curent climate change information......

A lot of rhetorical stuff about carbon is being pushed for political purposes, while a lot of essential research is not being done, or done too sparsely. I believe we need to do more research, and have the cool head to stay objective. I believe if we decouple the subject from the political movement for global fascism, increased governance, and deliberate meddling with human economics, there is real value in the facts.....

Facts which people could individually act upon to effect the needed changes in our ways.

Stuff like actually recycling plastics, maybe giving grants and/or tax credits, to local "neighborhood" recycling centers. Grant incentives for cities which institute closed-loop recycling practices. By this I mean who don't just gather the stuff and landfill it, but get it to plants which can refine it back to usable resources.

Small units, like what I referred to as the Philippine invention of small autoclaves, can be dangerous to people trying to do this in their homes or backyards. But transport is something that needs to be dealt with efficiently. People gathering waste plastics off the streets is low=grade use of human time and energy. Little units breaking plastics into a gallon of gasoline or other very flammable liquid is just too dangerous. But the idea of subsidizing recycling is just, to me, a very efficient way to change behavior. Needed change.
 
If we actually need to reduce carbon emissions, I have just a few ideas.

Every year, and in multiple cycles, stuff just grows. Weeds. Brush. Grass. Trees. Algae... The oceans are "green" when you actually look close up. All of that stuff is carbon removed from the atmosphere. And almost all of that stuff will become carbon dioxide once again, eventually. They are the "photosynthetic cycle", a considerable fraction of our total cycling carbon. When carbon levels rise, photosynthesis increases.

Yah. @Red Do you know the pot farms are gassing their greenhouses with CO2 to make weed grow faster??? Increased photosynthesis, bro. Maybe pot farms are "greener" than the Amazon. But of course, all that pot is going right back to CO2 pretty quick.

Corn is pretty much the same kind of short-term thing. Wood lasts for years. So, hell yeah... An Amazon Rain Forest is better for us than a corn field, so far as carbon sequestration goes.

Regardless of the merit, or lack of merit, in moving off fossil fuels in a massive, programmed way, I think (believe) we should not just be burning the long-term resources without serious consideration for the effects. The most serious long-term effect of having a fossil fuel economy is that we will run out of the stuff we can reach.... oh... maybe a thousand years from now.... But that is soon enough it should give us all the reason we need to develop alternative energy resources.

The climate can go to hell. It won't last a thousand years on the "warm side". What we really need to consider is what we are all going to do when the next Ice Age comes on.l
 
The worst aspect of global "feudalism" or global "fascism".... Corporate Honchos in the Saddle.... is the denial of human rights..... rights of belief, rights of choice..... humans being pressed into the "herd" and treated like slaves. Politically being rounded up and brought to the meatpacking plants as cheap labor. Politically being rounded up and pressed into service of corporate low-wage moguls. Politically being rounded up and socialized into dependent creatures.

Really.

We should not allow any global cartel or group to ascend to power that is not fundamentally responsible to the ordinary human.... that cannot be voted out of office.... so to speak.

I hope I can persuade the whole JazzFanz Community to turn against supporting that kind of future.
 
So, I dragging information in here, deemed factual by not unquestionable....

Indicators of the climate change issue....

https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level

Since 2000, by this graphic from "the government", but supported by satellite photography and gauges emplaced where data can be collected.... the sea level has risen almost an inch.

Not generally brought into this discussion are some important variables..... The Earth itself is cycling, as is consistent with plate tectonics and geologic history. whole regions of Earth's land surface have been repeated raised and lowered by changing movements of molten material somewhat near the surface. Continents "float" on the liquid core, peeps. Liquid.... molten rock.... with currents that have geologically elevated continents.... and geologically submerged them too. In cycles of tens of millions and hundreds of millions of years.

So, is anybody studying this???? Do we actually have people trying to measure and track this????

uhhhmmm..... NO.

I believe for reason that the East Coast is sinking, while the West Coast is being raised..... Well, for the past 50 million years, at least.

So anybody have a quick figure on how much ice has melted, equivalent to almost and inch in worldwide Ocean depth?

Have we got good data on how much ice has actually melted in this time frame? Do the estimates match.... or do we need to realize more is going on than just CO2???
 
Going over the above link there is a "key points".

Included in their "key points" was their(the experts/gov) assessment that Alaska and the Pacific Northwest landmass is rising..... in agreement with my stated opinion above.... and that some parts of the East Coast and Gulf Coast are indeed "sinking".

So..... hah hah..... it's not LA that is sinking into the Ocean, but New Orleans..... and sinking faster than the Ocean is rising..... (j/k) Sorry.... I know this is serious stuff.....

It's a good read. Please, let's not just do political hype in this thread.... OK? Let's get what facts we can into view on an objective basis, if we can find such facts.
 
reignman40 said:


So good and a classic. Oops! Who let this guy into our echo chamber town hall!
Click to expand...


In fifty years, according the EPA graphic in my link.....The Ocean has risen maybe three inches. The Chesapeake Bay area, geologically, has sunk about that much. The data we have on sea level is mostly emplaced standpipes which eliminate wave action and maintain a smooth surface that can be measured without a lot of variance. Some variance is going to be there every day.... tides.... I trust the measurements are compiled with sun and move data.... position of sun and moon, distance from earth.... ordinary in tide predictions....and barometric pressure and storm locations.... all necessary in dealing with any effort to determine an absolute ocean level.

It is only in the past few years that we have had the satellite measurements that give us an estimate of ocean "sea level" rise and fall .... but even that is subject to variation because of currents and storms and tide.....

Well, the fisherman has about as good an idea, really, as anyone..... no matter how fancy our data. But I don't think he'd know "three inches" or whether it's the land sinking or the ocean rising.

But still, this is a serious issue, and we need to get good data and correlate it according to whatever principles of estimation we can. Estimates of ice masses are probably just as accurate as estimates of ocean absolute levels. Estimates of geologic processes are probably really poor, or rough, in terms of decades of years.
 
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/scienc...e-through-heart-skeptics-argument-ncna1033646

"....a pair of studies published Wednesday provides stark evidence that the rise in global temperatures over the past 150 years has been far more rapid and widespread than any warming period in the past 2,000 years — a finding that undercuts claims that today’s global warming isn’t necessarily the result of human activity.

One of the studies, published in the journal Nature, shows that the Little Ice Age and other natural fluctuations affected only limited regions of the planet at a time, making modern warming the first and only planetwide warm period in the past two millennia. The other study, published in Nature Geoscience, shows that the rate of modern warming has far outpaced changes that occurred before the rise of the industrial era".

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02179-2
 
I intend to keep up the discussion of heat flux from the Earth's core. There are ways we can gather data on that. Deep wells. We can place thermometers at various levels. A good thermodynamic scientist can generate an estimate of temperatures deeper down from standard differential equations, given good temps at different levels, good data of geologic structures, etc. We can actually determine the amount of heat coming up...... and if we keep collecting the data over decades, centuries..... I am sure we will see changes in that heat flux. Then we can start to discuss..... why.

I envision a dynamic core with substantial currents.... hotter areas rising.

The Antarctic Continent, for example, is now believed to be a "hot zone". It is overall quite elevated above the sea level. And it is known to have a high heat flux like Yellowstone..... It does make sense that continental masses in some areas are being raised by the liquid currents conveying hotter liquid rock towards the surface..... but it is thought that it is plate movements that drive most of the elevation changes, with subduction and liquifaction of rock being over-ridden. Thrust or overall movement generates most of the volcanic action around the Pacific, as land masses push over the plates of the sea floor. A lot of carbonate rock is also "de-gassed", the CO2 being released by the heat. So far I've seen no figure on how much CO2 is being released geologically/volcanically....or likewise SO2 being released. We have a few very famous explosions in recent history, a lot geologic calderas.... but the Yelllowstone area is one the giants. hundreds of times Mt. St. Helens.......

The reason for hotter areas in the core mass is nuclear fission. Very heavy elements will be denser, in terms of specific gravity.... and will sink within the core. I don't know why nobody ever considers this..... heavy elements include Uranium and Thorium..... fissionable and very much influenced by concentration. So deeper down their concentrations increase over time as more settles..... this will be a very long cycle even in geologic time scales.... and as rates of decay exponentially increase, significant heat is released, and hotter plumes of rock will rise....sometimes reaching the surface.... like Antarctica, and the Pacific Northwest.

And, as elevation of affected landmasses increase..... more snowfall.....

It is my belief that even catastrophic global warming won't melt the high elevation ice. Rather, warmer oceans and air will convey exponentially greater amounts of moisture over the Arctic and Antartic highlands, and ice mass will actually increase....over those highland cold areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top