Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Climate change and global warming 2020

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    I suggest you read more of the internet then - the argument that it's all about funding is pretty prevalent.

    I wasn't aware that scientists attempted to amass political power through alarmism. Maybe you can provide examples?
    I suggest you read a LOT more political analysis. You're mistaking the horse for the rider - in both cases.


    Evidence by source:

    EG: IPCC, Greenpeace, UN, EU, et al (lesser degree: NASA, NOAA)

    Specific: EU demands for greater sovereignty, Greta Thunberg, Inc., the aforementioned funding, the ever humorous '97%' and 'settled science' as means of quashing dissent...

    It's a fairly complex argument but that's not surprising - even the Empire has its muddling through. People are messy that way.
    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Quill Sword

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
      I suggest you read a LOT more political analysis. You're mistaking the horse for the rider - in both cases.


      Evidence by source:

      EG: IPCC, Greenpeace, UN, EU, et al (lesser degree: NASA, NOAA)

      Specific: EU demands for greater sovereignty, Greta Thunberg, Inc., the aforementioned funding, the ever humorous '97%' and 'settled science' as means of quashing dissent...

      It's a fairly complex argument but that's not surprising - even the Empire has its muddling through. People are messy that way.
      In this thread I have cited strictly scientific research and the factual evidence for global warming from different sources without politics. The opposition to global warming has not cited scientific evidence as demonstrated by your responses.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
        In this thread I have cited strictly scientific research and the factual evidence for global warming from different sources without politics. The opposition to global warming has not cited scientific evidence as demonstrated by your responses.
        I addressed Lurch's argument, which mistakenly asserts that the scam conclusion comes from the funding issue. There was no need to cite temp evidence regarding those objections to a wholly political argument. (To be fair, I only commented and didn't even lay out the whole argument - which is also not necessary here.)

        Besides, you (general) are weighting temperature data - 180 years of thermometer tech and you can't reliably collect the most basic of data? Riiiight... instills soooo much trust in the computer models that have failed to deliver a single accurate prediction in now 20 years. Meanwhile, atmospheric carbon levels are supposedly at historic lows and commercial growers routinely inject CO2 into growing houses as do aquariums that house live plants. Desertification reversal efforts and land reclaimation efforts that concentrate on site specific management are showing actual positive results where 50 years of UN sponsorship show the dead opposite.

        Give us your autonomy, money and sovereignty and we'll save the planet by throwing a temper tantrum prone teen at it - and just ignore the crazy woman saying the planet only has twelve years - unless that makes you want to give us more money. Hurry, Global Warming TM will probably happen anyway in a thousand years whether or not you act now! Don't be a poopiehead on the wrong side of Science!TM

        Riiight... Hmm, I wonder if one of those CO2 systems will work in a tall tunnel?
        "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

        "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

        My Personal Blog

        My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

        Quill Sword

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          I suggest you read a LOT more political analysis. You're mistaking the horse for the rider - in both cases.


          Evidence by source:

          EG: IPCC, Greenpeace, UN, EU, et al (lesser degree: NASA, NOAA)

          Specific: EU demands for greater sovereignty, Greta Thunberg, Inc., the aforementioned funding, the ever humorous '97%' and 'settled science' as means of quashing dissent...

          It's a fairly complex argument but that's not surprising - even the Empire has its muddling through. People are messy that way.
          I'm sorry, but i couldn't follow that at all. What exactly is your argument here?
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
            Besides, you (general) are weighting temperature data - 180 years of thermometer tech and you can't reliably collect the most basic of data?
            What, exactly, is your issue with the temperature data?

            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
            Riiiight... instills soooo much trust in the computer models that have failed to deliver a single accurate prediction in now 20 years.
            That's simply false, and i've started an entire thread about it previously, so it's not like the information isn't here.
            http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-little-update

            Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
            Meanwhile, atmospheric carbon levels are supposedly at historic lows and commercial growers routinely inject CO2 into growing houses as do aquariums that house live plants.
            That's also false. The planet hasn't seen this level of CO2 in its atmosphere for millions of years, information that's available from Wikipedia if you'd bother to check.
            (which provides a citation to this paper: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rsta.2013.0096)

            Where do you get your information from? Wherever it is, you should reconsider its reliability.
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
              I addressed Lurch's argument, which mistakenly asserts that the scam conclusion comes from the funding issue. There was no need to cite temp evidence regarding those objections to a wholly political argument. (To be fair, I only commented and didn't even lay out the whole argument - which is also not necessary here.)

              Besides, you (general) are weighting temperature data - 180 years of thermometer tech and you can't reliably collect the most basic of data? Riiiight... instills soooo much trust in the computer models that have failed to deliver a single accurate prediction in now 20 years. Meanwhile, atmospheric carbon levels are supposedly at historic lows and commercial growers routinely inject CO2 into growing houses as do aquariums that house live plants. Desertification reversal efforts and land reclaimation efforts that concentrate on site specific management are showing actual positive results where 50 years of UN sponsorship show the dead opposite.

              Give us your autonomy, money and sovereignty and we'll save the planet by throwing a temper tantrum prone teen at it - and just ignore the crazy woman saying the planet only has twelve years - unless that makes you want to give us more money. Hurry, Global Warming TM will probably happen anyway in a thousand years whether or not you act now! Don't be a poopiehead on the wrong side of Science!TM

              Riiight... Hmm, I wonder if one of those CO2 systems will work in a tall tunnel?

              First the evidence is root simple, and does not require heavy funding from any one regardless, The dramatic rise in CO2 since the industrial Revolution parallels the rise in air and sea temperatures, sea levels, and the melting of the ice capes. The rest of the scientific research supports this regardless of the funding sources. There is no 'objective verifiable evidence' nor scientific research supports the detractors to global warming like you. You need evidence and science and rhetoric.

              This global warming event matches prior global warming events that parallel the the rise of CO2 in the past with rising sea levels. If the parallel relationship continues the Piedmont of the Eastern USA will be ocean front property as it was in the past.

              This thread will cite real scientific research and data supporting global warming.
              Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-13-2020, 09:15 PM.
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #22
                This research was done for the Northern latitudes of the USA, but I believe this applies all over the world. The Tropical latitudes have changed little or no change at all, and the most Northern latitudes are warming. The exception is Antarctica where it is protected by the currents around Antarctica. The increasingly warm under sea currents upwelling along the coastal regions is what is melting the glaciers.


                Source: https://www.npr.org/2020/02/18/803125282/how-warming-winters-are-affecting-everything?ft=nprml&f=1001



                How Warming Winters Are Affecting Everything

                Winters are warming faster than other seasons across much of the United States. While that may sound like a welcome change for those bundled in scarves and hats, it's causing a cascade of unpredictable impacts in communities across the country.

                Temperatures continue to steadily rise around the globe, but that trend isn't spread evenly across the map or even the yearly calendar.

                "The cold seasons are warming faster than the warm seasons," says Deke Arndt, chief of climate monitoring at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Centers for Environmental Information. "The colder times of day are warming faster than warmer times of day. And the colder places are warming faster than the warmer places."

                In the U.S., that means winters in both Maine and Alaska are around 5 degrees Fahrenheit hotter on average since the early 1900s. One reason: The snowpack, which is a good reflector of sunlight, is melting earlier in the season. With fewer days of snow cover, sunlight is absorbed into the ground and warms the surrounding area.

                © Copyright Original Source

                Last edited by shunyadragon; 02-20-2020, 10:23 PM.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Ice is gone from Hollands canals no Elfstedentocht is a 125-mile race across 11 Dutch cities since 1997.

                  Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elfstedentocht-climate-change-moves-netherlands-outdoor-speed-skating-race-to-austria-60-minutes-2020-03-04/



                  Climate change moves legendary Dutch outdoor speed skating race to Austria

                  The Elfstedentocht is a 125-mile race across 11 Dutch cities over frozen water, but it hasn't actually been held in the Netherlands since 1997. 60 Minutes reports on how racers are coping with that, Sunday.

                  The Elfstedentocht is the longest, most punishing outdoor speed skating race in the world. And it's been an essential part of Dutch life since 1909. Held in the northern province of Friesland, the 125-mile race links 11 cities over frozen canals and waterways. But climate change has changed all that, and now the race is under threat. Bill Whitaker reports on an alternative race in the Austrian Alps that's drawing thousands of Dutch skaters on the next edition of 60 Minutes Sunday, March 8, at 7 p.m. ET/PT on CBS.

                  It hasn't been cold enough to hold the Elfstedentocht in the Netherlands since 1997. A group of enthusiasts in 1989 began holding an alternative event 750 miles away in the tiny Austrian mountain lake town of Weissensee. It's now attracting several thousand skaters, nearly all Dutch, and making for one heck of a party in a town that swells to about 6,000 for the event.

                  60 Minutes cameras capture the excitement of the race, the different kinds of skaters and the exuberant crowds drawn to the hamlet for perhaps the biggest skating party in the world. The boisterous celebration after the race is called "The Blister Ball."

                  It starts before dawn with skaters wearing helmet lights and ends well after dusk. For the top-notch racers skating 125 miles, it takes about seven hours to finish. Others aim to skate half that distance or a personal best. Many skaters start in the dark and end in the dark. There was even one veteran skater who fixed blades to his walker.

                  Whitaker spoke to the Blom family who drove 11 hours from the Netherlands to get to Weissensee. Twenty of them skated. The youngest, 10-year-old Jenrique, toughed out 60 miles. It took over nine hours.

                  Whitaker also found an American who'd made the trek from the United States to Austria. Howard Morris, a librarian from Minnesota, dreamt of skating the Elfstedentocht when he began speed skating. A Dutch friend told him he'd have to go to Austria to find ice. "It's the reality of the times," says Morris. "I know some people fear that the whole tradition of skating will die out because of the change in winters."

                  Even in Weissensee, there are worrying signs. High in the mountains, there was almost no snow in the village and ice wasn't thick enough in some parts of the lake to use its entire surface for the race.

                  © Copyright Original Source

                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Interesting research of patterns of sea level rise due to global warming in the recent past.

                    Source: https://www.heritagedaily.com/2020/03/paleontologists-discover-solid-evidence-of-formerly-elusive-abrupt-sea-level-jump/126255



                    Paleontologists Discover Solid Evidence of Formerly Elusive Abrupt Sea-level Jump


                    Meltwater pulses (MWPs) known as abrupt sea-level rise due to injection of melt water are of particular interests to scientists to investigate the interactions between climatic, oceanic and glacial systems.
                    Eustatic sea-level rise will inevitably affect cities especially those on coastal plains of low elevation like Hong Kong. A recent study published in Quaternary Science Reviews presented evidence of abrupt sea level change between 11,300–11,000 years ago in the Arctic Ocean. The study was conducted by Ms Skye Yunshu Tian, PhD student of School of Biological Sciences and Swire Institute of Marine Science, the University of Hong Kong (HKU) during her undergraduate final year project in the Ecology & Biodiversity Major, solving the puzzle of second largest meltwater pulse (labelled as “MWP-1B” next to the largest and already well understood MWP-1A).

                    During the last deglaciation, melting of large ice sheets in the Northern hemisphere had contributed to profound global sea level changes. However, even the second largest MWP-1B is not well understood. Its timing and magnitude remain actively debated due to the lack of clear evidence not only from tropical areas recording near-eustatic sea-level change, but also from high-latitude areas where the ice sheets melted.

                    The research study, led by Ms Tian under the supervision of Dr Moriaki Yasuhara, Associate Professor of School of Biological Sciences, HKU and Dr Yuanyuan Hong, Postdoctoral Fellow of School of Biological Sciences, HKU, and in collaboration with scientists in HKU and UiT The Arctic University of Norway, discovered a robust evidence of formerly elusive abrupt sea-level jump event during the climatic warming from the last ice age to the current climate state. The study presented evidence of abrupt sea level change between 11,300–11,000 years ago of 40m–80m in Svalbard, the Arctic Ocean. High time-resolution fossil records indicate a sudden temperature rise due to the incursion of warm Atlantic waters and consequent melting of the covering ice sheets. Because of the rebound of formerly suppressed lands underneath great ice load, the sedimentary environment changed from a bathyal setting (having deep-sea species shown inImage 1) to an upper-middle neritic setting (having shallow-marine species shown inImage 2) at the study sites. This is the first solid evidence of relative sea-level change of MWP-1B discovered in ice-proximal areas.

                    The research group used fossil Ostracoda preserved in two marine sediment cores as a model organism to quantitatively reconstruct the water depth changes in Svalbard in the past 14,000 years, as this small (usually <1 mm) aquatic crustacean is very sensitive to water conditions. Faunal turnovers also reveal temperature and salinity changes associated with the MWP-1B. All ostracode shells in the samples were picked and identified under the microscope, and then the faunal assemblage and species diversity were computed. More than 5,000 specimens and 50 species were recorded in two sediment cores from Storfjorden, Svalbard, where the environment is sensitive to both Arctic and North Atlantic influences.

                    Abrupt sea level event caused by ice-sheet melting is crucial for us to understand Earth climate system influencing and being influenced by glacial conditions. “Future eustatic sea-level rise may be discontinuous and abrupt, and different from smooth and continuous global warming projected, known as “hockey stick” curve. This has serious implications for our society, especially for cities on coastal plains of low elevation, like our Great Bay area on the Pearl River Delta. Even small sea-level rise can substantially increase damages from typhoons, for example,” Dr Yasuhara said.

                    The paper ‘Deglacial–Holocene Svalbard paleoceanography and evidence of Melt Water Pulse 1B” is published in quaternary Science Reviews.

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/ice-loss-antarctica-greenland-increased-sixfold-last-30-years-n1158161



                      Ice loss in Antarctica and Greenland increased sixfold in the last 30 years
                      The rapid ice loss puts the world on track for the "worst case" climate scenario.


                      By Brandon Specktor, Live Science
                      Antarctica and Greenland are losing ice six times faster than in the 1990s, a pair of studies in the journal Nature show.

                      According to the international team of climatologists behind the research, the unprecedented rate of melt has already contributed 0.7 inches (1.78 centimeters) to global sea level rise in the last three decades, putting the planet on track for the worst-case climate warming scenario laid out in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest report. The dreaded scenario, which predicts a total sea level rise of 23.6 inches (60 cm) by the year 2100, would put hundreds of millions of people living in coastal communities at risk of losing their homes — or their lives — to flooding.

                      "Every centimeter of sea level rise leads to coastal flooding and coastal erosion, disrupting people's lives around the planet," study author Andrew Shepherd, a professor of Earth Observation at the University of Leeds in England, said in a statement. "If Antarctica and Greenland continue to track the worst-case climate warming scenario, they will cause an extra 6.7 inches (17 cm) of sea level rise by the end of the century."

                      "This would mean 400 million people are at risk of annual coastal flooding by 2100," Shepherd added.

                      For the new studies, a team of 89 scientists assessed ice loss data from 11 satellites that have been monitoring Antarctica and Greenland since the early 1990s. The data created a detailed picture of how much mass each region's glaciers have lost over the last 30 years, and showed how quickly the remaining ice is flowing into the sea.

                      The team found that Greenland and Antarctica have lost a combined 7 trillion tons of ice (6.4 trillion metric tons) from 1992 to 2017. Almost all of the lost ice in Antarctica and about half of the lost ice in Greenland is due to warming ocean waters melting the edges of glaciers, causing each region's ice sheets to flow more quickly toward the sea. The rest of Greenland's ice loss is due to warming air temperatures, which melt the ice sheets at their surfaces, the researchers said.

                      Recommended

                      WELLNESS
                      'Election stress disorder': How to cope with the anxiety as political tensions intensify

                      NIGHTLY-NEWS
                      Cruise ship carrying people with coronavirus docks in California
                      The rate of ice loss in each ice sheet also increased substantially over that period, rising from a combined 89 billion tons (81 billion metric tons) per year in the 1990s to 523 billion tons (475 billion metric tons) per year in the 2010s.

                      This sixfold increase in the rate of ice loss means that the melting polar ice sheets are responsible for a third of all sea level rise, the researchers said. (Thermal expansion, which causes water to take up more space as it warms, is responsible for much of the remaining sea level rise.)

                      The accelerated ice loss puts the planet well on the way toward the IPCC's worst-case scenario.

                      © Copyright Original Source

                      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                      go with the flow the river knows . . .

                      Frank

                      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Esther View Post
                        If we are responsible it does not necessarily mean we can do anything about it. Could be that the horse has bolted. Do you think we can stop the natural disasters? Surely not?
                        We have some power over some of them.

                        Earthquakes: we do not currently have a practical means of predicting or stopping them. We might have the capacity to trigger them prematurely.

                        Tornadoes: not much there either in terms of control. Prediction is coming along though.

                        Fires: Yes, we routinely do stop fires of various kinds, although it takes a lot more effort than starting them. There is a point where a fire can become so hot and so large we lose control over that immediate area, but then we work to starve it out in the surrounding regions. And we also have the power to reduce the potential for fires.

                        Floods: Yes - we have been building dams and controlling or redirecting flood waters for millenia. So it's more a matter of degree and will. Could we build structures to contain the largest floods. Perhaps, but at so great a cost there would be no practical reason to do so.

                        Can we stop the natural causes of Fires and Floods? Not so much.

                        Climate change: The evidence is we are a significant component of the current rate and extent of the change. Can we control the natural cycles that start and stop ice ages? no. Can we change the atmospheric composition so that it makes things warmer - yes, and we have. Can we reduce the GHG in the atmosphere? We can stop increasing them. And we even have some capability to remove them. So, again as with floods and fires, it boils down to the cost/benefit ratio how much we actually do that we have the power to do. But unlike hurricanes and tornadoes, we do in fact have the capacity to change the direction of the trend wrt global warming.
                        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          For those who have delusions that human efforts can resolve the problem of Global Warming. First, the present efforts are neither universal, coordinated, and the motivation is not their for most countries, except maybe China. Second . . .

                          Source: https://www.heraldsun.com/news/coronavirus/article241503116.html



                          Ralph Keeling estimates that global fossil fuel use would have to decline by 10% for a full year to clearly impact CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere

                          By Alister Doyle

                          Scientists are monitoring the atmosphere at a mountaintop in Hawaii for clues that the coronavirus will be the first economic shock in more than 60 years to slow a rise in carbon dioxide levels that are heating the planet.

                          The Mauna Loa observatory at 3,397 metres is home to the Keeling Curve, tracking increasing carbon dioxide concentrations since 1958. Named after its late founder, Charles Keeling, it is widely viewed as the most iconic measure of humanity’s impact on global climate.

                          “There has never been an economic shock like this in the whole history of the curve,” Ralph Keeling, professor at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and son of Charles Keeling, told Climate Home News of the impact of the coronavirus.

                          He said scientists were now studying data from the mountain in the middle of the Pacific Ocean for signs that the economic slowdown linked to the coronavirus could reduce the rise in atmospheric carbon concentrations.

                          The coronavirus, which has killed more than 22,000 people by 26 March, is slowing the global economy and cutting the use of fossil fuels in cars, power plants and factories that emit carbon dioxide. “I can look out of my window now and the number of cars has dropped,” he said.

                          Russia’s plans to tighten 2030 climate goal criticised as ‘baby steps’

                          But there was a long way from reduced use of fossil fuels to a crisis that would affect carbon dioxide concentrations in the global atmosphere.

                          Keeling estimated that global fossil fuel use would have to decline by 10% for a full year to show up in carbon dioxide concentrations. Even then, it would be a difference of only about 0.5 parts per million.

                          Since 1958 there have been no world wars, for instance, that might abruptly depress economic activity and emissions and show up as a measurable impact on the curve, he said.

                          Recessions, like the 2008-09 financial crisis or even the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, did not cause a discernible drop. And other factors that have tended to drive the curve up more steeply, such as the economic rise of China this century, were not visible as sudden events.

                          This March 2020 data may hint at a slight slowdown in the rate of rise.

                          “It’s too early to say,” if it is related to coronavirus, Keeling said, adding there were big variations from year to year and that the March trend was similar to some previous years.


                          Two-year record of carbon dioxide (Source: Scripps Institution of Oceanography)

                          Current carbon concentrations “are approaching last year’s peak right now,” he said, at about 415 parts per million on 24 March, with big daily swings. If sustained, that is already in line with the record high, judged as a monthly average, of 414.7 ppm for the May 2019.

                          Carbon dioxide levels have risen from about 270 ppm before the Industrial Revolution and are at the highest in at least 800,000 years, according to the UN panel of climate scientists.

                          Governments urged to attach green strings to long-term coronavirus recovery plans

                          Carbon dioxide concentrations have their annual peak at the end of winter in the Northern Hemisphere, where North America, Asia and Europe make up most of the planet’s land masses. When spring arrives, plant growth on these continents soaks up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, slightly reducing levels.

                          Keeling likened economic activity affecting the atmosphere to a tap pouring water into a bathtub.

                          If you turn down the tap in a bathtub you can see there is less water coming in “but it takes a while to be able to see that the rising water level slows,” he said. “We’re still in that phase.”

                          On the other side of the world in Norway, Kim Holmen, international director of the Norwegian Polar Institute, says his team is also closely monitoring carbon dioxide levels at the Zeppelin station on a mountain on the Arctic island of Svalbard.

                          “The curve is not pointing upwards,” he said of carbon dioxide measurements in March, which are usually rising at this time of year. Still, he said that it would probably take months to know if it was related to coronavirus.

                          Climate news in your inbox? Sign up here

                          And he said there were many local factors affecting carbon levels, even in parts of the world isolated from industrial centres such as Hawaii or Svalbard.

                          Around Svalbard, for instance, “it has been colder this winter than the past 10 years,” Holmen said. That meant there had been more ice on the surrounding seas in the winter, putting a lid on waters that can release carbon dioxide into the air.

                          The UN wants steep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to limit rising temperatures to goals set in the Paris Agreement of “well below 2C” above pre-industrial times while pursuing efforts for a stricter ceiling of 1.5C.

                          Emissions rose sharply after the financial crisis but Keeling expressed hopes that policy makers would help drive cuts in coming years, after the pandemic passes.

                          “We can hope that emissions stay down for the right reasons afterwards. This [coronavirus] is not the right reason,” he said.

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Source: https://www.sciencealert.com/earth-is-way-way-dustier-than-we-thought-and-that-has-big-implications-for-climate-change



                            Earth's Atmosphere Is 4x Dustier Than We Thought, Which Could Change Climate Models

                            CARLY CASSELLA19 APRIL 2020

                            Climate models are an invaluable tool for predicting the trajectory of the climate crisis, but we need them to be as accurate as possible if we're going to model everything from its pace, to its consequences, to its tipping points.


                            Now, it seems we need to adjust some numbers on the true dustiness of Earth's atmosphere - a property that plays a vital role in climate systems.

                            Comparing data from dozens of airborne observations throughout the world, a new study has found our planet's atmosphere contains about 17 million metric tonnes of coarse dust (which is larger than fine dust). This is four times more than is simulated in current climate models.

                            That's roughly the mass of every single person in the United States put together, and if that's really what's going on here, we have a lot of recalculating to do.

                            This tiny, invisible matter tends to warm the atmosphere a lot like greenhouse gases do, and yet in six widely-used global atmospheric simulations, most of that coarse dust appears to be missing.

                            "When we compared our results with what is predicted by current climate models, we found a drastic difference," says atmospheric and oceanic scientist Jasper Kok from the University of California Los Angeles.

                            "State-of-the-art climate models account for only 4 million metric tons, but our results showed more than four times that amount."


                            If they're right, that means these simulations aren't incorporating nearly enough dust. And this could have a big impact on many of Earth's systems, from the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed in the ocean to the volume of rain falling in, say, the tropics.

                            More dust being driven up into the atmosphere and more of it falling into the ocean, could lead to big changes in clouds, precipitation and climate.

                            Between Earth and the Sun, these coarse particles cop incoming radiation from both above and below. This can cause changes in atmospheric circulation, potentially driving phenomena like hurricanes, which have, incidentally, been increasing in frequency and severity with climate change.

                            What's more, if you add these new dust numbers into current climate models, the authors say it increases the likelihood of both fine and coarse particles contributing to a warming climate system, from the atmosphere above to the oceans below.

                            "Models have been an invaluable tool for scientists," says atmospheric and oceanic scientist Adeyemi Adebiyi from UCLA, "but when they miss most of the coarse dust in the atmosphere, it underestimates the impact that this type of dust has on critical aspects of life on Earth, from precipitation to cloud cover to ocean ecosystems to global temperature."


                            For instance, the researchers say when dust is around, air tends to act more turbulently, keeping it up in the atmosphere for longer, allowing them to travel further than many models give them credit for.

                            In 2018, in fact, researchers discovered that large particles of dust kicked up in the Sahara can ride on global winds to the Caribbean, 3,500 kilometres (2,000 miles) away. Measuring at 0.45 millimetres in diameter, these pieces of dust were nearly 50 times bigger than what global winds were once thought capable of carrying.

                            sahara 1024
                            (Climate.gov)

                            That astonishing idea is supported by this new research, albeit less directly.

                            "Since more coarse dust particles are present in the atmosphere, it also suggests that they have a longer lifetime than those simulated in global models," the authors write.

                            And yet today, many models have all this coarse dust fall out of the atmosphere far too quickly.

                            "To properly represent the impact of dust as a whole on the Earth system, climate models must include an accurate treatment of coarse dust in the atmosphere," says Adebiyi.

                            Our climate models are constantly being updated as we learn more about our planet, and this is just one aspect that seems to need a makeover. With the new information available, we'll be better equipped to determine Earth's future.

                            The study was published in Science Advances.

                            © Copyright Original Source

                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Changes in solar activity in an eleven year cycle leading to the solar minimum in the next few years may effect global warming to a small degree, despite some sensationalist headlines from questionable press. We are in a solar minimum. The bottom line is the effect is small, but the solar minimum may reduce the interference problem of solar radiation spikes on communications.

                              Source: https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2910/what-is-the-suns-role-in-climate-change/



                              What Is the Sun's Role in Climate Change?
                              From NASA's Global Climate Change Website

                              The Sun powers life on Earth; it helps keep the planet warm enough for us to survive. It also influences Earth’s climate: We know subtle changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun are responsible for the comings and goings of the past ice ages. But the warming we’ve seen over the last few decades is too rapid to be linked to changes in Earth’s orbit, and too large to be caused by solar activity.1

                              The Sun doesn’t always shine at perpetually the same level of brightness; it brightens and dims slightly, taking 11 years to complete one solar cycle. During each cycle, the Sun undergoes various changes in its activity and appearance. Levels of solar radiation go up or down, as does the amount of material the Sun ejects into space and the size and number of sunspots and solar flares. These changes have a variety of effects in space, in Earth’s atmosphere and on Earth’s surface.

                              The current solar cycle began January 4, 2008, and appears to be headed toward the lowest level of sunspot activity since accurate recordkeeping began in 1750. It’s expected to end sometime between now and late 2020. Scientists don’t yet know with confidence how strong the next solar cycle may be.

                              What Effect Do Solar Cycles Have on Earth’s Climate?
                              According to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the current scientific consensus is that long and short-term variations in solar activity play only a very small role in Earth’s climate. Warming from increased levels of human-produced greenhouse gases is actually many times stronger than any effects due to recent variations in solar activity.

                              For more than 40 years, satellites have observed the Sun's energy output, which has gone up or down by less than 0.1 percent during that period. Since 1750, the warming driven by greenhouse gases coming from the human burning of fossil fuels is over 50 times greater than the slight extra warming coming from the Sun itself over that same time interval.

                              Are We Headed for a ‘Grand Minimum’? (And Will It Slow Down Global Warming?)
                              solar irradiance with branding
                              The above graph compares global surface temperature changes (red line) and the Sun's energy that Earth receives (yellow line) in watts (units of energy) per square meter since 1880. The lighter/thinner lines show the yearly levels while the heavier/thicker lines show the 11-year average trends. Eleven-year averages are used to reduce the year-to-year natural noise in the data, making the underlying trends more obvious.

                              The amount of solar energy that Earth receives has followed the Sun’s natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs with no net increase since the 1950s. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. It is therefore extremely unlikely that the Sun has caused the observed global temperature warming trend over the past half-century. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
                              As mentioned, the Sun is currently experiencing a low level of sunspot activity. Some scientists speculate that this may be the beginning of a periodic solar event called a “grand minimum,” while others say there is insufficient evidence to support that position. During a grand minimum, solar magnetism diminishes, sunspots appear infrequently and less ultraviolet radiation reaches Earth. Grand minimums can last several decades to centuries. The largest recent event happened during the “Little Ice Age” (13th to mid-19th century): the “Maunder Minimum,” an extended period of time between 1645 and 1715, when there were few sunspots.

                              Several studies in recent years have looked at the effects that another grand minimum might have on global surface temperatures.2 These studies have suggested that while a grand minimum might cool the planet as much as 0.3 degrees C, this would, at best, slow down (but not reverse) human-caused global warming. There would be a small decline of energy reaching Earth, and just three years of current carbon dioxide concentration growth would make up for it. In addition, the grand minimum would be modest and temporary, with global temperatures quickly rebounding once the event concluded.

                              Some people have linked the Maunder Minimum’s temporary cooling effect to decreased solar activity, but that change was more likely influenced by increased volcanic activity and ocean circulation shifts.3

                              Moreover, even a prolonged “Grand Solar Minimum” or “Maunder Minimum” would only briefly and minimally offset human-caused warming.

                              More about solar cycles:

                              https://scijinks.gov/solar-cycle/

                              © Copyright Original Source

                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Source: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/europe/may-copernicus-hottest-record-scli-intl/index.html



                                Last month was the hottest May on record, as the world creeps closer to a dangerous threshold
                                By Rob Picheta, CNN

                                (CNN)Last month was the hottest May on record worldwide, a European climate agency has reported, with temperatures in Siberia rising 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) above their normal levels.

                                Globally, May was 0.63 degrees Celsius warmer than the average May between 1981 and 2010, making it the warmest May in this data record, the Copernicus Climate Change Service said.

                                And when compared with pre-industrial figures, their recordings indicate that the world is creeping dangerously close to the temperature threshold that international organizations warn would be so devastating to the planet if exceeded.

                                The Copernicus figures correlate to a 1.26 degree Celsius rise on pre-industrial levels for May. Global temperatures must be kept from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius on those levels to avoid major impacts on the climate, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded.

                                May's increase follows a clear trend recorded by Copernicus over the past year. In the last 12-month period up to May, global temperatures were 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer than average -- matching the previous year-long high between October 2015 and September 2016.

                                Europe generally was slightly colder than average, but with sharp geographical differences, the report said.

                                The most striking spike was in Siberia, the typically freezing region that spans much of Russia, which was up 10 degrees Celsius on average levels.

                                Russian President Vladimir Putin has this week ordered a state of emergency in the Siberian city of Norilsk, after 20,000 tons of fuel spilled into a nearby river from a power station in an incident officials are blaming on melting permafrost in the region.

                                © Copyright Original Source

                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X