Climate change

Discussions on the interactions between components of the environment and their effects on all types of organisms.

Re: Climate change

Postby Serpent on September 22nd, 2019, 2:44 pm 

We have some agreement on that point:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/greta-thunbergs-despair-is-entirely-warranted/598492/
She's not emotional.* Doesn't know how. She's pragmatic.
https://www.vox.com/2019/9/17/20864740/greta-thunberg-youth-climate-strike-fridays-future
But all the other kids who don't want us burning up their world are plenty emotional.


(*She's had plenty of 'emotion' directed at her by the 'skeptics', as well.
https://www.themarysue.com/greta-thunberg-harassment-online/
I know that's not everyone's first choice of an information source, but it's a mouth of the young horse from whom we don't often hear - and to whom we don't listen enough.**)
(**We have an excellent reason for ignoring them. They have no $$$$)
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3674
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby TheVat on September 22nd, 2019, 4:32 pm 

Yes, Thunberg's high-functioning autism seems to be a cognitive style that actually helps her to be an uncommonly calm and poised 16 year old.

As that precocious Swede understands, unreasoning fear is the emotion people need to get past, so they can plan constructive action.


https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49773869

(This references the WMO report on data of the five year period, 2014-19, and evidence for the acceleration I mentioned a couple posts back)
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7260
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on September 23rd, 2019, 6:03 am 

Serpent » Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:19 am wrote:
doogles » September 22nd, 2019, 5:11 am wrote:My problem with the problem is the poor science,

By what standard is the prevailing climate science "poor"?
the lack of consensus

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Really? I suppose, as long as somebody with a doctorate can be found to counter-blog, it's not a 100%; therefore, leaves plenty of room for doubt and forces you to collect raw data and create you own model. It's something to do while waiting.
and the emotionalism associated with the whole climate change story. This Arctic/polar bear/climate change is a good example.

Is, in fact, the only example. That's why the deniers are picking on the polar bears - they're more photogenic than lobsters, etc., so they've become a symbol. Meanwhile, thousands of species are going extinct without so much as an obituary. It will get much worse very fast.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mass-extinction-in-earth-rsquo-s-oceans-could-begin-by-2100/
The world is ending. We're all going to die. Nothing to get excited about.


Thanks again Serpent and for the comments.

I read those two references Serpent. You would have noticed that all of those organisations state consensus on the belief that average near surface temperatures are rising and that human activities are probably to blame. You also would have noted that I agree with that. In my last post I said "Yes, there is an increase in average near surface global temperatures, most probably caused by human activities, and there are many observable probable geophysical changes as a result." We do have consensus up to that point. One or two included greenhouse gas emissions as part of their statements; most didn't. I don't know whether that was deliberate or whether it was an omission, but I'll mention emissions later.

Some use the emotional term 'global warming'.

The original coinage of the emotional term 'global warming' was made Hansen in his original paper on average global near-surface temperatures (AGNST). The term has connotations of spontaneous combustion of the sphere we inhabit. I consider it to be unscientific because of its emotional connotations, and I naturally become suspicious of the scientific integrity of the work associated with its use. You may be aware that James Hansen based his initial conclusions on changes in temperature recordings at weather stations all over the globe, without checking on the history of those stations -- changes of location, changes of recording devices and erections of buildings around existing stations. It took a weatherman named Anthony Watts and hundreds of volunteers to establish that Hansen had made too many assumptions -- which is bad science -- when he published his first findings. It resulted in large corrections of initial data, and resulted in a significant reduction of the claimed 'global warming'. It was bad science.

Hansen also just stated that carbon dioxide was the cause of that 'global warming' (ugh) even though, in the same paper, he mentioned the fact that between 1940 and 1970, the AGNSTs had dropped 0.5 degrees C in spite of large increases of carbon dioxide.

I consider that poor science.

Not only that, but all of the theory of greenhouse gas effects is based on the work of John Tyndall performed with crude equipment in the 1860s. I've searched and asked other members of the forum to help me find where any modern work has been performed on the properties of absorption and radiation of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide. The reason I would like to see this work performed is because there are two schools of thought about carbon dioxide. The assumption appears to have been made that absorption is linear -- that is, that the more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the more heat energy it will absorb and hold for a while. But another school of thought, led by a climate scientist named Idso (who is reputed to have published something like 500 papers and books) is that absorption is logarithmic -- that is, that most of the absorption is performed by the lower concentrations of carbon dioxide and that larger concentrations do not absorb much more.

Obviously, this is a lack of consensus on this basic premise on which the emissions and current correction policy is based. The poor science is that nobody appears to have repeated the experiments of Tyndall to check the basics on which our emissions-reductions are based.

It's also poor science not to evaluate the success or failure of a procedure after 23 years of implementation.

I'll leave it there for now. But maybe you can understand Serpent why I'm querying two different reports on the status of polar bears. One implies that species can adapt to a one degree change of global temperature, and the other implies that such a change can cause species extinction.

We need less emotion and better science.

I had a look at your third reference which was a popular science account of a paper in Science Advances by Daniel H Rothman, titled Threshholds of Catastrophe in the Earth System in 2017 on this site -- https://advances.sciencemag.org/content ... 00906.full. He claims in the Abstract "Here, I hypothesize that perturbations of Earth’s carbon cycle lead to mass extinction if they exceed either a critical rate at long time scales or a critical size at short time scales." It was an hypothesis.

I must admit that the article was mainly beyond my comprehension, so I can't comment on it specifically. But it does occur to me that carbon exists in many forms, and that the land and atmosphere would also be flooded with carbon compounds if the ocean reached a critical concentration. The author does not mention the particular substances associated with the ocean content.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on September 23rd, 2019, 6:15 am 

TheVat » Mon Sep 23, 2019 2:17 am wrote:I am puzzled by the general idea that the consequences of global warming are something not to be emotional about. Alarm would seem to be a natural and survival-promoting response to events that threaten suffering and death. We humans have many emotions for powerfully adaptive reasons. Alarm says "do something!"

If anything, the media seem to be downplaying the looming prospect of a tipping point, where loss of ice and permafrost actually accelerates the feedback loop. I don't think many in the general public are aware of the methane hydrates loop or the permafrost-to-bog CO2 loop or other feedback mechanisms.
And many MSM owners are also invested in fossil fuels and/or cement production and/or Arctic mining ventures, etc. so it's not a real surprise that they don't want their audiences to be too "emotional" about what's happening right now. Getting emotional might lead to public demand for initiatives on both GHG reduction and on introduction of hygroscopic nuclei into the strat.


I take your point TheVat on the value of emotion and alarm. But it's not realistic to call for more action, unless you're sure that the action is going to result in something productive. Those people who become emotionally reactive can only achieve positive results if the emotional expression is directed towards a constructive goal.

Hence the need for more objective (non-emotional) thinking about how to control the gradually increasing temperatures.

I was pleased to read your final sentence -- "Getting emotional might lead to public demand for initiatives on both GHG reduction and on introduction of hygroscopic nuclei into the strat." At least the chanting protestors would have something to chant about if they incorporated more attention to cloud cover in their chants. I think you and I could easily produce such a chant if we took the time.

Which leads to the question of what the IPCC or anyone else has done about hygroscopic nuclei since 2013.

A good sign is that there appears to be more research going on with respect to cloud condensation and hygroscopic nuclei this year eg -- Yanwei Li (2019: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 018-1903-0) in a paper called Cloud Condensation Nuclei Activity and Hygroscopicity of Fresh and Aged Biomass Burning Particles, conducted laboratory accuracy experiments on a large variety of plants. YanMa et al (2019; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 4217336380) performed a similar laboratory study of the burning of crop residues. This would of course create a problem with the philosophy of reducing carbon dioxide production, and someone would have to work out a balance. There's a bit of a dilemma in that reduction of carbon dioxide emissions also reduces the infusion of cloud condensation and hygroscopic nuclei into the atmosphere.

The first practical thought that comes to my mind is that controlled burning of forests in areas not likely to contaminate cities, should be encouraged all over the planet. The Australian Aborigines did this for 40,000 years. In fact, the practice seemed to be necessary for the germination of many Australian plant species. Any positive input from anyone? I'll continue searching.

This one -- by Robert Lange et al (2019; https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 19GL084142) conducted a K‐means cluster analysis of a five year aerosol particle size distribution (PSD) dataset from north‐east Greenland combined with measurements of coincident shorter field studies of aerosol equivalent black carbon (eBC) content, hygroscopic growth factor (HGF) and cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) concentrations. "This led to five clusters strongly controlled by natural emissions (eBC 8‐15 ng m‐3), and three anthropogenic clusters with larger particle concentrations in the accumulation mode (eBC 29‐77 ng m‐3). The HGF and CCN properties of the eight aerosol clusters differ drastically. Anthropogenic clusters feature high growth factors (1.62‐1.81) and low CCN κ‐values (0.10‐0.46), while natural clusters show lower HGF (1.38‐1.70) but remarkably higher κ‐values (0.35‐0.51). Extrapolating the CCN properties on the basis of the cluster analysis to annual timescales suggests that biogenic organic aerosol may drive Arctic aerosol production during summer." This one suggests that natural aerosols are better than man-made ones but it doesn't rule out our ability to produce greater quantities, even though they may be of lesser quality.

Yu Wang and Ying Chen (2019; https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 19GL082339) produced this Plain Language Summary of their research -- "Hygroscopic water uptake of aerosols can enhance its light extinction and cloud activation. Therefore, hygroscopicity of aerosol (κchem) is a key factor affecting its direct and indirect climate effects; however, long‐term observation of κchem in Delhi is absent. Here we demonstrate an approach to retrieve κchem from publicly available data sets of PM2.5 and meteorology and report the first long‐term estimation of κchem in Delhi is 0.42 ± 0.07 during 2016–2018. This value indicates only a supersaturation of ~0.18% ± 0.015% is required to activate a particle with 0.1‐μm diameter in Delhi, in contrast to ~0.3% supersaturation is required for Beijing and Asian average. It implies a higher water uptake and cloud activation ability for Delhi aerosols. Therefore, using Asian/Beijing averaged κchem to represent Delhi aerosols would lead to a significant underestimation of aerosol climate effects."

I can see where the last couple of references are helping to find solutions and knowledge about aerosols as cloud condensation and hygroscopic nuclei, but they don't provide any useful practical advice that I see can help to solving our need to generate more cloud. They do however, indicate that the Chinese and the Indians may be doing more research in this area than western scientists. What do you any of you think, as members of the SPCF? I'd like to hear the thoughts from more of you.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby Serpent on September 23rd, 2019, 10:16 am 

There is a very simple solution.
Shut down capitalism.
Ain't gonna happen.
Do science, play with models, critique other people's conclusions to your heart's content.... or protest, demonstrate and rail against the machine.... or adopt the dog's philosophy, as the world's economic elites are doing. It makes no difference.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3674
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby TheVat on September 23rd, 2019, 12:59 pm 

So there is 'bleaching' of coral due to temperature changes of half to one degree C. How can this be so when the Great Barrier Reef covers 2000 km from north to south with a water temperature range of 10 degrees C, and when from winter to summer, the range in any given location is also 10 degrees C? Obviously, any species of coral in our Great Barrier Reef can withstand a 10 degree range. Am I missing something?


Yes. Along a north/south gradient the coral enter into a symbiotic relationship with specific species of algae, which are adapted to a particular temperature range and summer maxima for that latitude. Changes in average temperature year-round can be quite small and yet this average results from pretty intense rises in maxima in surface waters which different algal symbionts are differently adapted to. It takes a long time for a bleached coral ecosystem to shift adaptation to a different algal partner. That's why you have dead reefs that have become relative biological deserts.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0041-2 (abstract - the article has a paywall)

Also....

https://sciworthy.com/coral-is-sensitiv ... mperature/

Also...

https://skepticalscience.com/coral-bleaching.htm

Coral reefs operate very close to their maximum heat tolerance.


(been busy, so took me a few days to get back to this portion of your post. hope this helps)
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7260
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills
doogles liked this post


Re: Climate change

Postby Serpent on September 23rd, 2019, 5:01 pm 

Retraction:
I was wrong about Greta Thunberg. She does know how to project emotion.
OTH I forgot to object to
Some use the emotional term 'global warming'.

The globe is warming. That's a simple statement. The relevant emotional term:
FIRE! FIRE! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3674
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on September 24th, 2019, 6:09 am 

TheVat » Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:59 am wrote:
So there is 'bleaching' of coral due to temperature changes of half to one degree C. How can this be so when the Great Barrier Reef covers 2000 km from north to south with a water temperature range of 10 degrees C, and when from winter to summer, the range in any given location is also 10 degrees C? Obviously, any species of coral in our Great Barrier Reef can withstand a 10 degree range. Am I missing something?


Yes. Along a north/south gradient the coral enter into a symbiotic relationship with specific species of algae, which are adapted to a particular temperature range and summer maxima for that latitude. Changes in average temperature year-round can be quite small and yet this average results from pretty intense rises in maxima in surface waters which different algal symbionts are differently adapted to. It takes a long time for a bleached coral ecosystem to shift adaptation to a different algal partner. That's why you have dead reefs that have become relative biological deserts.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0041-2 (abstract - the article has a paywall)

Also....

https://sciworthy.com/coral-is-sensitiv ... mperature/

Also...

https://skepticalscience.com/coral-bleaching.htm

Coral reefs operate very close to their maximum heat tolerance.


(been busy, so took me a few days to get back to this portion of your post. hope this helps)


Many thanks TheVat for those references about the coral reefs. They were all very helpful and constructive. The association between algae and coral were all new to me and not mentioned in my Biology schooling over 70 years ago.

I found the third reference very helpful because it had a blog at the end in which a number of people associated with coral biology took part. As in our forum, there were numbers who agreed or disagreed with certain aspects of the science. Apparently there have been many widespread bouts of coral bleaching in the past with a mixed range of outcomes from permanent damage to complete recovery. It is not new, but the general tone is that the current degree of bleaching is probably the worst.

The main authority seemed to be a Rob Painting who said in 2016 "Because reef-coral have adapted tolerance to a narrow band of environmental conditions, bleaching can occur for a number of reasons, such as ocean acidification, pollution, excess nutrients from run-off, high UV radiation levels, exposure at extremely low tides and cooling or warming of the waters in which the coral reside. Typically these events are very localized in scale and if bleaching is mild, the coral can survive long enough to re-acquire new algal partners. So bleaching in itself is not something new, but mass coral bleaching on the huge scale being observed certainly appears to be, and represents a whole new level of coral reef decline."

And the comment was made that bleaching was not so much due to single heat increase events, as to prolonged periods of heat exposure. It reminds me of sunburn.

It seemed highly probable that the 2015/16 damage was associated with prolonged periods of sea warming. It is not clear whether this warming was from an el nino effect or from prolonged solar radiation exposure or a combination of the two. If prolonged solar radiation exposure was a factor, then maybe radiation in the ultraviolet region of the spectrum could be involved? This would explain to me why warm water per se as a cause does not seem feasible in the Great Barrier Reef with its annual 10 degrees C range in temperature. I have swum in the sea in areas from Brisbane to Cairns and can verify that temperature changes personally. I like a hypothesis about anything to cover all aspects of the subject. It's a personal thing.

Regardless of that, if solar radiation is behind the warming of sea water and the bleaching of coral, then we need more cloud cover. Does this make sense to anyone? What better way to address average global near-surface temperature increases than to create more clouds. In the case of the coral reefs, it would be like putting a giant umbrella over them.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby TheVat on October 8th, 2019, 12:00 pm 

Ghost Forests in the U.S.

Up and down the mid-Atlantic coast, sea levels are rising rapidly, creating stands of dead trees — often bleached, sometimes blackened — known as ghost forests.

The water is gaining as much as 5 millimeters per year in some places, well above the global average of 3.1 millimeters, driven by profound environmental shifts that include climate change.

Increasingly powerful storms, a consequence of a warming world, push seawater inland. More intense dry spells reduce freshwater flowing outward. Adding to the peril, in some places the land is naturally sinking.

All of this allows seawater to claim new territory, killing trees from the roots up.

Rising seas often conjure the threat to faraway, low-lying nations or island-states. But to understand the immediate consequences of some of the most rapid sea-level rise anywhere in the world, stand among the scraggly, dying pines of Dorchester County along the Maryland coast...


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... rests.html
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7260
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on October 8th, 2019, 6:44 pm 

What a shame this article hasn't got some scientific quantitative data associated with it, TheVat! And what a shame that it doesn't make comparisons with other coastlines at a global level. Once again, my opinion is that this article is 'poor science' and also alarmist.

I note this early statement "The water is gaining as much as 5 millimeters per year in some places, well above the global average of 3.1 millimeters, driven by profound environmental shifts that include climate change." I notice that 'Climate Change' gets a mention as having a supportive role by the authors.

What happened to our consensus that global sea levels have risen 200 mm????? One may have to assume that the land mass may be sinking in these seawater-affected areas. You may remember an article I mentioned earlier that in the only longitudinal study of its kind to date, a study of aerial and satellite pictures to 2010 (from memory) of a group of 27 Pacific Islands has shown that only 14% have decreased in surface area, while most have remained the same or have actually increased in surface area -- in spite of a 200 mm rise in sea level.

I give credit to the authors for stating "The effects of climate change are also exacerbated by land that is sinking as a result of geological processes triggered by the end of the last ice age." I note that Climate Change comes first in that statement.

I can't see where 'Climate Change' needs to get a mention at all in this article.

I'm waiting for the time when it gets the blame for ingrown toenails.

I also note that these changes have been measured since 1938 which is long before the 'climate change' from 1970 -- "The Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, where Dr. Gedan does research, lost 3,000 acres of forest and agricultural land between 1938 and 2006. More than 5,000 acres of marsh became open water."

Statements such as these do not help to get a balanced overview of the situation -- "Increasingly powerful storms, a consequence of a warming world, push seawater inland." Where is the evidence that storms are increasing and becoming more powerful?

This research by Wikipedia -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... hurricanes -- probably provides a better balanced perspective. Here are some excerpts -- "A total of 298 Atlantic tropical cyclones have produced hurricane-force winds in every state along the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico (as well as Pennsylvania), with Florida having had more hurricanes affecting it than any other state.[1]"; "The 1990s were the most active decade for the United States, with a total of 31 hurricanes affecting the nation. By contrast, the least active decade was the 1860s and 1970s,"; "The 1935 Labor Day hurricane was the most intense hurricane to make landfall on the country, having struck the Florida Keys with a pressure of 892 mbar. It was one of only seven hurricanes to move ashore as a Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale; the others were "Okeechobee" in 1928, Karen in 1962, Camille in 1969, Andrew in 1992, Michael in 2018, and Yutu in 2018, which had a landfalling pressure of 931 mbar, 932 mbar, 900 mbar, 922 mbar, 919 mbar, and 900 mbar, respectively."; "The 1900 Galveston hurricane was the deadliest hurricane in the history of the United States, killing between 6,000 and 12,000 people. 2017s Hurricane Maria resulted in at least 2,982 fatalities. The 1928 Okeechobee hurricane caused at least 2,500 fatalities, and in 2005, Hurricane Katrina killed approximately 1,800 people. In the 1893 season, two hurricanes each caused over 1,000 deaths.[3]" And those hurricanes before the 1950s had far smaller populations to affect.

So where are these 'increasingly powerful storms', and how were they 'a consequence of this warming world' back in the days before 'global warming'? As you can see from the records on the subject of 'powerful storms' alone, this article in the New York Times is quite unreliable.

Now I could produce a couple of newspaper articles written in 1922 on how the Arctic had disappeared, and another one from 1934 announcing how world catastrophes were increasing at an alarming rate, but they would be as helpful as this particular article about some localised coastal areas undergoing salination.

The way I see it, we need to urge the IPCC to get stuck into ways of producing more cloud, and ways of at least stabilising our population growth.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Climate change

Postby doogles on October 9th, 2019, 12:12 am 

By the way, this map shows the degree to which areas of the USA were affected by salt deposits in 2015. It is shown on this site -- https://pomametals.com/salt-air-inland- ... for-metal/. Those of the carbon dioxide faith will note that 'climate change' does not get a mention in the article by Jason Pomo. Nobody in Australia buys a second-hand car from coastal areas because of the corrosive effects of salt air.
Attachments
salt-air-inland-coastal-map.jpg
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Previous

Return to Environmental Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests