Global Warming Continues: Get Used To It [Archive] - Kay Tastrophe's Military School

Edena_of_Neith

03-09-2011, 06:14 PM

(sighs, rueful and wry smile)

It is quite true that the United States of America, got the ball really rolling on CO2 emissions, and thus Global Warming (ok, now I'm GOING to get it from every Republican in existence ...)

It started with the Consumer Society, which was born in Renaissance Europe.
It accelerated with the Industrial Revolution, which also began in Europe, then spread to America.
The British, French, and others turned out to be very good at spreading European ideas around, and in the USA, these ideas took root, grew, and expanded into the world's greatest Consumer Society, a society that produced astonishing amounts of carbon dioxide, while encouraging the burning of rainforests that greatly further increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Thus, from around 1950 to 2000, the United States was the world's pre-eminent producer of CO2, and - what - produced around an average of 4 billion tons of the stuff each year, on average (much lower prior to 1970, higher after that, averaging out.)

* Problem is, folks, is that it was discovered - the Soviet Union found this out the painful way - that Consumer Societies are stronger militarily, than mere Military Societies. *

Why do you think Civilization evolved in Sumeria, Egypt, India, and China?
Because they simply decided to?
Or because of necessity, because other Tribes were beating them up? (And still do - even today, the Barbarians run amok, just as they did in Roman Times.)

So, in Sumeria, The Nile Delta, the Indus River Valley, and China, they built cities, roads, evolved governments and laws, writing, agriculture, standing armies, peasantry, and kings.
This new system turned out to be very successful. So successful, that others decided they, too, would adopt the new system (even if, the Assyrians first utterly destroyed the existing system, the Babylonian Empire (they called the Assyrians 'the end of the world' and they were quite right, regarding their own fates.) )
Soon, these 'civilizations' were everywhere, and although barbarians beat them down, new ones always arose. (Until Rome went down, and the Europeans couldn't get a civilization back up for ages and ages, and so the Dark Ages occurred instead ...)

Then the societies of Western Europe reformed civilizations, and struck upon an idea: Consumerism (that most Evil, Dreaded, Satantic, of ALL words!)

Unfortunately for all, Consumerism makes nations powerful.
Consumers pay more taxes than serfs.
More taxes = more money for the government.
More money for the government = more powerful military.
And in the West, the Greek Idea of Continuous Change, of constantly seeking out and exploring New Realities (what we call Science, and being overwhelmed by new scientific discoveries until we want to scream - see Quantom Mechanics!) = More Powerful Military Yet.

So, what happens? Germany and Japan both try to adopt this Westernized Way. So does the Soviet Union.
Germany and Japan both work on Atomics. The United States works on Atomics. The Soviets work on ... a brutal revenge on the Germans.
The US gets Atomics (to paraphase Paul Atreides) and uses them on Japan. Japan surrenders.

The Consumerized, Westernized (that is, it subscribes to the Greek Institution of Continuous, Stupifying, Maddening, Crazy Change, Without Hope of Ending, Without Hope of Control! (see Pern) ) Nation has won the idea, and IT'S way of doing things, is the way things are GOING to be done.

Thus, the great takeover of the 1950s, CO2 levels skyrocket, and the United States becomes the infamous monster that opened Pandora's Box on Global Warming (as the Kyoto People might say.)

-

Unfortunately, something called Outsourcing occurred.
The lesser version of Outsourcing was greedy, overpaid and underworked CEOs moving all their factories to Mexico, China, and anywhere else they could get cheap labor.
The GREATER outsourcing, was the outsourcing of the idea of the Consumer, Westernized Society, to places like China and India.

In 1981, the Government of China 'got the idea.'
In 1981, in the whole of China, a few hundred miles of paved road existed. CO2 emissions were near zero.
Now, China has almost as many miles of paved road as the US, is the world's largest steel producer, is the world's largest cement producer, is drilling for oil as fast as it can everywhere it can, wants a hotel at the base of Mount Everest, and a monument to itself at the top. It's CO2 emissions are the greatest in the world, and skyrocketing by the year.

India is getting in on the act.
Brazil is getting in on the act (helped by one of the world's largest finds of oil in the South Atlantic.)
Why, EVERYONE wants in on the wealth, prosperity, and military power that Consumerism and Westernization can bring!
Even Russia is back: It is now the world's largest oil producer and oil exporter, beating out Saudi Arabia (and reaping one heck of a windfall, too, in this era of high oil prices.)

Of course, Earth has limited resources, but who cares about that?
When your nation can win against other nations, by having the most people, the most consumerism, the most tax revenue (even Japan, has just announced it must produce vast numbers of new young people, for example, reversing it's decades long near zero growth policy), and a vast military (the Russian Bear is back, for example), who cares about the planet?
Why, 20 billion people are worth it, if it means more money for me! (I don't think people like Mr. Vladimir Putin particular care if the environment suffers ... although he makes sure his foes suffer, as we saw from that one poor radioactive sod ...)

Thus, in the next 20 years, China will easily produce more CO2, than the United States produced in it's entire history.
In the next 20 years after that, if it keeps growing at 10% compounded, China will produce more CO2 than the entire world did prior to that, in the whole of human history.

India, Brazil, and many other developing nations will follow suit.

Older CO2 emitters like the US, Canada, the EU, Japan, and Russia, will produce more CO2 again, rapidly increasing emissions, as they compete with each other in an ever more overcrowded, resource scarce world.

One day, Earth will have 40 billion people. Genetically engineered food will see to that (or, all too likely, Soylent Green will feed the masses.)
And the Nations of Earth will STILL be pushing Consumerism Run Amok, building the most titanic armies, vying for what currency will be the World Currency, still chopping down mountains for coal, and still digging 10 miles deep into the ocean for oil (and cars will still be about as advanced as they were in 1910, featuring the 'new and improved' rack-and-pinion steering, on the 'new and improved' 20 lane (each way) Super Freeways.)

(chuckles wryly)

Why not just carpet bomb Antarctica with Castle Bravos, melt it, and get it over with?
Sometimes, Mad Dogs are Mad Dogs, and all you can do - even if you really are a Nice Guy - is put them out of their misery (dike the appropriate coasts in sane countries first.)

hobbiteer

03-09-2011, 06:54 PM

Edena_of_Neith

03-09-2011, 08:28 PM

Let me see if I understand...so this is all because of human nature?
Much like communism is wonderful in theory but human nature exploits it. Human nature exploits the planet.

What I'm malking away with is human nature is to blame. Am I wrong?

Actually, you are dead on. You summarize it all quite nicely.
Humans, wreck the planet, by their very nature. (Just as humans, by their very nature, slaughter each other in wars, and build hydrogen bombs to REALLY slaughter each other in wars.)

Global Warming, is a product of human nature.
Since human nature is not going to change, Global Warming is sorta inevitable, no?

I don't know about Communism. I have no comment about Communism.

But human nature, is human nature. God knows, we ALL know enough about human nature, to want to wretch and vomit, no? (If not, I envy that person's Ivory Tower. Where do I get one?!)

All any of us can do, is do our best, and try to survive the depredations of our fellow men. Not an easy task.

As for Global Warming ...

It will melt southern Greenland. Oceans rise 10 feet.
This breaks West Antarctica loose. Oceans rise another 20 feet.
Oceans flooded with ice and frigid water. Mankind counters with nukes to warm planet.
Northern Greenland melts. Oceans rise another 10 feet.
West Antartica melts. Oceans rise another 180 feet.
Thermal expansion occurs as oceans warm. Oceans rise another 250 feet.
Oceans up 500 feet. Please see Google Earth for new map of continents (especially, Islands of Europe.)

Of course, Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin COULD get together, and arbitrarily decide to immediately melt the Arctic Sea Ice, for the purposes of international shipping and trade. And even melt Greenland, with buried nukes exploding across the icecap.
When the world objects, US and Russia point to their nuclear arsenal, and say: You have a problem with us?

Edena_of_Neith

03-10-2011, 04:48 AM

Back before the current economic crash, at the height of our own CO2 emissions, the average American emitted 20 tons of carbon per year.
That is, with 300 million people, we emitted 6 billion tons of CO2. 6 billion divided by 300 million is 20.
Of course, Middle Class America, with it's McMansions and SUVs, emitted more CO2 than the majority of Americans, who pay their taxes, feed their families, and just try to live from day to day.

What if, the entire world emitted as much as the average (not Middle Class) American?
There are 7 billion people in the world. That's 7 billion x 20, or 140 billion tons of carbon (current world emissions are a mere 31 billion tons, in comparison.)

China, in 2008, emitted 8.1 billion tons of CO2. If they continued to rise at 9% compounded, this year (2011) they should emit more like 11 billion tons of CO2.
China has 1.4 billion people. 1.4 billion divided by 11 billion = 0.13, roughly, or 13 tons of CO2, per person, per year.
Of course, that's deceptive. China offers a horrible standard of living to it's people, relative to it's energy output. It uses brown coal, makes vast amounts of cement, and is otherwise incredibly energy intensive.
What if China evolves to the point where it offers a high standard of living to all it's people, like America? How much CO2, will be emitted then? Quite a lot, regardless of how you cut it.

If India can pull the same stunt, it will produce more CO2 than China does, since it has an even larger population (and still rapidly growing, too.)
Raise their standard of living to American levels? Great for the people of India! But CO2 emissions will be incredible.
Who is to say India does not have the right to do that?! We did it. We have a high standard of living. Who is to deny it to the long suffering people of India?

How about the long suffering people of every other developing nation on Earth? Don't they have a right to a better (and more energy intensive) life? They certainly want that better life!

140 billion tons of CO2.
31 billion tons is enough to raise CO2 in the atmosphere by 3 ppm per year. 140 billion tons would raise it by almost 5 times that, or almost 15 ppm per year.

And who says it would stop there?
World population will be around 15 billion by 2100, at the rate things are going.
Assuming aggressive growth by nations on all sides, it is all too easy to imagine that the average per capita emission of the average person of the world, rises to 20 tons per person per year (even if the average person of the world, lives a ghastly life of absolute, insane poverty, and eats Soylent Green for dinner.)
In which case, it's 15 billion x 20, or 300 billion tons, or 30 ppm per year.

And who says it would stop there?
Americans once dreamed of an energy rich world in which America's per person CO2 emissions were projected to rise to 80 tons per person per year (I read that in multiple books.) Why not, then, the world?
15 billion x 80 = 1.2 trillion tons per year, or 120 ppm CO2 per year.

The best part?

It's going to happen. Barring World War III, the scenario above is going to happen.
Rapid overpopulation, rapid economic development, the rise of Consumerism and Westernization (more Consumerism + better Technology = more tax money = my army is bigger and stronger than yours is) will ensure those 15 billion people, each of them producing that 20 to 80 tons of CO2 per capita.

Best of all, the Arctic, once it starts melting, will start producing that much CO2 by itself, no help from Mankind needed! Melting permafrost will release untold amounts of CO2 into the air. It will also release untold amounts of methane into the air as well (a gas at least 10 times more effective than CO2 ever was.)
Warmer oceans will stop taking in CO2.
If there are no forests, because all the land is being farmed, they cannot take in CO2.
Even if the smog is cleared up, there is no winning - smog is halving the CO2 effect! Take away the smog, and the CO2 effect immediately DOUBLES!!

And there ARE enough proven coal reserves, to maintain emissions at that level, for centuries at least.

(grins evilly)

Bye bye, Greenland.
Bye bye, Antarctica.
Seas up, and all those people with that much less land to live on. (Do that Google Map with the oceans up 500 feet, then try cramming 15 billion people into what's left of the continents - and by the time the oceans are up that much, more like 40 to 50 billion people. :) )

Build that restaurant on top of Mount Everest. (It will be one of the last cold, relatively sparcely inhabited places on the whole planet, barring the deep oceans.)

Edena_of_Neith

03-10-2011, 05:28 AM

Heh.

The El Rushbo, Rush Limbaugh Who Is Always Right (to quote him) ...
He will say I, Edena_of_Neith, am wrong.

In this one case, I am right.

But that will not stop the Robber Barons, Oil Magnets of the World.
We have a runaway train, and all Mankind is on board.
I see where the train is headed, but then so does everyone else, and they do as they do anyways. Even if they reach the desert engine room, they dance in glee and hit the accelerator even harder, putting heavy rocks on it to keep it down.

There are answers, that do not involve the Daleks (YOU WILL BE EXTERMINATED. EXTERMINATE!!!)
Fusion power, solar power, desalination plants, genetically altered food and cattle, and the halting of population growth combined with better and more stable economic policies (no, I do not mean screwing old people, either) are all options on the table.

But Mankind will have none of that.
Better power options are not developed, or suppressed, because there is too much money in fossil fuel.
The more overpopulated the world becomes, the harder people try to have children (in the hopes some of them will actually survive to adulthood.)
Vast areas of farmland are reverting back to desert as the aquifers collapse, while Greenland spills it's fresh water into the ocean and nobody knows how to harvest the meltwater.
Heatwaves and cold waves from the increasingly freakish weather are devastating the crop yields and cattle population of entire continents (ask Russia and Bolivia about this ...), and nobody can protect either crops or cattle (much less build a better mousetrap - er, better crops and cattle.)

And it's all going to get better. So much better.
90 to 100 every day for a month in Moscow and Helsinki, and that was with a frozen Arctic.
Now, imagine no Arctic sea ice, no cold waves, no cold to ever push the prevailing Westerlies back south to mitigate the extreme heat.
And if it is 100 in Helsinki, what is it in Berlin? Rome? In the tropics? Take some guesses ... you might hit the actual (and unpleasant) truth.

In the Worst Case Scenario, the entire Arctic Sea Ice Pack disappears THIS YEAR, and only returns during the winter, fading out to an Ice Free Arctic the Year Around, within a decade.

Fun, fun, fun. All coming to a town near you. (You didn't like the cold, snowy winter we just had? Don't worry. Iqaluit harbor, Frobisher Bay, did not freeze up until January this year, and one day snow and ice will only be something for the History Books.)

Edena_of_Neith

03-10-2011, 05:37 AM

The point of all the above?

You're fucked. It's a Good Fuck (after all, who else has all these scientific and technological miracles, but us?!!!) but it IS still a Fuck, and a Fuck is a Fuck (parts is parts!)

Better get used to the Fucking.
Or didn't you read my OP?

You all have the exquisite fortune and misfortune to live in the Most Interesting Times of ALL Interesting Times.

You know, they just built a building half a mile tall over in the Middle East.
They know how to build skyscrapers a mile high, I read.

Hmmm .... 40 to 50 billion people, the oceans up 500 feet ...

May need to start mass production of those mile high skyscrapers. After all, you gotta pack all those people in somewhere.
Maybe, just maybe, they can build them 2 miles high? 3 miles? 4 miles? ...

Trainz

03-10-2011, 11:18 AM

You do realize that overpopulation is problem of resources, not space? We could easily live comfortably being 100 billion people. The problem is resources.

But scientific advances are making strides in overcoming this problem. What used to require acres of land to sustain people will soon only require a few hundred yards of land.

Human beings are the most adaptive of creatures this planet has seen, and we will adapt. Granted, transitions might be rough, but throughout history there have been quite many rough transitions. This is just another one, on a bigger scale.

The Winslow

03-10-2011, 12:24 PM

The problem is not just science, though. It's money. Money money money.

Who benefits from the status quo? The ones who are benefitting from it right now. The more they've benefitted from it, the higher they went, the more money they have, and the more power they have to stop changes that frighten them. What sort of changes frighten them? Not climate changes -- who cares, at worst they can just move to another mansion. It's worries for poor people. No, what they fear is changes that would lead to them getting less money. That is the real danger, the one that they'll invest all their wealth to fight and prevent.

So, for example. Suppose you have an extremely wasteful society that is burning hydrocarbons for fuel like there's no tomorrow. The pollution from all this combustion -- in factories, power plants, vehicles, homes, etc. -- is staggering and enough to alter weather patterns on a global scale. However, the existing resources are getting thinner and thinner and will soon be exhausted. What do you do?

Search alternative, "clean" energy sources
Reduce energy consumption
Both of the above
Turn all the farmlands and remaining wilderness into a toxic desert to drill for shale oil and gas, irremediably poisoning air, earth and water in doing so

The correct answer is of course #4, as demonstrated by what happened in the USA and Canada and is starting to happen now in Europe.

Edena_of_Neith

03-10-2011, 05:51 PM

In the 5th Element, wasn't the Earth's population around 150 billion?
New York City had skyscrapers miles high. They had a standard of living higher than that enjoyed by most people living in the Real World today.

I mean: Yes, the cabbie had only a tiny apartment to live in (one of the points of humor in the film, was he fit all those people, including the World Leader, into that space, AND hid them all from the police, to boot!) ... but compare that to the people in Brazil, who all too often have only a drain pipe to live in, or the people in India, who have only a 6 foot by 6 foot square of sidewalk to live on (for an entire large family, at that.)
He had good food to eat (those people in Brazil and India are lucky if they find something edible in the local garbage can.)
He had heat and air conditioning (those people have neither.)
He had electrical power and all it's conveniences (those people usually don't, or are electrocuted when they splice into the main lines.)
He even had access to automotive technology, the right to drive around in an automobile. (Ask those people in Brazil and India, if they have the money to take a taxi, much less own one.)

In this sense, the 5th Element is very optimistic about our future.

It foresees that we take the route Trainz envisions.
Fusion power, solar power, genetic engineering, electric cars, careful land use, proper infrastructure, and other developments could make for a better world, truly.

Then again, The Winslow has a point.
The main Aquifer that stretches from South Dakota to Texas, and was formed during the Pliocene, is mostly dry, and yet they still draw water from it, while millions of acres of our Great Plains slowly choke and wither away in dust.
So, the Winslow's point is made, just from that alone. (In Europe, Chernobyl shows the dangers of not being careful with nuclear power, while anyone in China (who is gagging on the poisoned air) can tell you about misuse of coal.)

It is my opinion - just my *opinion* that at some point the United States and Russia will decide to arbitrarily melt the Arctic Sea Ice, 'for everyone's best interests.'
When the whole world (very rightfully and with incredible justification) protests, these protests will gradually turn to adoration and praise of this wonderful idea, as people are bought off (or told what will happen to them, if they don't shut their mouths.)

And when it is 110 in Paris, from June through September, people of the likes of Rush Limbaugh will simply declare that Air Conditioning is the answer to any and all problems caused.
Why, he would proclaim, the North and Baltic Seas are now swimmable! Why aren't the Europeans happy?

Stupid Rush Limbaugh ... (what scares me even more, is that Sarkozy might say this also, and he's the Prime Minister of France, AND more people LIKE Sarkozy are jockeying to take over Europe. Ask The Winslow for more about this; I'm sure he has a lot to say on this subject.)

EDIT:

But who am I?
According to the El Rushbo, I'm one of those Environmental Wackos.
I cannot compete for the hearts and minds of people against He Who Is Always Right (and millions listen, and believe what he says.)

Now, people like Sarkozy bring the spirit of Rush Limbaugh to Europe. How long will it be, before the French start hearing (and, just maybe, listening and believing) Rush Limbaugh on THEIR radios?
Not very long, I'm guessing.

Edena_of_Neith

03-10-2011, 09:00 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/09/AR2011030904803.html

475 gigatons of ice. Every year. And it's rapidly accelerating.

Maybe we should send Rush Limbaugh ('surely, you don't believe in the global warming hoax?') to collect all that water?

(irritated)

475 gigatons. And accelerating.
If they refuse to do anything else, anything at all, why not at least build pipes and funnel some of that to desert countries where people are going thirsty?

Edena_of_Neith

03-11-2011, 04:26 AM

(solemnly)

The heat wave of 2010 in Russia killed 56,000 people.

That, from that one heat wave, which they are now calling a Natural Heat Wave.

http://classic.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1760

Imagine a world where there is no Arctic Sea Ice, and that Heat Wave (or, rather, FAR worse than that Heat Wave) is the norm every year over Europe.

In that world, it is still cool at 10,000 feet in the Alps. Temperatures are only in the upper 80s, with heat indexes in the upper 90s, with bright sunny weather.
At the summit of the Matterhorn at 18,000 feet, it is in the 50s, and quite pleasant if you stay out of the murderous sun shining through the thin atmosphere (and you are wearing an oxygen tank.)

Grapes are grown in the Highlands of Scotland, the northwest coast, the north coast, and on the Shetland Islands. Across the rest of Great Britain, it is too hot for grapes. Even around Glasgow, temperatures of 100+ wither every attempt at growing grapes, and only the hardiest of hot weather crops can hope to make it.

Trainz

03-11-2011, 04:10 PM

Buddy, stop. Just... just stop.

You can't go on like this. Focus about your immediate surroundings. Stop panicking all the time.

For the love that all that is holly: breathe.

The Winslow

03-11-2011, 04:26 PM

Buddy, stop. Just... just stop.

You can't go on like this. Focus about your immediate surroundings. Stop panicking all the time.

For the love that all that is holly: breathe.

Musician joke?

Trainz

03-12-2011, 03:43 AM

Musician joke?

Well look at that... it is!

I TOTALLY MEANT TO DO THAT!

Megamieuwsel

03-12-2011, 04:41 AM

But scientific advances are making strides in overcoming this problem. What used to require acres of land to sustain people will soon only require a few hundred yards of land.
That's still called "Strip-mining"...
The 2billion-figure, our planet can sustain is based on the planet's capacity to replenish the used resources.
Maybe it could be adjusted upward to about 2.5bln due to less wastefull usage, but anything more is just possible by consuming more(and faster) than is delivered.

Edena_of_Neith

03-12-2011, 09:46 PM

Buddy, stop. Just... just stop.

You can't go on like this. Focus about your immediate surroundings. Stop panicking all the time.

For the love that all that is holly: breathe.

Well put, and you're right.

I'm having a Shock Reaction to the Pacific catastrophe, and I've turned off the news and have taken sedatives.

-

I do want to say this, though, Trainz: Nature is King.
Mankind thinks he is King. Mankind is wrong. Nature is King.
Ask the Japanese about who is King in this world. Ask them whose wrath is most to be feared.

My parents laughed at tornado warnings.
They still laugh at hurricane warnings. It's like Katrina never happened.

If even that 3 foot tsunami had hit our Florida coast, our coast would have been devastated. We do not have cliffs like California does, to stop it.
An 8 foot tsunami, like the one that hit the California town, would have wiped out Miami.
The tsunami that hit Japan, might have swamped Southern Florida completely, crossing the entire state, flooding out the other side.

Had that earthquake and tsunami hit our West Coast, there would be no US West Coast anymore.

-

I'm going to say this one more time: Nature is King. Mankind is not King. Rush Limbaugh is not King. Nature is King.
And if Nature decides to deliver it's wrath, it's the Wrath of God, no Hollywood special effects needed. (takes a look at Japan) The Wrath of God indeed.

If you screw up a planet's atmosphere with CO2 and methane, and alter the climate of the planet in a massive way, as we are doing, then you invoke the Wrath of Nature on a massive scale.

I respect that.
Maybe Rush Limbaugh and others do not, but I do.

I live in a Hurricane Zone.
If a Hurricane Warning is issued, I have to decide whether to respect nature and leave, or laugh at nature and stay. Not only for myself, but for my parents and my dog.
The coast is 3 miles from here. I'm 12 feet above sea level. There are no hurricane shelters anywhere near here, because the land is too low.
The only road out is a 2 lane road without shoulders, sitting on a frail berm that is easily washed away, that could easily (and would be) blocked by fallen trees and power lines, or flooded as the ditches on either side overflow.
There is no other way out - the other main roads run down to the coast.

Do I laugh at nature, as that surfer did (a surfer decided to surf the tsunami off our West Coast. He is dead) ?
Or do I respect it?
What do you think my response is going to be?

Mankind chooses to disrespect nature.
I am just saying: Nature is King, and will remind man of that fact. Painfully.

Trainz

03-13-2011, 12:42 AM

It's called natural selection. It's been that way for billions of years.

Nature is fickle, yes, But not king. There are so many of us, that even if nature decides to destroy millions of us, we'll keep on keeping on.

Only a big ass asteroid from space or global thermo-nuclear war will destroy humanity. The latter is extremely unlikely. The former, well by the time it comes (and it will come), if it isn't in the coming decades (EXTREMELY unlikely), we will have the technology to avert it.

I'm sorry to say, but as far as we're concerned, we're king. Not individually, hell no, we're extremely fragile, but as a species we're fucking resilient.

Aloysius

03-13-2011, 04:53 AM

Only a big ass asteroid from space or global thermo-nuclear war will destroy humanity.

Or a relativistic weapon used by an alien civilization. Or the explosion of a mega-volcano siberian-traps (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/02/04/volcano-mass-extinction.html) like (this one won't probably wipe us completely, but will probably cause the fall of our civilization), or a designed virus (make it lethal, highly contagious, but with a long incubation delay..), or a robotic insurrection, or whatever we can't think about.

Edena_of_Neith

04-06-2011, 04:07 AM

Have to resurrect this thread, because I think the EU Government is getting it seriously wrong here.

IMHO ...

- Is Man emitting vast amounts of CO2, methane, and making land use changes that are detrimental? Yes.
- Is Man producing vast amounts of soot, which falls on the snow and ice in the Arctic, changes it's albeido, and helps it melt? Yes.
- Is Man responsible for Global Warming, through these means? Yes.
- Is the Global Warming massive? Yes.
- Is the Arctic melting, with the Arctic Sea Ice soon to be gone? Yes.
- Does the Climate Change represent a major threat to food, water, and other supplies and resources? Yes.

*** - Will banning all cars from European Cities by 2050, make a serious dint in Global Warming? No. ***

I'll never understand the EU Government, for that is what they wish to implement, and they think it will (seriously affect Global Warming.)

If the whole world stopped emitting atmospheric pollution right now, the Global Forcing (the Greenhouse Effect caused by increased CO2 and methane) would immediately double, as feedback gasses such as smog and soot particles disappeared, the air cleared, and the sunlight intensified worldwide.
The equivalent of adding an extra 120 ppm CO2, and 1 ppm methane to the atmosphere, basically.

There is no quick fix to Global Warming, and certainly thing like banning cars from cities isn't going to do it (I hear, though, that it is infuriating lawmakers in Great Britain.)

shiningbrow

04-06-2011, 09:30 AM

You know, they just built a building half a mile tall over in the Middle East.
They know how to build skyscrapers a mile high, I read.

Hmmm .... 40 to 50 billion people, the oceans up 500 feet ...

May need to start mass production of those mile high skyscrapers. After all, you gotta pack all those people in somewhere.
Maybe, just maybe, they can build them 2 miles high? 3 miles? 4 miles? ...

In 1956, Frank Lloyd Wright unveiled his project for a Mile High skyscraper to be called "The Illinois." It was to have atomic powered elevators and a bar in the penthouse called "Heaven." He hated cities, preferring medium density settlements like "Broadacre City," a suburban settlement pattern that he revealed in the 1930's. Towers like the Illinois would be exceptions, and would have functioned as vertical cities. The contradiction in his thinking never occurred to him. Most cities are located by bodies of water so if the global water levels rise, some serious adjustments will be necessary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Illinois

Varaj

04-06-2011, 10:08 AM

There have been many arcologies proposed and designed. A few even built.

This one in design is cool http://inhabitat.com/ziggurat-dubai-carbon-neutral-pyramid-will-house-1-million/

This was being built but construction was halted in 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Island

Edena_of_Neith

04-07-2011, 02:09 AM

Sounds like an interesting idea.
In the far future, as the seas rise hundreds of feet, cities will have to be moved, and there will be less room for urban sprawl.
Perhaps vertical cities will make quite a lot of sense, in a crowded world with less land.

(thinks of the Fifth Element)

Then again, things can be taken a little overboard, too ...

-

What is this thing about banning cars from cities?

As much as you, or I (or pretty much everyone else) hates city car, truck, and bus congestion (not to mention the highly fatal nature of that nightmare we know as Rush Hour ...) how to get around without auto transit?
Park on the edge of Paris, and walk 10 or 15 miles to downtown? Or build a mass transit system big enough to accommodate all 10 million people living in Paris, for everything?

And how will this stop Global Warming? They say that's the point of it, that this is why they are doing it. So, how does it achieve that end?

The Winslow

04-07-2011, 03:55 AM

*** - Will banning all cars from European Cities by 2050, make a serious dint in Global Warming? No. ***

Around here, nobody is saying that the progressive ban of cars, trucks and motorcycles in cities is about global warming. Instead, they speak about air quality and the number of people who die or fall gravely ill because of engine-created air pollution.

Edena_of_Neith

04-08-2011, 08:51 AM

Around here, nobody is saying that the progressive ban of cars, trucks and motorcycles in cities is about global warming. Instead, they speak about air quality and the number of people who die or fall gravely ill because of engine-created air pollution.

Agreed.

I mean ...Ah man, try sitting behind a city bus in the United States. (I have no sense of smell, but when you can hardly see ahead of you for the black fumes, you know there's a problem ...)
And where I used to live, in western Metropolitan Detroit, the air quality is so bad, your lungs burn practically from the moment you step outside, during the summer. An oak tree that had lived for 400 years, died as I grew up, and the surburban congestion with auto fumes came to our area (and these growing fumes killed the tree.)
Even the sunlight is greatly dimmed in metropolitan Detroit, and the morning sun shining through the pollution is a dim red (here in South Florida, it rises in an arc of white glory.)

So then, the EU bill is an anti-pollution bill for cities.

(shrugs)

They should just call it that.

Better yet, how about cars that do not pollute.
I can dream of being a millionaire too. Not gonna happen. Big Energy and Big Automotive just won't allow clean cars. : (

Edena_of_Neith

04-08-2011, 09:00 AM

Note what I said about how the sun rises in an arc of glory here, from the instant it crests the horizon.
In Metro Detroit, you must wait 10 minutes to see the sun at all, after it rises. During those 10 minutes, you will see what looks like a vast, black cloud blocking it, on the horizon. That's the pall of pollution, thick enough to actually block out the rising sun.
Even after the sun climbs above it, it is that weak red color.
And at midday, it is hazy and weak, if the pollution is given several days to build up (common during summer heat waves, during which time the air aloft is stagnant and still.)

This is why, if they actually clean up the Earth's atmosphere of this sooty stuff, the Global Forcing Effect doubles.

In the Arctic, where the sun angle is always low, this is particularly true.
A great deal of pollution hangs around in the Arctic, blown in from lower latitudes, and it makes a considerable difference in the strength of that weak summer Arctic sunlight.

I figure that, if our CO2 and methane emissions had not produced such a massive Global Warming Forcing, the feedback from the sooty pollution, might have returned us to the Little Ice Age.
Some old films I watched, speculated just that, also.

The Earth did actually cool during the 1950s and 1960s. Perhaps, just perhaps (my hypothesis) the cooling effect of the soot and other pollution, combined with stratospheric dust from nuclear tests, overcame the (then lesser) forcing from CO2 and methane, to produce a net cooling.
Then the Forcing from CO2 and methane grew strong enough to overcome the cooling feedback, and the current massive warm-up (about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since 1970, or 2 degrees Fahrenheit in a mere 40 years) began.
Just a hypothesis.

So, keep emitting CO2 and methane, and keep emitting soot and other pollutants, and you get Global Warming.
Stop emitting CO2, methane, and other pollutants, and the Global Warming doubles.
Stop emitting CO2 and methane, but keep on with the other pollutants, and you get the Krakatoa Effect, disrupting harvests and producing flooding here, drought there, around the world.

Problems, problems ...

Edena_of_Neith

04-08-2011, 09:11 AM

i would like to express my genuine astonishment over something.

During the Great Heat Wave in Western Europe, London hit 100 degrees Fahrenheit, Paris hit 110, and some parts of France hit 115.
Temperatures of 100 were also recorded in Germany, Poland, and Denmark.

In last year's Eastern European Heatwave, Moscow recorded 100, and other parts of central and northern Russia recorded 100 or near 100.
Helsinki came close to 100. The heat reached Stockholm, and they were close to 100.
It was in the 90s up to the White Sea, and it was up to 90 even in Lapland, away from the coast.

What this shows is that the cooling effect from the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans can be completely displaced from pretty much everywhere in Europe.
The only places which seem to be fairly totally protected from such extreme heat are Ireland, Scotland, Norway, Iceland, and Greenland.

We are not talking about the Horse Latitude Region of Earth's northern hemisphere, at 30 degrees north.
We are talking about places at 40 degrees north, 50 degrees north, and 60 degrees north. In Lapland, 70 degrees north.

It is quite astonishing how easily such extreme heat, can race so far north, and exist so easily, in spite of the chilled lands and waters of those latitudes (the ground under northern European Russia is not frozen, but it isn't exactly warm, either.)

An extrapolation to North America, and you could see 100 degrees in places like Labrador, northern Quebec, interior Baffin Island, northern Canada, and Alaska.
Of course, the record high temperatures for those regions are around 100 now. But there is a difference between it lasting a day or two, and it lasting a month, or longer.

Right now, Churchill, Manitoba, is famous for it's polar bears and it's long, frigid winters.
Maybe, one day, Churchill will be a popular summer resort, and swimming in the (now bathwater warm) waters of Hudson Bay a big attraction.
3 months in the 90s every day, with those 18 hour Churchill summer days, would do that.

These European Heat Waves show us, that possible future.

The Winslow

04-08-2011, 09:22 AM

So then, the EU bill is an anti-pollution bill for cities.

(shrugs)

They should just call it that.
The first measure in France concerns a eight test cities for a three-year experiment and only ban motorcycles, trucks and cars that are more than a certain age. (Bikes, trikes and quads from before 2004; cars and small utility vehicles from before 1997, trucks and buses from before 2001.)

That's part of the Clean Air For Europe program.

Edena_of_Neith

05-01-2011, 08:32 AM

A Statement ...

Yes, I have followed Global Warming as a lifelong obsession.
Yes, I believe there is man-made global warming.
Yes, I believe there will be massive global warming.

But ...

I DO NOT, AND I ***COULD NOT POSSIBLY*** KNOW if global warming had anything to do with those tornadoes and other weather phoenomenon.
If there IS Global Warming, even if there is MASSIVE Global Warming, I CANNOT AND WOULD NOT state that it directly related to the tornado outbreak and the other weather events of note, so far this year.

Even if there IS global warming, and even if I am wrong and it DID help produce those tornadoes and the other terrible weather phoenomenon that has occurred this year, it is a TRAGEDY, AND I WILL TREAT IT AS A TRAGEDY.

-

Some Global Warming people have had the gall to make fun of those people who have been victimized by the tornadoes, in Tuscaloosa and elsewhere.
Some of the Global Warming people, have said some truly appalling things.

To the people who would make fun of the disaster at Tuscaloosa, or otherwise make fun of victims of disasters, I have something to say:

* * * Fuck you. You are Snakes in the Grass, and we know a Piece of Shit when we see one. We don't need you, and we don't want you. Crawl back into the slime pits from which you came. Or better yet, shut your goddamn mouths, grab a shovel, and go help those people in Alabama.
Those of us who are serious about Global Warming, disown you. You're not wanted. We never want to see your ugly faces again. * * *

Edena_of_Neith

Scutisorex Shrewlord

05-01-2011, 09:01 AM

I like warming. Gonna be in the 70's today.

70's OF DEATH!!!!!!!!

Edena_of_Neith

05-01-2011, 09:03 AM

(rant)

(NOT aimed at anyone on Kay Tastrophe)

-

(in a fury)

To those making fun of the victims in Tuscaloosa and elsewhere:

-

I have been reading your posts on YouTube, you fucktards.
You think you have some sort of a stranglehold on Hate? On hurting other people? On manipulation?
You don't know shit, and are too stupid to realize that.

Your actions will destroy the legitimacy of the entire Global Warming community.
You will ensure that nobody pays attention to environmentalists ever again.
You will ensure that people who are serious about Global Warming are hated, despised, loathed.

Or, just perhaps, maybe this is what you wanted all along, isn't it?
So that, when billions are given to your Big Energy cronies, everyone supports it, and you helped make it happen.

40,000 Europeans died during the Great Heat Wave in Western Europe, 60,000 died in the Great Heat Wave in Russia last year, hundreds of thousands die in weather castatrophes every year, and some of these events may have been worsened by Global Warming or may not have been ... we don't know.
But your jeering and lunacy isn't helping anyone's case. You are making yourself the worse kind of ENEMIES to the environment, that there ever were.

Worse enemies than Big Business ever was. We all appreciate the ethics of Big Business, but you would go and discredit all of us, who try to research and discuss this environmental topic, shut off all debate, make everyone hate us all.

AS I WRITE THIS, Cuba is launching 5 deepwater drilling projects right off our coast in Florida.
Brazil is beginning exploration of it's massive oil find.
The burning of coal, oil, and natural gas continues to increase, and will continue to increase.
Global Warming is here, and will continue to worsen.

Thanks to nutcases and hatemongers like you, everyone will CHEER ON global warming (even when the whole Arctic is melted), and hate our guts, because you have to go and shoot off your goddamn mouths.
You have NO RIGHT to talk like this, period.
If you want to spew such vileness, such hate, why don't you do it to your local toilet? (I apologize to the poor toilets, too, for having to take your foul mouthed abused.)

Or, better yet, YOU go to Tuscaloosa, you fucktards, and YOU talk like this, directly in front of those people who have lost family, friends, homes, everything, in that tornado.
I dare you.
Put your money where your mouth is. Go to Tuscaloosa, and tell them what you think.

Just don't expect me to come and put flowers on your graves, or visit you in your beds in the hospital.
Because that is where those people will put you. (You know this, of course, so you spew your vileness like cowards, from a Safe Distance and in Anymnity, you fucking shitass chickenshits.)

You WILL discredit the whole Global Warming effort, made for decades by the scientific community.
Fine. Mission accomplished, if that is what you wanted. Your Big Oil Buddies will love you (but they won't give you a red cent, remember - while they rake in the billions, you'll be begging for food stamps.)
And if Global Warming messes up the world climate ... Your Big Oil friends will still profit, while you live with the consequences of that warming, because you don't have the money to avoid them.

Or ...

YOU COULD SHUT THE FUCK UP.
That wouldn't be too difficult, would it?
Or is it too difficult, not to be utterly and completely idiotic?

Edena_of_Neith

05-01-2011, 09:08 AM

As for me, I will go on *** discussing ** the *** SCIENCE *** of Global Warming.

Rant off.

Ergeheilalt

05-01-2011, 09:11 AM

What do a tornado and a redneck divorce have in common?

In the end, someone's gonna lose a trailer.

Edena_of_Neith

05-03-2011, 08:51 AM

If those idiots keep on making fun of Tuscaloosa's pain ... then I hope the Arctic DOES melt.

And when the oceans rise, they can each have their own personal teaspoon, with which to clean up the ensuing worldwide mess. (And no, they won't be receiving any Overtime Pay. Clock-In Time is 5 A:M.)

Aloysius

05-03-2011, 09:46 AM

The arctic melting would not make the ocean rises. Greenland and the Antartic on the other hand...:tongue:

Hatter

05-03-2011, 10:25 AM

The arctic melting would not make the ocean rises. Greenland and the Antartic on the other hand...:tongue:

Of course, ocean desalination may result in other environmental catastrophes.

Lucita

05-03-2011, 03:52 PM

To those making fun of the victims in Tuscaloosa and elsewhere:

Where I live, we have tornadoes every single year. We just don't throw a national fit about it.

Of course, this is Alabama. Their cities shut down entirely for like a quarter inch of snow.

Edena_of_Neith

05-03-2011, 04:02 PM

(sighs)

Pardon my English. I was angry.

I myself have nothing but respect for the people of Alabama, and sympathy for the suffering caused there.
That video I saw of Tuscaloosa left me in tears. (I mean it.)

Harry

05-03-2011, 07:46 PM

Where I live, we have tornadoes every single year. We just don't throw a national fit about it.

We have tornadoes in the Midsouth, where I live, and in the Deep South every year as well. I've long contended that "Tornado Alley" should include this area. But these were incredibly bad tornadoes. That's why the national attention. You do realize that over 300 people died and several small towns were virtually wiped out?

Name Lips

05-03-2011, 08:40 PM

It's the worst tornado season since the 70s in terms of death count.

Ergeheilalt

05-03-2011, 10:00 PM

It's the worst tornado season since the 70s in terms of death count.

Wait! You mean this has happened before? The earth has gone up in flames? How did we fix it? Was it Reagan? Should be exhume his body and set up a zombie presidency to stave off global warming?! Oh dear GOD! Won't somebody take my alarmist rabble rousing seriously!

ZOMBIE REAGAN 2012! He's our only hope!

Black Angel

05-04-2011, 01:48 AM

We have tornadoes in the Midsouth, where I live, and in the Deep South every year as well. I've long contended that "Tornado Alley" should include this area. But these were incredibly bad tornadoes. That's why the national attention. You do realize that over 300 people died and several small towns were virtually wiped out?

It actually made the news over here too, so it really must have been bad (and some of the live footage was downright scary!). I'm glad all of you living around those areas are ok.

Lucita

05-04-2011, 03:30 PM

You do realize that over 300 people died and several small towns were virtually wiped out?

Yes.

Aloysius

05-20-2011, 09:23 AM

In Europe, we are ready for a replay of the 1976 drought. Prepare for really high wheat prices this summer. I foresee more troubles in the Arab world, as those countries are very dependant of imported wheat.

Old Fart

05-20-2011, 01:18 PM

Where I live, we have tornadoes every single year. We just don't throw a national fit about it.I have intentionally delayed responding to this, lest my words be too heated.

Multiple F5s carved large swaths of destruction across the state. It was nothing short of miraculous that more lives were not lost. The devastation and its effect on people's lives are comparable in scope to national disasters that have hit Nashville, New Orleans, and California in recent years - that is hitting Memphis and Mississippi now.

FWIW, I am a Tuscaloosa native. The entire neighborhood my wife grew up in is now a collection of snapped tree trunks, housing foundations with odds pieces of plumbing and lumber sticking up through them, broken asphalt, and red clay - even the grass and ground was torn away in a 1/2-mile-wide track. Many of my family, more of my friends, were affected by this event. My father’s home was destroyed, along with most of the street he lived on. I didn’t want to “throw a fit about it” here at Kay's before because I feel incredibly blessed. My family is only dealing with loss of property. Not major medical. Not planning funerals. There are many others, far too many, that are not as lucky.

I understand that some people cannot wrap their minds around the scope of some tragedies. Or want to minimize them in order to process them better. Or simply lack empathy. But I found your comments really offensive, and I just wanted you to know that.

Edena, thank for your kind words. I am glad I had already formed a firm opinion about Global Warming well prior to April 27, 2011. I would hate to think my views were merely an emotional response to the morons to which you’re referring.

Lucita

05-20-2011, 05:11 PM

I understand that some people cannot wrap their minds around the scope of some tragedies. Or want to minimize them in order to process them better. Or simply lack empathy. But I found your comments really offensive, and I just wanted you to know that.

Fair enough. I was a jerkass about it, no question.

Allow me to explain my position. It may just make you angrier, but at least it'll be out there.

And my position is simply...weather happens. We can't control it, and part of living in a place is accepting the meteorological and geographical risks that come with it, most of which are well documented. Where I live, for instance, is prone to tornadoes and the occasional flash flood in the spring, intense high-humidity heat in the summer and heavy snowfall during the winter. If this coming winter we get six feet of snow in twelve hours and the roof over my head buckles and caves in my skull...well, that's part of the risk I assumed from living here. Even with my own death in this scenario, I would hope that "It snowed in Wisconsin" wouldn't be worthy of national attention, but it'd probably happen anyway.

I appreciate your honesty with me, and in respect for that I will attempt to scale down the jerkassedness in the future.

Droid101

05-20-2011, 05:27 PM

Where I live, for instance, is prone to tornadoes and the occasional flash flood in the spring, intense high-humidity heat in the summer and heavy snowfall during the winter.

Which begs the question... why would one choose to live in a place like that? :lol:

Lucita

05-20-2011, 05:35 PM

Which begs the question... why would one choose to live in a place like that? :lol:

1. Everywhere else is worse. ;)

2. Governor Walker recently issued a decree (I didn't realize that governors could decree things) that only those who could defeat the Rancor are allowed to leave the state.

(Pick one. :D )

Old Fart

05-21-2011, 01:37 AM

And my position is simply...weather happens.Thanks for your response. You're right; weather does happen. As do earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, etc. On rare occasion (though still far too often), these events reach a level usually referred to as a natural disaster. These occurrences are noteworthy enough to receive national, even international attention, and rightly so. And the attention devoted to covering the tragedy <> "throwing a national fit."

Weather happens, but that's small comfort to those directly affected. This thread was originally about global warming, a topic that many people are very concerned about. I doubt most of them would appreciate someone voicing an opinion like: "Stop whining. Weather happens."

I appreciate your honesty with me, and in respect for that I will attempt to scale down the jerkassedness in the future.
In case I wasn't 100% clear before - I assumed your comments were due to the different ways people react to news of tragic events. I never assumed any ill intent on your part. I was expressing displeasure with the comment, not the poster.

Trainz

05-22-2011, 01:38 AM

We have matured as a community, haven't we. Old Fart and Lucita, me and Bregh... we start something, and then we become all reasonable and proper discourse is resumed. Wouldn't have THAT in the days of old NKL.

Old Fart, this fucking blows man. I know, no loss of life, but it's still terrible. You work all your life, day by day making sacrifices to be able to afford ONE DAY a home, day by day not getting something you'd like, having a nice night out with your wife, getting a new movie, drinking a nice bottle of wine, just to pay the fucking mortgage. For DECADES. Every. Single. Day. And then, within minutes, it's all gone. Back to square one.

I fucking hate it. I feel for your family sir. I'm very sorry.

We're having massive floods in Quebec, a shitload of people just lost their houses. My partner at work is organizing a big benefit concert to get money and attention to this situation, so right now I'm quite aware of these tragedies.

So yeah... you have a lot of empathy from me about this.

Edena_of_Neith

05-22-2011, 03:25 AM

I have intentionally delayed responding to this, lest my words be too heated.

Multiple F5s carved large swaths of destruction across the state. It was nothing short of miraculous that more lives were not lost. The devastation and its effect on people's lives are comparable in scope to national disasters that have hit Nashville, New Orleans, and California in recent years - that is hitting Memphis and Mississippi now.

FWIW, I am a Tuscaloosa native. The entire neighborhood my wife grew up in is now a collection of snapped tree trunks, housing foundations with odds pieces of plumbing and lumber sticking up through them, broken asphalt, and red clay - even the grass and ground was torn away in a 1/2-mile-wide track. Many of my family, more of my friends, were affected by this event. My father’s home was destroyed, along with most of the street he lived on. I didn’t want to “throw a fit about it” here at Kay's before because I feel incredibly blessed. My family is only dealing with loss of property. Not major medical. Not planning funerals. There are many others, far too many, that are not as lucky.

I understand that some people cannot wrap their minds around the scope of some tragedies. Or want to minimize them in order to process them better. Or simply lack empathy. But I found your comments really offensive, and I just wanted you to know that.

Edena, thank for your kind words. I am glad I had already formed a firm opinion about Global Warming well prior to April 27, 2011. I would hate to think my views were merely an emotional response to the morons to which you’re referring.

(very solemnly)

I am very sorry. I am very glad you and the people you care about are still alive: we should count our blessings, thank God, that this is so.
My horrified condolensces to the people of Tuscaloosa, to you and your family, and to those you knew who lost family and friends (and property - but I would not trivialize the loss of life, or injury, or people crippled for life, by comparing such things to the mere loss of property - what are even cherished heirlooms compared to the life of someone you love?)

This goes for anyone else affected by these freak catastrophes: the Mississippi Flood, the Wildfires, drought, heat, and flooding in other countries.

Old Fart, here in Southwest Florida we are watching the ocean nervously. Upwards of 18 named storms are expected this year, and 6 severe hurricanes of Category 3 or greater.
I fear that many in Florida may suffer the kind of horror that has occurred elsewhere.

I have neither fear nor pity for myself, but I do pity those others who may not appreciate how much danger they are in, living here in Florida, and may experience the kind of horror and catastrophe that Tuscaloosa has had.
Pray for them.

Edena_of_Neith

05-22-2011, 03:31 AM

We have matured as a community, haven't we. (snip)

I fucking hate it. I feel for your family sir. I'm very sorry.

We're having massive floods in Quebec, a shitload of people just lost their houses. My partner at work is organizing a big benefit concert to get money and attention to this situation, so right now I'm quite aware of these tragedies.

So yeah... you have a lot of empathy from me about this.

Trainz, I am sorry.

Although our news media do not report it much, I know about the all time record flooding and mass destruction in Quebec.

As I have said to Old Fart, I am sorry, and I would like to give my support and my horrified empathy for your people.

Edena_of_Neith

Edena_of_Neith

05-22-2011, 03:37 AM

I do not presume to say that global warming (or any other specific climatic phoenomenon) caused the tornadoes, the flooding, or any of these other events.
In fact, I absolutely do not.

I would not trivialize extremely severe and all too real horror, suffering, and death, by posing my hypothesises on climatology, concerning them!!!

That tornado in Tuscaloosa, is not a hypothesis, theory ... it was a TORNADO, a CATASTROPHE, and it just IS. (Nuff said!)
That flood on the Mississippi? The same.
The catastrophic flood in Quebec? The same.
Raging fires out west? The same.

Al Gore and others can theorize all they wish. That tornado, those catastrophes, are not theories.
They are CATASTROPHES.

I respect that.
Finis.

Aloysius

05-22-2011, 03:59 AM

Al Gore and others can theorize all they wish. That tornado, those catastrophes, are not theories.
They are CATASTROPHES.

You know what : this attitude stinks. The black plague was a catastrophe, too. But today, we have antibiotics. Because some guys thought "well, this is really bad. What can we do about it ? ". Playing ostrich and refusing to study the "how" and the "why" of things like earthquakes, plagues, floods, storms and so on because "they are catastrophes" reeks of religious fatalism. "This is God's will, you sinners, there is nothing we can do about it !".
Of course there are things we can do. Sure, it won't be as easy or spectacular than the invention of antibiotics. But understanding both the climate and the weather (in the case of storms) may allow better predictions of those events. Studying how a tornado "works" may allow for safer housing (if the findings are used to create anti-tornadoes safe-room by example). Theories ? Scientific theories are what make the difference between us and cavemen. They are what allowed Armstrong to walk on the moon, they are what explained why an abominable earthquake in Japan killed "only" 20 000 peoples and not 2 millions (as it would if it had happened in Haïti for example).
You speaks as if trying to understand what happens mean that you can't feel any empathy for the victims. That's bullshit.

I'm sure you already know about this, but have another look on what the Dutchs did after 1953 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953

Edena_of_Neith

05-23-2011, 02:55 AM

You know what : this attitude stinks. The black plague was a catastrophe, too. But today, we have antibiotics. Because some guys thought "well, this is really bad. What can we do about it ? ". Playing ostrich and refusing to study the "how" and the "why" of things like earthquakes, plagues, floods, storms and so on because "they are catastrophes" reeks of religious fatalism. "This is God's will, you sinners, there is nothing we can do about it !".
Of course there are things we can do. Sure, it won't be as easy or spectacular than the invention of antibiotics. But understanding both the climate and the weather (in the case of storms) may allow better predictions of those events. Studying how a tornado "works" may allow for safer housing (if the findings are used to create anti-tornadoes safe-room by example). Theories ? Scientific theories are what make the difference between us and cavemen. They are what allowed Armstrong to walk on the moon, they are what explained why an abominable earthquake in Japan killed "only" 20 000 peoples and not 2 millions (as it would if it had happened in Haïti for example).
You speaks as if trying to understand what happens mean that you can't feel any empathy for the victims. That's bullshit.

I'm sure you already know about this, but have another look on what the Dutchs did after 1953 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953

Allow me to absolutely clarify:

What happened in Tuscaloosa (and now in Joplin and Minneapolis, among other places) is very bad, very unfortunate, and I choose to empathize, to give my support, to those hurt by these tragic events.
That simple. Bottom line: I am really sorry about these disasters, and really feel for those affected by them.
I couldn't be more clear about this, if I were a bell.

Yes, there have been worse catastrophes, and yes, there are worse catastrophes going on all the time. (For example, one million deaths in the Rwandan genocide.)

I STILL reserve the right to sympathize with, to support, the people of Tuscaloosa (and Minneapolis, and Joplin), for their suffering, their pain.

Give me Negative Rep, if you must. But I have the right to sympathize with those people.

You had BETTER BELIEVE I sympathize with Old Fart and Trainz.

Edena_of_Neith

Edena_of_Neith

05-23-2011, 04:24 AM

Allow me to clarify myself, even further.

This thread was meant to be about Global Warming, yes.

But then a direct catastrophe, involving *posters on this board* occurs, and I want to be supportive of them, give support to them.

I do not think that Old Fart would exactly appreciate me expressing my support by saying: I am really sorry about Tuscaloosa, and Global Warming caused it, and (and then 3 or 4 paragraphs of theoretical discussion of Global Warming!!!)
Nor do I believe Trainz would appreciate any such thing, either.

Simply a direct statement of support, nothing more ... and nothing less.

Global Warming may indeed be partially to blame for these catastrophes, but when someone has suffered a personal loss, are they really in the mood to listen to a theoretical diatribe?

That was my point, when I said I would not trivialize someone's suffering, by talking theoreticals to them.
When someone has suffered a personal loss, you give your direct support, if you are going to help someone.

Let's support those on this board who are suffering personal disasters, leave the theoreticals aside, put aside personal differences, and support each other.

Edena_of_Neith

Lucita

05-23-2011, 05:02 PM

In case I wasn't 100% clear before - I assumed your comments were due to the different ways people react to news of tragic events. I never assumed any ill intent on your part. I was expressing displeasure with the comment, not the poster.

Glad we have the air cleared then, man. Like I said, I'll try to coach the jerkassedness of my posts in the future, though I reserve the right to be cynical, misanthropic and generally pessimistic. :D

We have matured as a community, haven't we. Old Fart and Lucita, me and Bregh... we start something, and then we become all reasonable and proper discourse is resumed. Wouldn't have THAT in the days of old NKL.

I like ya'll too much to want to pick fights. When I want that, there's plenty of people on White Wolf's Exalted board. :D

Hatter

05-23-2011, 06:22 PM

I like ya'll too much to want to pick fights. When I want that, there's plenty of people on White Wolf's Exalted board. :D

Oh God, not another thread about Solars vs. Cain. Make the pain stop.

Lucita

05-24-2011, 12:05 AM

Oh God, not another thread about Solars vs. Cain. Make the pain stop.

That was actually brought up in the thread, but not by me. See, Shadowdragon...

Well, that's pretty much all I should have to say, isn't it? Granted that going after Shadowdragon isn't that difficult, but the little shit is just so willful and in-your-face about his ignorance and just plain stupid ideas...

Droid101

05-24-2011, 05:04 PM

Where I live, we have tornadoes every single year. We just don't throw a national fit about it.

...weather happens. We can't control it, Well, "weather happens" just so happened to create the deadliest tornado in US history.

So, still blasé about the whole thing? Oh, yeah, I guess you are, since you have tornadoes every single year.

:rolleyes:

Lucita

05-24-2011, 07:48 PM

I would imagine that most people on this board are well acquainted with the fact that I'm a callous douche, so I don't see much point in the reiteration of that. :what:

Harry

05-24-2011, 08:01 PM

Forgive me for my short memory, because I'm almost certain I've asked you specifically this in the recent past, but where do you live again?

Lucita

05-24-2011, 08:20 PM

Central/East Wisconsin. Pretty much right on the lake. Ya'know, give or take...

Harry

05-24-2011, 09:41 PM

Ah yes, that's it.

Fwiw, I moved to Milwaukee, WI in the summer of 1995. That was the Great Heatwave of 1995. People were dropping like flies right and left. A large man died in an apartment building right across the street from my store. The temps were in the mid-90s. Yep.

I didn't belittle them. And I grew up mostly without air conditioning, in the midsouth, in the olden days back when schools and churches didn't think they needed it, but were of otherwise modern construction. Hell, I had a large window unit AC I brought with me to Milwaukee, but I didn't install it until 1996.

I also lived through the Flood of 93, one of the worst floods in American history, in the midwest. I was in Alton when the levee broke, and I was in Grafton when the town sank. But I didn't belittle my neighbors now that I'm back home here in Memphis, not to their faces at least, when they worried about levees "breaking" here in 2011.

Yep.

Did a blizzard too, around about 1999, in Milwaukee. Seems like I recall folks were a mite bit worked up over it, and not just on my street there, but nationwide. Just like folks in Illinois remarked on the Memphis ice storms of the early 90s.

Yep.

Should I ever be concerned for you? Just curious.

Ergeheilalt

05-24-2011, 10:13 PM

Excuse me for my ignorance, but growing up in East County San Diego, mid 90's were an every day occurrence in the summer. How does somebody die of that? Just not drinking enough water?

Glass

05-24-2011, 10:33 PM

Scutisorex Shrewlord

05-25-2011, 12:03 AM

I lived almost my entire life around hurricanes, heat waves and tornadoes. Used to just take them in stride. Hurricane Katrina cured me of all that shit. I feel bad everytime I see destruction wrought by wind and water now, cause I know what it's like, not only to live through it, but be personally affected by it through friends and family. I will never forget having to work phones and try to answer calls about destroyed neighborhoods. Ever. People crying on the phone because their mom or dad or sister or brother or grandparents were last heard from living along a stretch of road that's now under 20 ft. of water and you have no idea what to tell them. It's heartbreaking.

Harry

05-25-2011, 12:14 AM

Excuse me for my ignorance, but growing up in East County San Diego, mid 90's were an every day occurrence in the summer. How does somebody die of that? Just not drinking enough water?

Mostly because they drank too much beer and had their windows painted shut. But the hysteria was both incredible and well, justified. Hundreds upon hundreds died, mainly because of the two things I mention.

The standard myth is that Southerners are adapted to the heat and Northerners to the cold. When I first moved north, my new-found Yanqui friends expected my quick and certain death at the hands of the elements. The human body is remarkably adaptable however, as it always has been. Death from simple heat or cold comes mainly through disease or the refusal to listen to the body and let it adapt. If you are in the north and the weather turns uncommonly hot, open your damned windows and mix in some water with your beer once in a while. Even water your wine.

Or as Glass says, drink water and don't exhaust yourself.

Lucita

05-25-2011, 07:42 AM

Should I ever be concerned for you? Just curious.

I'm afraid I'm not quite getting the context of what you're asking. Are you asking if I would like you to be concerned for me? If I think you should be concerned for me? Something else?

Droid101

05-25-2011, 10:46 AM

Droid101

05-25-2011, 10:46 AM

I would imagine that most people on this board are well acquainted with the fact that I'm a callous douche, so I don't see much point in the reiteration of that. :what:

http://thumbpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/trollface.jpg

Lucita

05-25-2011, 07:10 PM

I see your Trollface and raise you Communist Fluttershy.

16741

Edena_of_Neith

06-02-2011, 10:27 AM

And now Springfield, Massachusetts.

Crap. : (

Harry

06-02-2011, 06:18 PM

Planet Earth Doesn't Know How To Make It Any Clearer It Wants Everyone To Leave

The Earth says events like this should have made it "pretty obvious" what it's been driving at.

EARTH—According to a statement released to the press Tuesday, the planet Earth has "just about run out of ways" to let its roughly 6.9 billion human inhabitants know it wants them all to leave.

Following a recent series of disastrous floods along the Mississippi River and destructive tornadoes across much of the United States—as well as a year of even deadlier natural catastrophes all over the world—the Earth said its options for strongly implying that it no longer wants human beings living on it have basically been exhausted.

"At this point, I think I've stated my wishes quite loudly and clearly," the Earth's statement to all of humanity read in part. "I haven't exactly been subtle about it, you realize. I have literally tried to drown you, crush you, starve you, dehydrate you, pump you full of diseases, and suck your homes and families into swirling vortices of death. Honestly, what more is it going to take for you people to get the message?"

"Do I have to spell it out for you?" the statement continued. "Get the fuck out of here. I want you to leave now."

The statement went on to list thousands of incidents in 2011 alone that the Earth claimed were "solely and unmistakably" designed to inform the human race that it might be time to move on, including the devastating tsunami that caused thousands of deaths in Japan, an earthquake in Christchurch, New Zealand, that killed an estimated 181 people, and historic rainstorms in Colombia that destroyed entire communities with deadly landslides.

The planet Earth also singled out an ongoing drought in China that has left more than 2.3 million people with a shortage of fresh water as "a pretty big goddamned tip-off, wouldn't you say?"

While the Earth had hoped the human race might finally "get the picture" following one of the harshest winter storm years in recorded history, it instead found that people simply went on with their lives, occasionally making reference to disaster victims in their thoughts and prayers but showing no intention whatsoever of preparing themselves for a long trip through the far reaches of space to find a new home.

"I know your species has developed the technology to leave me, I've seen you use it before, so I'm asking you now, please, just take the hint already," read another excerpt from the Earth's statement, which added that it would really be best for all concerned if humanity were to "trundle off to some other biosphere for a while." "You can't possibly be enjoying this, can you? Honestly, you would have to be completely deranged or masochistic to continue staying here."

Immediately after delivering the statement, the Earth ignited a series of wildfires throughout the world's arid regions.

Though some scientists have responded to Earth's message with theories as to precisely what the planet might be trying to communicate, most firmly acknowledged that further study would be required before any definitive evidence could be gleaned from the "fascinating" statement.

"Certainly these utterances from the Earth are strongly worded, but at this point it is difficult to say whether they speak to a larger trend or are simply a bio-geological anomaly," Dr. Roger Summons of MIT said. "While there seems to be an implication that the Earth wants us to go away and never come back, I, for one, can't say conclusively from either a geochemical or a meteorological standpoint whether this is in fact the case."

In a sharp rebuke to both the planet and the mainstream scientific community, Republican leaders in Congress responded this week with a scathing critique of what they deemed to be the Earth's "pathetic and extremist viewpoints."

"What we're seeing here is the same old scientific mumbo jumbo and partisan rhetoric that the Earth has been spewing out for millennia," Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) said. "We're not going to be bullied by a celestial body that has time and again failed to deliver on its promise to glorify and reward mankind with its bounty."

Immediately following these statements from the human race, the Earth emitted a loud sigh, which shifted multiple tectonic plates and caused massive earthquakes on five continents.

Yup: Onion link (http://www.theonion.com/articles/planet-earth-doesnt-know-how-to-make-it-any-cleare,20639/)

Edena_of_Neith

06-05-2011, 02:58 PM

(chuckles sadly)

If the Earth truly were sentient, and it (or he, or she) wanted to tell us to leave, Earth could do that very easily.

Yellowstone could erupt (with a projected force of 20,000 megatons, according to scientists - that's a force equal to about 7,000 World War 2s, or several World War 3s, all at once.)

Nature has the first and last word on things.
Mankind, for all our power, knowledge, and resources, is a pathetic nothing compared to the power of the natural world.

That's not some sort of Druidic statement.
That's just the way it is.

Aloysius

06-05-2011, 03:42 PM

Even the yellowstone erupting won't be enough to tell us "go away". Because, away would still be 100000 times more difficult to live in. Yellowstone can poison slightly the atmosphere, but there would still be an atmosphere. A tsunami is bad, but, heck, at least it's water and not liquid methane. And when the ground shakes, it's sure is hazardous, but at least there is a ground. The moon, Jupiter or Titan are not that great to live on.:D

Harry

06-15-2011, 07:16 PM

This story which is getting spread far and wide reeks of bullshit, but every conservative forum is going nuts with this, and some non-conservative ones too:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110615/sc_afp/usspacesun

Scientists predict rare 'hibernation' of sunspots

Sblocked so as to not obscure my main question:

WASHINGTON (AFP) – US scientists say the familiar sunspot cycle seems to be entering a hibernation period unseen since the 17th century, a pattern that could have a slight cooling effect on global temperatures.

For years, scientists have been predicting the Sun would by around 2012 move into solar maximum, a period of intense flares and sunspot activity, but lately a curious calm has suggested quite the opposite.

The signs include a missing jet stream, fading spots and slower activity near the poles, said a trio of studies presented Tuesday at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society's Solar Physics Division in Las Cruces, New Mexico.

"This is highly unusual and unexpected," said Frank Hill, associate director of the National Solar Observatory's Solar Synoptic Network.

"But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."

Solar activity tends to rise and fall every 11 years or so. The solar maximum and solar minimum each mark about half the interval of the magnetic pole reversal on the Sun, which happens every 22 years.

Experts are now probing whether this period of inactivity could be a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period when hardly any sunspots were observed between 1645-1715 known as the "Little Ice Age."

"If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we'll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth's climate," said Hill.

Solar flares and eruptions can send highly charged particles hurtling toward Earth and interfere with satellite communications, GPS systems and even airline controls.

Geomagnetic forces have been known to occasionally garble the world's modern gadgetry, and warnings were issued as recently as last week when a moderate solar flare sent a fiery coronal mass ejection in the Earth's direction.

However, the temperature change associated with any reduction in sunspot activity would likely be minimal and not enough to offset the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming, according to scientists.

"Recent solar 11-year cycles are associated empirically with changes in global surface temperature of 0.1 Celsius," said Judith Lean, a solar physicist with the US Naval Research Laboratory.

If the cycle were to stop or slow down, the small fluctuation in temperature would do the same, eliminating the slightly cooler effect of a solar minimum compared to the warmer solar maximum. The phenomenon was witnessed during the descending phase of the last solar cycle.

This "cancelled part of the greenhouse gas warming of the period 2000-2008, causing the net global surface temperature to remain approximately flat -- and leading to the big debate of why the Earth hadn't (been) warming in the past decade," Lean, who was not involved in the three studies presented, told AFP.

Less sunspot activity means the Sun will radiate lower levels of energy, ultraviolet rays, solar wind and a weaker magnetic field, explained climate scientist and author Rasmus Benestad of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute.

"Historical data suggest that solar activity, however, only appears to have a weak effect on our climate," said Benestad.

A study in the March 2010 issue of Geophysical Research Letters explored what effect an extended solar minimum might have, and found no more than a 0.3 Celsius dip by 2100 compared to normal solar fluctuations.

"A new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions," wrote authors Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf, noting that forecasts by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change forecast a maximum 4.5 degree Celsius rise by this century's end compared to the latter half of the 20th century.

"Moreover, any offset of global warming due to a grand minimum of solar activity would be merely a temporary effect, since the distinct solar minima during the last millennium typically lasted for only several decades or a century at most."

Other experts were skeptical about whether the latest data actually predict a long-term solar minimum.

"There is no compelling reason to think that the Sun is about to go into hibernation," said Yi-Ming Wang of the Naval Research Laboratory.

"On the other hand, we don't understand the solar dynamo well enough to make any reliable prediction about what cycle 25 will be like."

What on earth is the "Solar Synoptic Network"?? There are seventeen pages that come up on Google for this, all referencing this single pronouncement by this Frank Hill. And if you Google more broadly, you get scores of conservative forums saying that this one man has disproven Global Warming?

http://www.google.com/search?q=+%22Solar+Synoptic+Network%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Harry

06-15-2011, 10:22 PM

Edena_of_Neith

06-16-2011, 10:50 AM

(sighs)

Most Americans agree with Rush Limbaugh: 'Global Warming is a hoax. End of story.'

I wish *I* could debate him on that.
I was there, studying global warming, before Rush Limbaugh ever hit the airwaves, long before Al Gore ever hit the scene.
And even if I could not win in a debate against the El Rushbo, I could drive him nuts with my 161st level character. :)

As for global warming, it is a science. They may have politicized it to death, but it is a science, and I view it as such.

I also view how to deal with global warming as a science.

For example, if we could build solar power plants that functioned reliably day and night, had power outputs in the hundreds of megawatts, were cheap to build and run (like brown coal fired plants are, which is why China is building them as fast as they can), and could be quickly put up, that would help matters.
Electric cars that you could actually fit 6 people (plus cargo) in, that were comfortable and safe to drive, and affordable, would help more.

Unfortunately, the subsequently clearing of the atmosphere of soot, as the world went to Clean Energy, would cause the Climatic Forcing to double (in other words, the global warming would double), but that could be dealt with as well.

If nothing else, dikes could be built along coasts, supression of tropical diseases could be implemented, crops and topsoil could be moved, trees and forests relocated, flood and fire prevention improved, and hurricane preparations increased.

But there is one problem that no amount of technology will solve: overpopulation.

If Earth has a 100 billion people (ala: the Fifth Element), and they all are consuming energy at the rate that the world's wealthy are using it, and consuming resources at the rate the world's wealthy are currently consuming it, and each couple is having 8 to 10 children, then there is a problem.

Hatter

06-16-2011, 11:43 AM

For reference, the latest Gallup poll on the subject (03/11) can be found here (http://www.gallup.com/poll/146606/Concerns-Global-Warming-Stable-Lower-Levels.aspx).

It indicates that 52% of Americans believe that global warming is caused by pollution rather than by natural changes in the environment (43%). So I would say your assertion about American opinion is, once again, baseless.

The numbers are not great, however. I blame the economy not right-wing pundits, though they are not helping. The public associates environmental protection with increased costs, so when the economy is lousy people are more likely to look to their immediate needs and react poorly to abstract threats from the (perceived) distant future.

Edena_of_Neith

06-17-2011, 04:37 AM

Personally, I think you need go no further than the price shown on the sign on the gas station.
At $3.59 per gallon, people are less concerned about the environment, and more concerned about the pocketbook.

(muses)

(dark humor)

I can see it now:

That guy who is head of Iran, becomes head of OPEC.
He then convinces OPEC to put us under an embargo.
Then Russia, the world's leading oil producer and exporter, and a friend to Iran, supports the embargo.
Then gasoline hits $10 per gallon.
Then a Republican so extreme he makes Rush Limbaugh look like Howard Dean gets in as President, and the Republicans take 66 Seats in the Senate.

And then there are five new environmental laws in the United States (all other laws and constitutional amendments and whatever, are summarily swept away) :

The chain saws
The bulldozers
The explosives
The drills
The DDT

(And all the films like Soylent Green, the Lorax, the China Syndrome, are banned, and removed from circulation)

(And the rulers will say: If God wanted you to have clean air, he would not have created volcanoes. Clean air masks are available at your local store, for $500 apiece.)

Aloysius

06-19-2011, 12:59 AM

Allow me to clarify myself, even further.

This thread was meant to be about Global Warming, yes.

But then a direct catastrophe, involving *posters on this board* occurs, and I want to be supportive of them, give support to them.

I do not think that Old Fart would exactly appreciate me expressing my support by saying: I am really sorry about Tuscaloosa, and Global Warming caused it, and (and then 3 or 4 paragraphs of theoretical discussion of Global Warming!!!)
Nor do I believe Trainz would appreciate any such thing, either.

Simply a direct statement of support, nothing more ... and nothing less.

And a vitriolic against peoples (who, where, what ? I don't know, so I can't even judge if it was merited... ) who link those phenomenons with climate change. (scientists don't, because there is no way to be sure, so they just say "this is the kind of stuff that will happen more and more frequently because of climate change").
Anyway, back to the anti-science movement : http://www.npr.org/2011/06/17/137251742/blind-eye-in-the-sky-weather-satellites-lose-funding
The GOP wants to de-fund the weather satellites, those that allowed forecast of stuff like the tornadoes.

Not being able to forecast a tornado risk won't help...

Aloysius

06-20-2011, 10:07 AM

Soon, scientists burned at the stake in Australia by the flat-earthers crowd ?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/climate-of-fear-scientists-face-death-threats/2185089.aspx?storypage=1

[...]
One researcher told of receiving threats of sexual assault and violence against her children after her photograph appeared in a newspaper article promoting a community tree-planting day as a local action to mitigate climate change.
[...]

Why am I not surprised at all ?

Varaj

06-21-2011, 11:57 AM

The GOP wants to de-fund the weather satellites, those that allowed forecast of stuff like the tornadoes.

Not being able to forecast a tornado risk won't help...

If they don't forecast tornadoes none will happen right?

bondetamp

06-22-2011, 09:20 AM

If they don't forecast tornadoes none will happen right?
Indeed. There may, in the future, be cases of strong wind moving in a circular manner, but it will be labeled "Act of God" like the rest.

Edena_of_Neith

07-10-2011, 05:24 AM

Sorry, Rush Limbaugh, You Who Know Everything, but man-made global warming continues, and best of all, carbon dioxice emissions are skyrocketing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/08/us-energy-bp-emissions-idUSTRE75728120110608

China's emissions are 1/3rd again bigger than ours, and they are skyrocketing, and China could not give one whit about environmentalism (come to think about it, neither does Rush Limbaugh ...)

Our emissions are rising again, the whole world's emissions are rising rapidly, the Earth had it's highest temperatures last year in recorded history in spite of the deepest slump in solar output since they started measuring such things, and this year the Arctic Sea Ice is on a pace to beat out the 2007 record.

Yes, Rush Limbaugh, there is Man-Made Global Warming.
But hey, you hated those Environmental Wackos anyways, didn't you? You said so. You said: Dig, dig, dig, burn, burn, burn, drill, drill, drill.
You got your wish!

Be happy. You've won, Mr. Limbaugh.

Edena_of_Neith

07-23-2011, 08:46 PM

Concerning the heat wave that is afflicting North America currently (and which may, in the end, see the destruction of 2/3rds of our entire cotton crop), I cannot say - specifically - that it is due to Global Warming.
But I am very suspicious that it is the result of said warming, and would say so.

One of our cities in Connecticut, broke their all time high record, and this city has records going all the way back to 1780. Bridgeport, or the like, I am not certain.

I suspect that in the future, summer heat waves like this will be more common, more severe, and they will last longer. One day, temperatures of 100 or higher will be common from May through September, even as far north as northern Minnesota, northern Michigan, and northern Maine (ala: the forecast for Portland, Maine for today: Clear, sunny, and comfortable, with highs only in the upper 90s.)

Edena_of_Neith

07-23-2011, 08:50 PM

If I were the governing party in Canada, I would attempt soil transplants, and start trying to get wheat up in places where wheat has not previously been grown (and where previously, it could not be grown because summer was too short and too cold.)

Example areas:

- Central and northern Saskatchawan, from north of Saskatoon up to Uranium City.
- Central Mannitoba, west and east of northern Lake Manitoba, up through the Thompson area.
- Northern Ontario, from Kenora northeast to Landsdowne House to Moose Factory on the shores of James Bay.
- Quebec, between James Bay and the St. Lawrence Seaway, northeast to southwest Labrador.
- Newfoundland and southwest Labrador.

This year, it seems, it has been warm enough for wheat (at the least, spring wheat) in all of these areas.

Harry

07-23-2011, 08:59 PM

Varaj

07-24-2011, 06:40 AM

What the FUCK do you know about cotton or growing cotton? This has been beautiful cotton growing weather.

<--- most likely the only Kay's member who stands to inherit a cotton field.

He's seen Gone with the Wind 38 times.

TiQuinn

07-24-2011, 09:27 AM

He's seen Gone with the Wind 38 times.

:lol:

Glass

07-24-2011, 09:48 AM

He's seen Gone with the Wind 38 times.
HAHAHA!

Edena_of_Neith

07-24-2011, 07:28 PM

Texas grows half of our cotton crop (according to the Associated Press.)
And more than half of their crop is dead or dying (according to the Associated Press.)
The other half of the Texas cotton crop is barely holding on (according to the Associated Press.)

There is serious to severe damage to the cotton crop across the entire Cotton Belt, east of Texas, through Georgia (according to the Associated Press.)

That was 2 weeks ago.
The heat has continued, without relent, since then, in the South. Each day of extreme heat and drought, causes that much additional damage.

Harry

07-24-2011, 07:36 PM

Edena_of_Neith

07-24-2011, 07:39 PM

Then you tell the AP that they are wrong. They are the ones reporting it.

As for Canada's agricultural troubles, ask our Canadian posters about their situation. They can give you the most accurate assessment of the situation in Canada.

I appreciate very well that cotton is a hot weather crop.
My mother went out and picked cotton as a girl, in Missouri, when it went to 105 in the shade on occasion.
The cotton there did quite well.

I assumed the cotton was doing quite well, thank you. Until I read the AP report. Apparently, the drought did what the heat could not do.
Well, I did not create the drought, and neither did the AP.

Harry

07-24-2011, 07:50 PM

You make it sound so dire. It's not. Cotton doesn't require much water. That's why Texans like to grow it. But you know, other parts of the country grow it too. If half the cotton crop fails [which it's not] it just means the other farmers make a bit more money. Give you one guess as to where most of our cotton ends up. It's gonna be OK. This is actually a great year to be growing cotton, as was last year.

Texas Crop Report
Posted: July 24, 2011 - 12:05am
By AP

COLLEGE STATION (AP) — The following reports were compiled by AgriLife Extension for the week of July 19:

■ South Plains: Parts of the region received scattered rain, with accumulations mostly only a few hundreds of an inch, but as much as 1.5 inches fell in isolated areas. Irrigated cotton was in the first week of bloom in some counties. Producers were still selling off cattle due to drought and lack of supplemental feed. Peanuts were stressed, pegging two to three weeks late.

■ Panhandle: The weather remained hot, dry and windy. A few isolated areas reported receiving from 0.6 inch to 2 inches of rain. Soil-moisture levels were very poor. Irrigators continued to heavily water all crops. Corn was was in poor to very poor condition, stressed from the drought and an increase in spider mites and western bean cutworms. Many producers were diverting irrigation to fewer acres and abandoning some crops, such as corn, because of the high water demands. Cotton was in poor to very poor condition in most counties. Rangeland and pasture conditions were in poor to very poor condition with most reporting very poor. Producers continued to provide supplemental feed to livestock.

■ Central:Pasture conditions went from bad to worse. Producers were selling off cows. Water supplies for livestock were becoming critical. Stock-water tanks were drying up across the region. As expected because of the drought, sorghum and corn yields were low.

■ Far West: The region received from 0.3 inch to 1.4 inches of rain, but very hot and dry conditions persisted. Irrigated cotton began to bloom. Dryland cotton failed. Pastures were in terrible condition. Burn bans remained in effect.

■ North: A severe drought settled into the region. Soil-moisture levels ranged from short to very short throughout the region. The summer heat and dry weather continued to take their toll on small grains, pastures and hay crops. Over the past couple of weeks, corn dried down and turned color very quickly. Those areas that were fortunate enough to receive some rainfall in June will have corn, grain sorghum and soybean harvests. Elsewhere, soybeans were being baled, but the harvest looked very bleak. Corn was being harvested for silage, but yields were low. The oat and winter wheat harvests were completed. Cotton was in fair condition, and sunflower planting was completed. Pastures were being rapidly depleted. With only one good cutting of hay and the decline of pastures, livestock producers were having to decide to sell calves early or cull cows. Supplemental feeding was very heavy. Stock ponds were getting very low. Bermuda grass became dormant and stopped growing. Some prussic acid poisoning was reported on Johnson grass. Grasshopper populations were increasing and becoming a major problem. Rangeland and pastures were in poor to very poor condition.

■ Rolling Plains: Childress and Wilbarger counties reported about 1 inch of rain, but overall the region remained extremely dry. The daytime highs have been 100 degrees or hotter with no letup in sight. Cotton producers were trying to keep their crops from failing by running pivots constantly. Cattle producers tried to maintain cattle condition by feeding extra hay and cubes. As the drought intensified, more producers were culling deeper into their herds. Producers were having a hard time finding hay. Some producers were worried about cattle consuming pastures with Johnson grass because of the risk of prussic acid and nitrate poisoning. Johnson grass was about the only green growth in many pastures. The wildfire danger continued to be high.

■ Southwest: The National Weather Service continued to forecast a gradual weather improvement, but very little rainfall was received. Scattered rains accompanied by wind with gusts up to 50 mph damaged trees, fences and roofs. However, only about a third of an inch of moisture was received, and the region remained very dry and under wildfire alerts. The onion and sunflower harvests were completed. The corn, sorghum and grape harvests were ongoing. The watermelon, cantaloupe and sweet corn harvests began to wind down. Peanuts, cotton, pecans and landscape nursery crops continued to make good progress wherever irrigation water was still available. Forage availability remained well below average. Ranchers continued to provide supplemental feed to livestock.

■ West Central: Extremely hot, dry and windy conditions continued with no relief in sight. Irrigated corn was harvested for silage. Some irrigated Bermuda grass hay fields were cut and baled, but yields were below normal due to the excessive heat. Row crops and planted pastures were becoming extremely drought stressed. Many fields were zeroed out by insurance adjusters. Cotton and grain sorghum needed rain soon. Rangeland and pastures had very little forage left for livestock to graze. Most grasses were dormant. Stock-water tanks were going dry, forcing producers to haul water for cattle. Producers continue to liquidate their herds. Some were selling out.

Also from AP: http://lubbockonline.com/agriculture/2011-07-24/texas-crop-report

Edena_of_Neith

07-24-2011, 07:58 PM

Alright, point conceded, concerning the cotton.

Again, as for the situation with other crops, or in Canada or other nations, you will have to ask our Canadian posters, or posters from other areas of our own country.

It looks like, if heat like this becomes commonplace, they might try growing cotton in Iowa, southern and central Illinois and Indiana, and southern Ohio.
They might try for irrigated cotton in Nebraska.

In other words, if summers are going to be hotter, and if the growing season is long enough, they could try their hand at cotton further north (but not in Michigan ... not for a while, at least. The growing season simply isn't long enough, regardless of summer heat waves.)

Glass

07-24-2011, 10:26 PM

Or things can continue to adapt to the changes in climate. You know, the way nature does when it's not just giving up.

Harry

07-24-2011, 10:40 PM

In other words, if summers are going to be hotter, and if the growing season is long enough, they could try their hand at cotton further north (but not in Michigan ... not for a while, at least. The growing season simply isn't long enough, regardless of summer heat waves.)

While I believe man-made global warming is a factor in many things worldwide especially in the longview, I doubt that global warming is having too much of a impact on Texan agriculture in the short-term. The storm pattern has been weak in the Gulf this year, which is why Texas is dry. Texas isn't much hotter than usual right now, just drier. That will change. This past winter, in fact, was cooler and wetter than normal for large parts of that region, IIRC.

FWIW, YMMV, IMHO and all that jazz.

Aloysius

07-25-2011, 04:16 AM

Or things can continue to adapt to the changes in climate. You know, the way nature does when it's not just giving up.

Yup, nature (aka animal and plant species) adapts. That is, those who do not go extinct. It just take a few thousands to a few millions years, depending of the importance of the crisis and the "evolution speed" of the specie considered. Bugs are at an advantage over polar bears, and weeds over trees, because they have considerably faster reproduction cycle.

Edena_of_Neith

07-25-2011, 06:55 PM

The average global temperature has risen 2 degrees Fahrenheit, in my lifetime of 43 years.
That's saying something, if you consider the Earth was 18 degrees Fahrenheit colder than it was, when I was born, at the height of the last Ice Age.

It is my honest opinion - based on evidence I have been working on since 1980 - that Man Made Global Warming exists, and that it in Runaway.
That is, the Earth is rapidly warming, and is going to go on rapidly warming. Greenland is melting, and will go on melting, ever more rapidly. The Arctic Sea Ice will disappear, first in the summer, then the year around. The location of the Westerlies, the Dry Belts, the Doldrums, will all shift.

If Man stopped emitting all carbon dioxide today, the Earth is still committed to another 2 (around 2) degrees Fahrenheit of warming, due to the 50 year lag in the oceans.
If Man stopped polluting, and the air cleared of smog, the Greenhouse Effect would double, instantly. Smog is halting half of the Global Warming Forcing Effect (which is saying something - that Forcing Effect is considered to be almost a 2% increase in the luminosity of the sun, so the Smog would represent almost a 1% decrease in the luminosity of the sun. A mere 0.2% decrease in the sun's luminosity, over centuries, is thought to have caused the Little Ice Age.)

However, Man is not going to stop polluting.
China, last year, was up to 8.8 billion tons of CO2 emissions, and their rate of increase was 10% (compounded), so this year their emissions are more likely to be 10 billion tons.
The United States, emitted 5.7 billion tons, up 6%.
India, an emerging economy, is rapidly increasing it's emissions.
Even Russia is coming back from their economic catastrophe, and emitting more.
Large amounts of carbon are being produced as our rainforests are leveled (look at the deforestation of Indonesia in recent decades ... we all know about the Amazon.)

As the Earth becomes warmer, more of the CO2 emitted stays in the atmosphere.
As the Earth warms, the Arctic goes from a carbon sink to a carbon emitter (it happened on the Alaskan North Slope a decade ago.)
As the Earth warms, vast amounts of CO2 and methane are expected to be released by melting permafrost. (And methane is 30 times more efficient as a greenhouse gas.)

In other words, it's a Runaway. The Earth is GOING to warm, drastically, probably back to Miocene Levels, and maybe more. West Antarctica could collapse, and the melting of Antarctica commence.

-

The only remaining feasible thing to do is adapt, as Darwin_of_Mind just said.
Or as The Winslow said, Adapt or Die.

Coastlines can be diked. Or evacuated.
Crops can be tranplanted. Soil can be transplanted.
Genetic research can be used to produce crops that are more heat hardy, or more hardy in general.
Canals can be built to divert floodwaters, and deliver water to parched areas.
Spreading tropical pestilences, such as malaria and yellow fever, can be fought.
Homes and other structures can be built to withstand more common and more severe hurricanes.
They could spend trillions on research on fusion power (instead of, on certain wars I can think of ...)

Heck, one day Churchill, Manitoba, may be a thriving city of millions, surrounded by farmland, a major northern industrial port.

But if I am right, and it is a Runaway, then adaptation is not optional.
If there is not an effort at adaptation, there will be some minor consequences ... for a good idea of such minor consequences, see the film Dawn of the Dead.

Edena_of_Neith

07-30-2011, 02:35 AM

Well, the Northeast Passage is open.
The Northeast Passage is the Arctic shipping route, if you head north from Great Britain, and follow the north coast of Eurasia, all the way over to the Bering Straits, then down to the Far East.

http://www.seaice.dk/iwicos/latest/amsr.n.comb.20110729.gif

The Northwest Passage is still blocked, albeit just barely, by a remnant of older pack ice trapped in the channels of the Canadian Arctic Isles.
The Northwest Passage, of course, is the shipping route around southern Greenland, up between Baffin Island and Greenland, then through the Canadian Arctic Isles (through the channel between Baffin/Southampton/Banks/Victoria and Devon/Melville Isles) to the north coast of Alaska, and thence to the Bering Straits, and down to the Far East.

The North Passage, the route directly over the Pole from Great Britain to the Bering Straits, remains closed.

Agent.0.Fortune

08-06-2011, 01:53 PM

You need look no further than the mass extinctions caused by SUVs in:
1. End Ordovician (~445 million years ago)
2. Late Devonian (~365 million years ago)
3. End Permian (~250 million years ago)
4. End Triassic (~210 million years ago)
5. End Cretaceous (65 million years ago)

Although my personal favorite theory is that some of these events were actually caused by plant-life increasing the oxygen levels to ~36%, a level which supposedly supports spontaneous atmospheric combustion.
Yes someone suggested that plants produced enough oxygen (the same stuff required to get those 10' centipedes, 4' dragonflies, and 8' scorpions) that an errant lightning bolt, or meteor set the air on fire, depleting massive amounts of oxygen and life.
A completely ridiculous theory in light of recently SUV fossil records, and the 2 degree temperature increase.

I am a little torn on the subject. Part of me thinks we should drive our SUVs and coal fire power plants into the nearest volcano and cork them and killing two birds with one stone. On the other hand Nature is a cold hearted son of a bitch that could drop the hammer on all life at any time regardless of our actions.

Edena_of_Neith

08-08-2011, 07:53 PM

http://www.seaice.dk/iwicos/latest/amsr.n.comb.20110808.gif

Admundsen's Northwest Passage has opened.
That is the passage where a ship heads west, south, then west again through the Canadian Arctic Isles, sailing through the narrow channel between Victoria Island, Banks Island, and mainland Canada.

The main Northwest Passage is still blocked. Parry Sound (the channel between Victoria and Banks Island to the south, and Melville Island to the north) still has some ice in it.

Edena_of_Neith

08-17-2011, 05:23 PM

Warm waters and warm winds have been making a drive on the North Pole, and the breakup has passed beyond 85 degrees north latitude.

http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_nic.png

The solid pack ice is making a stand at the North Pole, but there considerable breakup within 5 degrees of the pole.

It does not mean the Arctic will melt out this year, or that the Pole will free up of ice, but it is sorta wild.
It's only the second time I've seen large scale breakup extend beyond 85 degrees north latitude. (The other time was in 2007.)

This link, has more information, and more maps:

http://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/

Edena_of_Neith

08-23-2011, 04:21 PM

Parry Sound has largely melted. (The channel of water between Victoria and Banks Islands on the south, and Melville Island on the north.)

The Northwest Passage is open.

http://www.seaice.dk/iwicos/latest/amsr.n.comb.20110823.gif

The North Passage is closed, but even a small icebreaker would not have to deter too far to the right, to cross the Arctic in that direction. The pack ice has retreated close to the North Pole.

Aloysius

08-23-2011, 05:44 PM

You should rather use the image from the university of Bremen, as they usually don't show silly artifact like an ice floe west of Spain.
(at least, not on the "final" image. Those that are being calculated have sometimes strange).
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_visual.png

Edena_of_Neith

08-23-2011, 06:50 PM

The composite of sites shows a small amount of ice left in the general area.
I wouldn't attempt to go through the Northwest Passage without a small icebreaker to clear the way. The last of some multi-year pack ice, is still melting in the area.

I find it a little surprising, that what remains of the Arctic Icepack, is holding up as well as it is, considering the amount of warm water rushing in from the Atlantic, and surfacing in the High Arctic waters all around it, hammering away at it's edges with each new storm.

I'm pretty sure all of the 1 year ice, the New Ice or Young Ice, created last winter, is gone.
What remains is 2 year ice, or a smaller area of 3 year ice, and a very small area of 4 to 5 year ice, somehow withstanding the warmth coming at it from all directions.

Edena_of_Neith

08-30-2011, 12:20 PM

A small icecap now.

http://www.seaice.dk/iwicos/latest/amsr.n.comb.20110830.gif

A polynia off the northernmost coast of Greenland, and on the other side open water up to 85 degrees north latitude.

You'd think the whole remaining cap would shatter and dissipate. Certainly, enough warmth is there, in the waters around it and under it, and in the storms blowing into the Arctic.
Yet, what is left is holding on. 2 and 3 year ice is stubborn, tenacious, just won't give it up. Won't melt, won't give up the fight. At least not yet.

I saw most of the Kara Sea, and parts of the Laptev, East Siberian, Chukchi, and Beaufort Sea water temperatures rise into the mid to upper 40s after the ice melted and warm sub-surface water could rise to the surface.
Normally, water temperatures on all those areas hovers between 28 and 32 degrees, as the ice creates a cold surface layer of water to protect itself, where the ocean is still mostly ice covered.

I am guessing that, if the Arctic sea ice melted out, the whole Arctic Ocean would quickly warm into the mid to upper 40s. It would then continue to warm, as the North Atlantic Drift brought in yet warmer water.

But that is only a guess, as the Arctic sea ice has not melted out, won't melt out this year, and heck ... who knows when it will melt out, if ever?

Edena_of_Neith

08-30-2011, 12:22 PM

Aloysius

08-31-2011, 06:08 AM

Oh yes: It would be nice if Al Gore stayed out of the Global Warming Debate.

Certainly, with his mansion and lifestyle, he is no believer in practicing what he preaches, and recently he has been preaching some ridiculous things, which makes it hard on those of us, who are studying the actual science.
Meanwhile, Rick Pery, Sarah Pallin, Michelle Bachmann, the Koch Brothers and the rest of the gang is welcome in the debate. After all, everyone knows that it's the liberal left who politicized the debate...:rolleyes:

Edena_of_Neith

08-31-2011, 06:21 AM

Meanwhile, Rick Pery, Sarah Pallin, Michelle Bachmann, the Koch Brothers and the rest of the gang is welcome in the debate. After all, everyone knows that it's the liberal left who politicized the debate...:rolleyes:

I am not attacking the Liberals. Nor am I blaming them for anything here.
I am blaming Al Gore for saying things, which could give Rick Perry and the others, fodder to use against the Global Warming science.

You might not know this, but our President is about to enact measures that increase the cost of running coal fired power plants.
Although this might be a sound environmental move, you must appreciate that this move, at *this* time, in *these* economic and political circumstances, increase the chance of Rick Perry becoming our next President.

Don't blame me, the messenger, for this news: blame the recession. People out of work do not wish to be friendly to the environment. People out of work do not wish to pay higher fuel bills. People out of work, want ... work, and lower fuel bills.
That also goes for people who are struggling, which is to say, uncounted millions of people in my country right now.

If Rick Perry becomes President, the Republicans gain 60 seats in our Senate, and a 2/3rds Majority in our House, along with most of the Governorships and Statehouses (all of this, a distinct possibility), then the Global Warming Debate is over.
The United States will start rapidly increasing it's emissions. Think 10%+, compounded, each and every year, for the next 8 years. (Of course, China will continue to increase at 10%+ per year, compounded, also ... along with India, and other rapidly developing nations. The destruction of equatorial forests will continue.)

(muses)

I've said it before, and say it again: I think it's unstoppable now, that it's a runaway.
The only real answer is adaptation.
And as terribly costly and painful as adaptation will be, it pales in comparison to the price that will be extracted, if adaptation is not attempted.

Edena_of_Neith

08-31-2011, 06:35 AM

For example, a hundred years from now, here is what I expect the average temperatures in Fort Myers, Southwest Florida, to be:

January: Average High 82, Average Low 68
February: 83, 68
March: 86, 70
April: 90, 75
May: 95, 80
June: 98, 83
July: 101, 84
August: 102, 85
September: 99, 84
October: 93, 81
November: 88, 74
December: 85, 71

Storms and hurricanes the year around, but especially from June through November.
The Gulf of Mexico heating to above 90 in May, and staying above 90 into November. The heat going very deep, too, since no cold waves ever come down from the north to chill the waters.

If people still live here, they will have to live in structures massively fortified against the colossal hurricanes that repeatedly hit, and built up on hills to protect them from the areal flooding that now frequently occurs.
Of course, nobody will live on the coast any longer ... and the forests along the coast will be gone, replaced by low saltwater hardy brush that can quickly grow back from repeated mass destruction by hurricanes and storm surges.
And the coast will be receding, the oceans up 3 to 5 feet, and rising fast (that is, now rising at the rate of more than an inch per year.) Dikes might go up further inland, as an attempt is made to save Florida from the projected 50 foot rise in sea levels. Or maybe not. Maybe they will decide to evacuate Florida.
If they do decide to stay, they must cope with the threat of malaria, yellow fever, and dengue fever, all returned from the deep tropics to Florida. Not to mention all the other unpleasant equatorial things that have decided to migrate north as the climate warmed.

Edena_of_Neith

08-31-2011, 06:48 AM

(off-topic)

Oh, and about that Republican Party Gaining 60 Seats in the Senate thing ...

Our pundits - Democratic, Republican, and Independent - have a consensus, and that consensus is that the Republicans end up with 55 seats in the Senate after next year's elections.

Then, you have the retirement situation. Harry Reid of Nevada, and others, are likely retirements. If they retire, the Republican governors of those states replace them with Republicans. As those are Red States, these appointees win full election in the next election cycle. (John McCain is a Republican likely retirement, but if he does, the Republican Governor of Arizona, will put another Republican in, in his place. Since most of our other states now have Republican governors, the same goes there, also - and that includes Maine with it's 2 Republicans there.)
If that doesn't put the Republicans over 60, 2014 likely will. Once more, far more Democrats are up for reelection than Republicans, in the Senate.

That '55 seats in the senate' consensus takes into account vulnerable Republican Senate seats in Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada.
The math goes the way it goes, because, simply put ... so many Democratic seats are in play, period.
The pundits consider North Dakota lost (1 Republican takeover), all agree that 5 seats are too close to call (Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Virginia, Wisconsin), and then the large number of Democratic seats considered severely threatened or too close to call (Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and several others.)

Aloysius

08-31-2011, 07:49 AM

I am not attacking the Liberals. Nor am I blaming them for anything here.
I am blaming Al Gore for saying things, which could give Rick Perry and the others, fodder to use against the Global Warming science.

As if it will change anything if he stay silent... They don't need him, they will say that CO2 is life, that hurricanes are sent by God to punish homosexuals, that there is no global warming, that global warming is not man-made, that it's too late anyway, that melting the arctic is cool anyway. Don't care about what Gore may or may not say, it's absolutely irrelevant, because, as rich as he is, he is only an ant compared to the wealth of Exxon or the Koch brothers.

Edena_of_Neith

08-31-2011, 10:01 AM

As if it will change anything if he stay silent... They don't need him, they will say that CO2 is life, that hurricanes are sent by God to punish homosexuals, that there is no global warming, that global warming is not man-made, that it's too late anyway, that melting the arctic is cool anyway. Don't care about what Gore may or may not say, it's absolutely irrelevant, because, as rich as he is, he is only an ant compared to the wealth of Exxon or the Koch brothers.

Actually, they are saying things more ridiculous even than anything you just said.
One person I know said: 'If conditions returned to Jurassic conditions, that would be just a natural fluctuation, nothing related to man-made warming.'
Another said: 'If Antarctica melted, that would be just a natural fluctuation, not anything man-made.'

-

I have said it is too late, that it is a runaway. I have some legitimate reasons for saying this:

-

- China is the world's leading CO2 producer now, beating out the United States by almost 40% in 2010, and growing at 10% per year compounded.
- China puts a new coal fired power plant online every week, and intends to continue to do so.
- There is no environmental movement in China, nor will there be one: any protest is instantly crushed and silenced.
- China is already the world's largest energy consumer.
- China is expected to be the world's largest economy by 2016.
- If China continues to increase CO2 emissions at 10% per year, compounded, China alone will have emissions equal to the entire world's 2010 emissions, in 2030.

- Global CO2 emissions hit a new all time record in 2010.
- Global CO2 emissions are rising at a rate faster than the Worst Case Scenarios put forth back in 2000.

- The United States is back in the game, with a rise of 6% in 2010 over 2009.
- India is the world's 3rd largest CO2 producer, and it's emissions are rising rapidly. India is expected to pass the United States in 2015, in CO2 emissions.

- The destruction of tropical rainforests continues.
- In Borneo, the rainforests are wiped out. Same with the other islands of Indonesia, as that country's population rapidly grows, and colonization of all the outer islands continues.
- In Amazonia, the all out destruction of the Amazon Rainforest continues.

- The Arctic sea ice continues to shrink in both volume and aerial coverage, reaching new records in both.
- The world temperature continues to rise, reaching a new all time record in 2010.

- Record heat waves and cold waves, clear signs of major atmospheric disruption, are occurring worldwide.
- All time heat records are being smashed in country after country after country, this year and last year.
- The all time heat record for the Continent of Asia was just broken, this year.
- Heat waves are hitting in unprecendented places, producing unprecendented conditions (such as a month of 90 to 100 in Moscow, or no sea ice in December and rain and 40 degrees in January in Iqaluit)

- The permafrost continues to melt, across the Northern Hemisphere.
- Areas that were carbon sinks, are now carbon emitters.
- Greenland is melting at an all time record pace.

-

-

-

So, given the attitude of the polluting countries, and the growing results of that pollution, what to do?

- Europe can abide by Kyoto. This will not even put a dint in the rate of increase, in the rate of rise, in CO2 emissions.
- The United States can abide by Kyoto. This would reduce the US emissions by 1/3rd ... which would dint the rate of increase, in the rate of rise, in CO2 emissions ... until China grew so big, that it no longer mattered.
- Since China will not agree to cuts, one could threaten China. China would laugh. One could threaten China with war. China would ready it's nukes. (In other words, no answer there.)
- One could threaten India. India would simply turn to it's new friend Russia, the world's leading oil producer and exporter, to continue it's growth.
- One could threaten Russia. Russia would ready it's 10,000 nukes. (End of that discussion.)
- One could threaten Indonesia, but it's too late. They've largely destroyed their ecosystem.
- One could threaten Brazil, Venezuela, and the others destroying the Amazon. Unfortunately, since our current environmental (not) President has just given Brazil several billion dollars to develop oil in the South Atlantic, I do not see that happening.

- An attempt could be made to develop fusion power. That will take time.
- An attempt could be made to develop more nuclear power. That will take time, and then there is always the risk of nuclear terrorism, or more likely, more Fukushima and Chernobyl catastrophies.
- An attempt could be made to build cheap, affordable solar power plants, that operate in the megawatt range. Currently, the largest solar power plants in the US operate in the hundreds of kilowatts ... the power demands of the US (and China) are measured in the hundreds of megawatts. However, even this *takes time.*
- An attempt could be made to create more wind power, and make it more reliable. Unfortunately, it is reliably windy only in certain places, and nobody has figured out how to transfer electricity but so far through transmission lines. Overcoming this obstacle will take time.
- Geothermal power is a possibility. Tidal power. Solar power from satellites in space. These will take time to realize.

But for any of these alternate, clean energy sources to be realized, someone must actually attempt to realize them, and not surpress the technology.
There is massive evidence pointing to every attempt to surpress these alternatives, since they are a threat to the established energy order, and it seems every government on Earth is in on the surpression. (Cold fusion ... it was there and proven, we saw the proof disappear, we saw cold fusion disappear, and it is simply ... gone.)
Unless some nation with great power actually attempts to create a viable alternate energy grid, bucking the established order, it just simply will not get done. And that great power will not be China - China is turning to brown coal, the most polluting kind of coal, for it's primary energy, since it is the cheapest energy source.

(muses)

There is just too much money being made on coal, oil, and natural gas right now, and too much coal, oil, and natural gas for money to be made off of. Too good an opportunity for powerful people to get rich, for them to pass up.
And everyone wants in on the good life. You see it in China. They want what we have. They intend to have it, period. India is following suit. Other countries are following suit.

It is perfectly normal for people to want a better life. But there are 7 billion people in the world, and if all of them use the amount of energy the average Westerner uses, then carbon emissions are going to skyrocket ... a simple reality of arithmetic ... unless alternate energy is developed, and nobody chooses to buck the establishment and develop them, because of something called the money.
It is fine, if everyone wants to live well. Nothing wrong with that. It is, however, a reality that ... an entire world of 7 billion people, all of them using energy in enormous quantities, and relying on coal, oil, and natural gas, to do so, is going to produce a lot of carbon dioxide. Thus, a much more carbon rich atmosphere.
-

But ...

Even if everyone decided to stop using energy and/or go to alternate energy ...

- The global warming is locked in for the next 50 years, because the oceans have a thermal lag of 50 years.
- If smog is not emitted into the atmosphere, the Global Warming effect doubles, immediately (because smog is cancelling out half of the man-made Global Forcing from CO2 and methane.)
- The Arctic is melting now, and expected to melt out long before 50 years is up ... meaning the Arctic is on track to melt, even if no further Global Forcing is put into the system. If the Arctic melts, it produces a feedback mechanism that alters the climate all over the Earth. It is likely that Greenland also melts, partly as a result of this feedback, raising ocean levels by 25 feet and producing a second wave of feedback, that probably causes West Antarctica to collapse, raising ocean levels by 20 feet and producing yet another feedback.
And all this, already locked in, thanks to that 50 year lag in the oceans, and the fact that Global Forcing doubles if you stop polluting (because smog is removed from the atmosphere.)

The possibility of even a reduction in the rate of increase, in the rate of increase, of CO2, is remote.
Melting permafrost is expected to release vast amounts of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere.
The melting Arctic is expected to produce a feedback that melts it more quickly.
Warmer oceans take in less CO2. The warmer the world gets, the more CO2 that was emitted, that stays in the atmosphere.

-

-

-

You could create a Super Depression, wrecking the entire world economy, sending the entire world into total chaos, anarchy, and ruin.

Something like this happened to the Soviet Union, so it makes for an example.
At the height of the Super Depression in Russia, diptheria and tuberculosis ran out of control (with new, and totally untreatable strains of tuberculosis), life expectancy dropped from the 70s to the 40s, Russia had a net population loss of 1 million per year due to disease and starvation, the elderly were left to die en mass, medical care virtually ceased (unless you could bribe the doctor), the police pulled you over to extort money, the transportation system all but collapsed, and large areas of the country were depopulated as everyone fled to where jobs still existed and survival was still possible. A box of Legos, cost 50 years of income, to purchase.

In this catostrophic disaster, Russian CO2 emissions dropped by 50%.

An extrapolation then: If the entire developed and developing world suffered the cataclysmic economic disaster that Russia suffered, world CO2 emissions would drop by 50%. Smog emissions would also drop by a sizeable amount, as factories ceased production and power plants closed.

In which case, world CO2 levels would now rise by only 0.5 to 1 ppm, per year ... instead of the 1 to 2 ppm per year, that we currently see. (In other words, CO2 levels would still be rapidly rising.)
All of the locked in Global Forcing would remain in place.
Much of the Global Forcing being surpressed by smog emissions, would now manifest, the sunlight growing more powerful as no pollution was in the air to block it out (including, the entire Arctic, since the Arctic is ringed by developed countries.)
The feedback mechanisms from the warming, already in place, would continue.

Russia recovered from it's economic ruin to become the world's leading oil producer and exporter, beating out Saudi Arabia.
It is reasonable to conclude, short of a nuclear war or similar armaggedon level catastrophe, that the world would also do so, in this hypothetical scenario.
Thus, CO2 emissions would revert back to prior levels.

Of course, the last time the entire world went into something like this, we had the Great Depression, and it caused World War II.
A similar worldwide collapse today, might bring about World War III, and the virtual destruction of Earth's biosphere, leaving it irrelevant what the climate was or was not, anywhere on the planet.

-

-

-

Geo-Engineering.
Let's use explosions to throw dust up into the stratosphere, block out some of the incoming sunlight. This has been considered as a possibility.

This would, indeed, mask the Global Forcing (I stress *mask* it, not get rid of it ... it would resume the moment the stratosphere ever cleared)
It would also produce disproportionate cooling at the Poles, while having little effect at the Equator. Evidence for this comes from the Eruption of Tambora, Krakatoa, and other volcanic eruptions.

The Eruption of Mount Pinatubo illustrates what could happen, if this was tried. For after Mount Pinatubo, erupted:

- It snowed in August in Alberta, burying most of that province in snow. The crops were destroyed province-wide.
- It also snowed in Saskatchawan, and in Montana. Along with the snow came killing freezes, and widespread crop destruction.
- The Great Flood of 1993 saw mass destruction in the Mississippi River Valley, as the Jet Stream stayed unusually far south, forcing the Westerlies into strange patterns. Iowa appeared on some water sensing satellites to be another Great Lake. Towns along the Mississippi were now 20 miles from the new shore.

It is reasonable to hypothesize that such strange, and destructive, effects would occur worldwide. Thus, breadbasket regions in Europe, Russia, China, Argentina, and Australia, could all be affected.
Or, in other words, it would be an Act of War against these nations, as they would see mass destruction from this decision to throw dust into the stratosphere. In particular this is true of Russia, for it lies at high latitudes and it's climate is highly variable from year to year as a result ... and marginal in any event. And this is a nation with nukes, if it wanted to protest such stratospheric contamination and subsequent destruction in their country. Such contamination of the stratosphere would have unknown, but potentially massive, effects on the El-Nino/La-Nina cycle, producing floods and droughts in Australia, Indonesia, Brazil, the countries of western South America, and indirect effects worldwide.

In my opinion, most countries would choose the unknown Global Warming, making preparations for the future, rather than face immediate mass destruction now (summer snow and freezes, drought, floods) simply because some nations wanted to pollute, and wanted to get away with polluting, and insisted on *polluting the stratosphere as well* so they could get away with said polluting.

-

The above, is why I believe that Adaptation is the only feasible option, at this point.

cyphersmith

08-31-2011, 05:56 PM

Then, you have the retirement situation. Harry Reid of Nevada, and others, are likely retirements. If they retire, the Republican governors of those states replace them with Republicans. As those are Red States, these appointees win full election in the next election cycle. (John McCain is a Republican likely retirement, but if he does, the Republican Governor of Arizona, will put another Republican in, in his place. Since most of our other states now have Republican governors, the same goes there, also - and that includes Maine with it's 2 Republicans there.)

Edena, I doubt that the Senators you are talking about will retire in the middle of their terms unless there is a medical reason to do so. Also, the rules for replacing Senators are varied. Some require a new election. Some allow for replacement by the governor. Some do one or the other above, depending on how much time is left in the term. Some even have rules about the party affiliation of the replacement.

Edena_of_Neith

09-03-2011, 06:35 AM

To Aloysius:

If Rick Perry wins, with a majority in congress to help him ...
Considering the state of things ...

The Republicans out there might disagree with me, or get mad at me, but I have this image:

Rick Perry: I see we have discovered oil under the sequoia trees in Sequoia National Park.
Others: Yes, but those are the *sequoia* trees.
Rick Perry: We'll take good snapshots first. Break out the chain saws!

(As you can see, I am not a Rick Perry fan ...)

Aloysius

09-03-2011, 07:28 AM

Edena_of_Neith

09-22-2011, 12:56 AM

September 21st. Autumn starting.

The Northwest and Northeast Passages in the Arctic are still open:

http://www.seaice.dk/iwicos/latest/amsr.n.comb.20110921.gif

Looks like a 2 month season for the Northwest Passage, and a 3 month season for the Northeast Passage.

Edena_of_Neith

09-22-2011, 01:10 AM

There seems to be some uproar over this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/mapmakers-claim-on-shape-of-greenland-suddenly-melts-away-2357516.html?action=Popup

I think it's ironic. The actual melt figures are astounding. No maps needed, accurate or inaccurate.

It's thought by many that Greenland shed 500 cubic miles of ice/water equivalent worth of melt in 2010.
How much is 500 cubic miles of water equivalent?

That's enough to fill Lake Erie 3 times over.
That's enough, it it kept going for 5 years, to fill Lake Superior.

Imagine what 3 Lake Eries worth of freshwater, if piped to the right places, could do.
You could flood the Sahara Desert in it's entirety, turn it green, keep it green, with that kind of water, in those amounts, assuming the melt kept on coming like that (which it is expected to do.)

Minor changes on a map? Accurate? Inaccurate? Bah, who cares.
3 Lake Eries, or 1 Lake Superior every 5 years? That's a lot of water.

Ergeheilalt

09-22-2011, 09:35 AM

Minor changes on a map? Accurate? Inaccurate? Bah, who cares.
3 Lake Eries, or 1 Lake Superior every 5 years? That's a lot of water.

Yes, it is; however, since it's the same mass in either solid or liquid state, it displaces the same amount of water, so it's not like it's going anywhere.

Aloysius

09-22-2011, 09:57 AM

Yes, it is; however, since it's the same mass in either solid or liquid state, it displaces the same amount of water, so it's not like it's going anywhere.

It's not sea ice. It's the inlandsis. And that's a bad news for sea level.

Hatter

09-22-2011, 10:31 AM

Yes, it is; however, since it's the same mass in either solid or liquid state, it displaces the same amount of water, so it's not like it's going anywhere.

I'm sure desalination won't cause any problems.

Edena_of_Neith

09-22-2011, 11:47 AM

The melting of Greenland is producing a lot of water - by our standards, a stupefying amount of water - but compared to the amount of water in the oceans, it's a very small amount.
As a result, even with Greenland's melt, the oceans are rising at only around 3 milimeters a year, or so.

Now, if Greenland lost 15% of it's ice *volume*, or - I believe - 68,000 cubic miles of ice, that would be another matter.
The oceans would be up 2.5 feet from that much melt.

I don't know how fast Greenland might start melting. But if it got to, say, 5,000 cubic miles per year, 10 times the current rate of melt (I suppose that is possible, with an ice-free Arctic Ocean the year around?), then we'd see that amount of melt in a mere 13 years.
That would be gruesomely spectacular (and worth redrawing the atlases every couple of years or so, and not just for Greenland.)

Brynja

09-22-2011, 01:41 PM

thermohaline stall anyone?

Scutisorex Shrewlord

09-22-2011, 04:51 PM

Eh, fuck it. Man will survive.

Name Lips

09-22-2011, 04:59 PM

I wonder how long it would take, assuming we had sufficient motivation, to design bubble cities or maybe underground Vaults (like in Fallout) that could allow a sizable, sustainable human population to survive, even if the surface becomes incompatible with life as we know it. Say, as inhospitable as Mars. No breathable air, freezing temperatures, no running water, and no complex life (I doubt we can ever kill all the microbes, even if we tried).

It sounds like a "feasible engineering challenge" really.

Aloysius

09-22-2011, 05:20 PM

Name Lips

09-22-2011, 05:44 PM

No, a fully closed ecosystem didn't work. But Biosphere 2 was attempting to simulate all the biomes of earth, including weather and rainfall. The atmosphere was not artificially filtered or managed, but instead they attempted to allow the interplay between plants and animals balance the atmosphere naturally.

The project was a "failure" in that it didn't work, but it's actually still active in a way. They're still getting data out of it.

However, what I'm talking about isn't attempting to build an active biosphere, but instead build a Human Survivability environment. "Food" could consist of edible algae grown in tanks, or artificially cultivated protein chains. The same sort of things that we'd have to grow on Mars or long space voyages, assuming we couldn't carry enough food with us to make it work. Not the most interesting food, but good enough for life to go on.

If money and political will was not a problem, and the survival of the human race depended on it, could we do it? How long would it take from deciding to do it to completion?

Aloysius

09-22-2011, 06:03 PM

The Winslow

09-22-2011, 06:21 PM

What are the chance of humankind to survive in a dark frozen world, with only geothermal energy available ?

Nil.

What would be needed to ensure the survival of the human race (and of as much of the Earth's biosphere as we can safeguard)? Resources. Tons and tons and tons of resources. A drastic change in everyone's way of life. You would basically need to create a worldwide state of urgency with extraordinary powers to expropriate people so as to build large structures, move populations around, and commandeer private wealth to fund all that.

In other words, the incredible PR campaign organized by the global warming deniers would seem like child's play compared to what would happen to prevent any sort of efficient action from taking place.

Aloysius

09-22-2011, 06:30 PM

I said humankind, not the whole of humanity... I think we can survive as a specie with less than 1 000 living members, especially if we take the time to save a few millions genomes...

The tricky part would be : what to do then ? Living in a cave heated and lighted by geothermal engine, heating algae, mushrooms and yeasts, that's great, but if the prospect is to live like that until the earth core freeze, it will soon become depressing.
Thus, the objective would be "survive inside a frozen world and find a way to have a space program able to send us to another habitable world".

Trainz

09-23-2011, 12:14 AM

When you don't know better, you thrive in whatever environment you are in.

Those who have known life on the surface would possibly go nuts, but those born in the underground habitat could possibly thrive...

Edena_of_Neith

09-23-2011, 01:25 AM

Man Made Global Warming rendering the Earth uninhabitable?
I don't believe that it's possible.

There was an event involving warming that caused a mass extinction 450 million years ago, but that event involved CO2 emissions much greater than ours, and those emissions lasted much longer than our emissions have (or will.)

A large asteroid struck the Earth, producing a mass extinction event.
After the atmosphere cleared, a secondary effect began. The force of the hit resounded through the depths of the Earth, and caused the largest volcanic eruption event of the last billion years, in Siberia.
For thousands of years after that, Siberia went on erupting, producing a volcanic highland (which remains today), and emitting vast amounts of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere.

The global warming forcing of this CO2 and methane eventually grew strong enough to make an already warm Earth even warmer - warm enough to encourage the growth of a lethal microorganism in the oceans.
This microorganism deoxygenated the oceans, killing most marine life.
Then, without oxygen, it died, and in so doing released a vast cloud of poisonous vapor that drifted over the continents, killing most forms of life on land.
One of the few remaining surviving animals on land, would go on to evolve into the dinosaurs, and thus the Age of the Dinosaurs was created.

The Earth cooled down after the volcanism stopped, the unstable methane broke down, and atmospheric processes removed the excess CO2 from the atmosphere.

For that to happen now, the following would have to happen:

Greenland would have to melt.
Antarctica would have to melt.
We would have to release stupefying amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, raising it's concentration way over 5,000 parts per million.

Good luck melting Antarctica in anything under ten thousand years.

Edena_of_Neith

09-23-2011, 01:48 AM

There is a way we could cause a repeat of what happened 450 million years ago:

Use nuclear weapons en mass (on a truly colossal scale) to melt Greenland.
Use nuclear weapons en mass (on an even more truly colossal scale) to melt Antarctica.
Use nuclear weapons en mass (on a scale a full order of magnitude greater yet) to vaporize hundreds of thousands of cubic miles of limestone, and thus releasing all the carbon dioxide pent up in that limestone back into the atmosphere all at once.

Obviously, if we did do such a stupid thing, global warming would be only one of many problems that would create ...

In other words, Man Made Global Warming is not going to cause a repeat of the mass extinction event of 450 million years ago. Because Greenland, Antarctica, and the physics of our atmosphere are all standing in the way.

Edena_of_Neith

09-25-2011, 03:37 AM

(chuckles darkly)

Ok, all you weather experts out there, check this out:

http://classic.wunderground.com/history/airport/CYYQ/2011/9/25/MonthlyHistory.html

What does this mean? It means the September average for Churchill is coming in above 10 degrees Celsius (50 degrees Fahrenheit.)
That gives Churchill, a Dfb (cold temperate) climate.

Yes, you heard that right. Churchill, Manitoba, by the link above which cites official data, has a Dfb climate.
And they've yet to have a frost, either.

Now, compare this so-called Dfb climate in Churchill, to the actual northern limit of the Dfb climate ...

Edena_of_Neith

09-25-2011, 03:47 AM

Oh, please add Yellowknife, capital of the Northwest Territories of Canada, to that Dbf list:

http://classic.wunderground.com/history/airport/CYZF/2011/9/25/MonthlyHistory.html

Perhaps you are not familiar with these places or their normal climates?

Yellowknife has what is known as a hard subarctic climate, only 200 miles from the treeline.
Churchill, also has a hard subarctic climate. Due to frigid blasts off of Hudson Bay, though, it lies north of the treeline.

Neither place has anything remotely resembling a temperate climate. Except of course, for this year. (the normal high and low in both places for today are 43 and 34.)

EDIT: Apparently, Yellowknife hasn't had an official frost yet, either. lol ...

Snatch

09-26-2011, 02:28 PM

Man Made Global Warming rendering the Earth uninhabitable?
I don't believe that it's possible.

No, but it would have significant ramifications for many countries and cities that have coast lines. Big changes in short (relatively) periods of time are generally hard to take and adjust to when looking at societies as a whole. Plus there's the moral aspect of it all when those who are significantly contributing to the warming are less impacted than those that are not.

I have no idea if human activities are the sole cause of increased global temperatures. I suspect it's a strong contributor but I'm not a climatologist. I can only assess to a certain extent what experts are saying. It's true that the Earth was a lot warmer in the past and likely to warm up again, but I think we've helped that process along and sped up the timetable.

It doesn't help that the whole situation has become so political that reasonable discussion has pretty much been shown out the door.

Edena_of_Neith

09-28-2011, 10:01 AM

It doesn't help that the whole situation has become so political that reasonable discussion has pretty much been shown out the door.

Well said.

Edena_of_Neith

10-01-2011, 10:02 AM

October 1st, and both the Northwest and Northeast Passages are still open:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

Not so shoddy.
This gives the Northwest Passage a 2 month open period, and the Northeast Passage 3 months

Incidentally, Great Britain is enjoying something of a colossal autumn heat wave.
In London, yesterday's high was 84, and the low was 61.
I'm seeing a few 90 or near 90 degree readings today, too, in places around England (such as at Kensington.)
It's been in the 70s clear up into northern Scotland.

The normal high and low for London for today? 60 and 50.

Edena_of_Neith

10-01-2011, 10:55 AM

(humor)

Well, they did it.

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/CYYQ/2011/9/1/MonthlyHistory.html

Churchill, Manitoba, with an average high of 57 and an average low of 43, had a September monthly average of 50.
That means Churchill might qualify as having a Dbf Temperate Climate, since that climate requires 4 months or more of 50 or above.

Since Churchill is just about the coldest place in Manitoba, and they were scratching and clawing at a Dbf climate, that indicates the whole rest of Manitoba made it.

Thus, the whole of Manitoba is now wheat growing country (along with hardy barley, oats, rye, hay, cherries, strawberries, and other northern crops.)

Time to start growing aspen trees and wheat, in Churchill, Manitoba! (And everywhere else, in Manitoba.)

Oh, and since Hudson Bay off Churchill warmed up to 70 degrees this year, might start working on those tourist beaches too, while you're at it.

(hint: don't try any of the above, no matter what the climatic records say ...)

Edena_of_Neith

10-01-2011, 11:45 AM

Some other unlikely places, that made the Dbf climate this year, due to the unusually warm September averages:

- Fort Simpson, Canadian Northwest Territories: http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/CYFS/2011/9/1/MonthlyHistory.html
- Hay River, Canadian Northwest Territories: http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/CYHY/2011/9/1/MonthlyHistory.html
- (Yellowknife came very close, at 49 degrees)

- (Ennadai Lakes, southern Nunavut just north of Manitoba, came surprisingly close at 46 degrees)

- Fort Chipewyan, northeasternmost Alberta: http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/CYPY/2011/9/1/MonthlyHistory.html
- Uranium City, northwesternmost Saskatchawan: http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/CWDC/2011/9/1/MonthlyHistory.html

- Lynn Lake, west central Manitoba: http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/CYYL/2011/9/1/MonthlyHistory.html
- Thompson, central Manitoba: http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/CYTH/2011/9/1/MonthlyHistory.html
- Norway House, central Manitoba: http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/CYNE/2011/9/1/MonthlyHistory.html

- Fort Severn, northern Ontario on the shores of Hudson Bay: http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/71434/2011/9/1/MonthlyHistory.html
- Lansdowne House, northern Ontario: http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/71846/2011/9/1/MonthlyHistory.html
- Moosonee, northern Ontario on the shores of James Bay: http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/CYMO/2011/9/1/MonthlyHistory.html

- Chamouchouane, central Quebec: http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/CWOD/2011/9/1/MonthlyHistory.html
- (Schefferville didn't make it, at 45 degrees, but it does indicate where the approximate line was, if compared with Chamouchouane)

- Goose Bay, Labrador: http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/CYYR/2011/9/1/MonthlyHistory.html
- (Hopedale in central-northern Labrador was close, at 49 degrees)

Thus, the 'new' temperate line, can be drawn: It runs from central Labrador west to James Bay, then northwest along the coast of Hudson Bay to Churchill, then west through northernmost Manitoba and then northwest through the Great Slave Lake, to the base of the Rockies.
This is anywhere from 300 to 700 miles north of the current actual temperate line, and is not too far from the current Treeline.

Snatch

10-01-2011, 08:58 PM

In a completely unrelated post, I've been to more than have of the places listed above. I lead a jet set lifestyle.

Edena_of_Neith

10-02-2011, 08:45 AM

In a completely unrelated post, I've been to more than have of the places listed above. I lead a jet set lifestyle.

(curious) Where have you visited?

Snatch

10-06-2011, 01:43 PM

- Fort Simpson, Canadian Northwest Territories:
- Hay River, Canadian Northwest Territories:
- (Yellowknife came very close, at 49 degrees)
- Fort Chipewyan, northeasternmost Alberta:
- Uranium City, northwesternmost Saskatchawan:
- Goose Bay, Labrador

Goose Bay was a great place to visit. Fort Chip...not so much.

Aloysius

10-14-2011, 01:51 PM

The Republican Inquisition is still burning climate witches at the stake :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/14/rick-perry-texas-censorship-environment-report

Officials in Rick Perry's home state of Texas have set off a scientists' revolt after purging mentions of climate change and sea-level rise from what was supposed to be a landmark environmental report. The scientists said they were disowning the report on the state of Galveston Bay because of political interference and censorship from Perry appointees at the state's environmental agency.

By academic standards, the protest amounts to the beginnings of a rebellion: every single scientist associated with the 200-page report has demanded their names be struck from the document. "None of us can be party to scientific censorship so we would all have our names removed," said Jim Lester, a co-author of the report and vice-president of the Houston Advanced Research Centre.

"To me it is simply a question of maintaining scientific credibility. This is simply antithetical to what a scientist does," Lester said. "We can't be censored." Scientists see Texas as at high risk because of climate change, from the increased exposure to hurricanes and extreme weather on its long coastline to this summer's season of wildfires and drought.

However, Perry, in his run for the Republican nomination, has elevated denial of science, from climate change to evolution, to an art form. He opposes any regulation of industry, and has repeatedly challenged the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Texas is the only state to refuse to sign on to the federal government's new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. "I like to tell people we live in a state of denial in the state of Texas," said John Anderson, an oceanography at Rice University, and author of the chapter targeted by the government censors.

That state of denial percolated down to the leadership of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. The agency chief, who was appointed by Perry, is known to doubt the science of climate change. "The current chair of the commission, Bryan Shaw, commonly talks about how human-induced climate change is a hoax," said Anderson.

But scientists said they still hoped to avoid a clash by simply avoiding direct reference to human causes of climate change and by sticking to materials from peer-reviewed journals. However, that plan began to unravel when officials from the agency made numerous unauthorised changes to Anderson's chapter, deleting references to climate change, sea-level rise and wetlands destruction.

"It is basically saying that the state of Texas doesn't accept science results published in Science magazine," Anderson said. "That's going pretty far."

Officials even deleted a reference to the sea level at Galveston Bay rising five times faster than the long-term average – 3mm a year compared to .5mm a year – which Anderson noted was a scientific fact. "They just simply went through and summarily struck out any reference to climate change, any reference to sea level rise, any reference to human influence – it was edited or eliminated," said Anderson. "That's not scientific review that's just straight forward censorship."

Mother Jones has tracked the changes. The agency has defended its actions. "It would be irresponsible to take whatever is sent to us and publish it," Andrea Morrow, a spokeswoman said in an emailed statement. "Information was included in a report that we disagree with."

She said Anderson's report had been "inconsistent with current agency policy", and that he had refused to change it. She refused to answer any questions. Campaigners said the censorship by the Texas state authorities was a throwback to the George Bush era when White House officials also interfered with scientific reports on climate change.

In the last few years, however, such politicisation of science has spread to the states. In the most notorious case, Virginia's attorney general Ken Cuccinelli, who is a professed doubter of climate science, has spent a year investigating grants made to a prominent climate scientist Michael Mann, when he was at a state university in Virginia.

Several courts have rejected Cuccinelli's demands for a subpoena for the emails. In Utah, meanwhile, Mike Noel, a Republican member of the Utah state legislature called on the state university to sack a physicist who had criticised climate science doubters.

The university rejected Noel's demand, but the physicist, Robert Davies said such actions had had a chilling effect on the state of climate science. "We do have very accomplished scientists in this state who are quite fearful of retribution from lawmakers, and who consequently refuse to speak up on this very important topic. And the loser is the public," Davies said in an email.

"By employing these intimidation tactics, these policymakers are, in fact, successful in censoring the message coming from the very institutions whose expertise we need."

When in doubt about what is true and what is false in this kind of "scientific" dispute, just look who is doing what :
on one hand, you have a bunch of corrup politicians with very strong ties with coal and oil industries, pundits and lobbyists who were already working for Philip Morris or the asbestos lobbies, various kind of crackpot conspiracy theorists. They are doing falsification, censorship, political persecution. They have sent death threats to scientists.
On the other hand, you have scientists. They have published articles in peer reviewed magazines.

Hatter

10-14-2011, 03:09 PM

"It would be irresponsible to take whatever is sent to us and publish it," Andrea Morrow, a spokeswoman said in an emailed statement. "Information was included in a report that we disagree with."

You have to admire their honesty I guess, if not their integrity. Remember folks, scientific results that you disagree with should just be discarded.

Edena_of_Neith

10-17-2011, 09:14 PM

http://www.seaice.dk/iwicos/latest/amsu.n.comb.20111017.gif

October 17th, and the Northeast Passage is only just closing (the Northwest Passage closed about a week ago.)
A ship with a reinforced hull, or a ship accompanied by even a light icebreaker, could still probably make it through.

Not bad, considering where the ice should be.
Historically up until the 1980s, neither the Northwest or Northeast Passage have ever been open, period. Not navigable even in late summer, to even the heaviest of icebreakers.
As of 1981, there had been more successful trips to the Moon, than successful attempts to navigate the Northwest Passage.

This year, the Northeast Passage managed a full 3 month season, and the Northwest Passage around a 2 month season, in which a small sailboat could have made the trip.

AZRogue

10-25-2011, 12:35 PM

Ergeheilalt

10-25-2011, 09:08 PM

Just had to share, I laughed so hard. More evidence of our government's efficiency at work. It's just wonderful, how they manage our cash, heh.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-october-24-2011/weather-blunderground?xrs=share_copy (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailyshow.c om%2Fwatch%2Fmon-october-24-2011%2Fweather-blunderground%3Fxrs%3Dshare_copy)

To be perfectly honest, the problems they identified are endemic to all energy efficiency programs. It's all the more reason that people like me and my company need to exist. We help these clowns get their act together or prevent them from drawing off the government funds. Our overhead costs are awesome took, right around $0.04 per verified kWh saved.

AZRogue

10-26-2011, 01:59 PM

To be perfectly honest, the problems they identified are endemic to all energy efficiency programs. It's all the more reason that people like me and my company need to exist. We help these clowns get their act together or prevent them from drawing off the government funds. Our overhead costs are awesome took, right around $0.04 per verified kWh saved.

As Libertarian as I am, I could really get behind some of our government programs meant to develop green energy (or other technology not yet profitable on its own); I believe we need to stay competitive when it comes to tech. The inefficiency of government, even in relatively straightforward cases, just ruins it for me. I completely sympathize with Jon Stewart's frustration and can't help but wish your company well, if it's working to improve matters.

Edena_of_Neith

10-27-2011, 02:38 AM

The United Nations now projects world population to increase to 15 billion, by 2100.

If, somehow, massive industrial expansion allows an average emission of carbon of 18 tons per person per year (the American average) for all those 15 billion people, that would be a lot of carbon.
Specifically, that would be 270 billion tons of carbon, emitted each year. (Compared to 40 billion tons of carbon today.)
Or, an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, of 11 to 17 parts per million, each year (enough in emissions to return Earth's atmosphere to Jurassic levels of CO2 in several hundred years.)

There are far more than enough fossil fuel reserves in the Earth, to allow for hundreds of years of consumption, at that rate.

If Earth's atmosphere reverted to 6,500 parts per million (22 times the pre-industrial levels of CO2) that would be the equivalent of a 7% increase in the luminosity of the sun.
That would probably be enough to melt Antactica (albeit, it would still take that frozen continent thousands of years to actually melt) and return the Earth to a pre-Ice Age climate.

Such a thing wouldn't happen in my lifetime or yours, and humanity - if humanity tried - might be able to adjust to the changing climate ... but it certainly shows the potential change that could occur.

-

Could 15 billion people start emitting an average of 18 tons of carbon per person per year?
I believe the answer is Yes.
In China today, with it's 1.3 billion people, the per capita emission of carbon is up to 6 tons per person per year as of 2010, and this year it will probably be closer to 7 tons per person per year.
The United Nations projects that by 2030, with roughly the same population as today, China's emissions will be four times what they were in 2010. That would be a per capita emission of 24 to 28 tons of carbon per person per year.

Why such carbon emissions?
Cement and steel production are very energy intensive, brown coal is cheap (and the dirtiest kind of coal), and the world is in great demand for cement and steel.
The rest of the world is industrializing. They want in on the game. India. Brazil. Indonesia. Russia (back.) Kazahstan. And so on. Industrial production requires energy, and fossil fuel is where it's at (especially after Fukushima - Germany is completely abandoning nuclear power, going all fossil fuels, because of that.)
America is back, too. We are now the world's leading producer of natural gas, Russia pushed back to second place. Because of skyrocketing production of shale oil in the last 5 years, we now produce 72% of the oil we consume ourselves (most of the rest comes from Canada, where they also are developing their vast shale oil resources.) New sources of shale oil have just been discovered, truly vast sources, and it has become cost effective to exploit those resources. Coal? China is, by far, the world's leading user of coal, but ... we have - literally - mountains of coal rising up all over the country. That coal will, inevitably, get burned.

Someone in another thread commented that you don't screw around with Gaia.
I'm afraid humanity is seriously intent on doing just that, in a grand mal fashion (a direct translation from the French would be: great bad/ill. This is another case of English directly 'borrowing' from another language ...)

Global warming is here. To stay. Rush Limbaugh, sorry to burst your bubble, but man-made climate change is for real (look on the bright side, Rush - as you, yourself, have said, the plants will love it - especially, the weeds.)

EDIT:

Of course, with 15 billion people, nobody on the Earth will be talking about endangered forests or habitats anymore.
Outside of protected areas (protected by armies with machine guns at the ready, that is, not by national laws) there will be no forests, woodlands, or natural habitats left.

Edena_of_Neith

10-29-2011, 02:18 PM

(grimaces)

I must wonder if it has ever snowed this heavily, this early, in the Northeast Corridor.
It's snowing heavily all the way down into Virginia. (I am guessing millions of trees, still in leaf, are collapsing under the weight of the snow as I write this.)

Talk about freak ... this is freakish. Historic freakish. Maybe all time unprecendented freakish. Gads.

Memo to Nature: It isn't even Halloween!

Edena_of_Neith

10-30-2011, 02:52 PM

I can confirm that the storm is unprecented, with no historical equivalent in Connecticut history.
The previous all time snowfall record, period, in the State of Connecticut was 9.75 inches.
Half the state saw snowfall far heavier than that, yesterday and last night.

From what I am seeing on YouTube, it appears that severe to catastrophic tree damage occurred over half or more of Connecticut, and to the northeast and southwest.
The power grid was smashed, and 3 million people are without power (750,000 of them in Connecticut, 2.25 million elsewhere,) with temperatures in the lower 40s and strong cold winds from the north. (shudders)

This is Devils Night, and in this case it is grimly living up to its name.

The Great Snowstorm of October, 2011, is unprecented, and there is some question as to whether there is any parallel to this storm, in this area, at this time of year, in the history of the United States.

Harry

10-30-2011, 09:28 PM

I don't buy it. I think it's all a cover story. Catastrophic October snowstorm? I'll bet the whole lot of them damn Yanks spent the week out drinking, pissed that the Yankees and the Red Sox weren't in the Series, got stinking drunk, and forgot to pay their electric bill. Next thing you know, their bender will last a couple mores days and the whole sorry lot will be evicted.

Glass

10-30-2011, 10:09 PM

Edena_of_Neith

11-01-2011, 11:16 AM

Well, well ... the Arctic sea ice has finally returned to Wrangel Island in the eastern Arctic Ocean.

http://www.seaice.dk/iwicos/latest/amsu.n.comb.20111101.gif

Normally, the pole side of Wrangel Island has sea ice the year around, even in early September, so this is a change.

Likewise, the sea ice is finally returning to Barrow, Alaska.
The sea ice used to return to Barrow, Alaska, in early September.

Harry

11-03-2011, 11:44 PM

Click here!!! ... http://www.polarbearcam.com/

You too can hang out with polar bears and wait for sea ice to form!

Edena_of_Neith

12-03-2011, 01:27 PM

December 2nd, and the Port of Churchill, Manitoba, is still open.
There is little or no ice in Iqaluit Harbor.

Very unusual events.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.004.png

Edena_of_Neith

12-03-2011, 02:04 PM

An event just happened in our country that is rather freakish, and could be related to global climate change.

Seattle's SEATAC airport recorded the highest barometric pressure reading in it's history, as a strong high pressure moved over the Pacific Northwest and Southwest Canada.
At the same time, a strong low pressure was sitting off to the south.
The extreme and tight pressure gradient between the two, combined with the normal Santa Ana effect, and a strong jet stream and unusual conditions in the Stratophere ...

... caused a widespread and severe windstorm across the Southwestern United States.

Winds gusting to 100 miles per hour or greater (160 kilometers per hour or higher) were recorded in many places in Utah, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.

Few storms occurred with this windstorm. Just powerful winds, over a vast area, with the areas normally particularly subject to high winds, being especially hard hit.
For example, Farmington, New Mexico, and Pasadena, California, both suffered extensive tree and other property damage.

Schizm

12-03-2011, 05:07 PM

I work for a cell phone company, in a call center.
We have a cell tower on the grounds.

yeah, the top cover of the cell tower blew off on thursday night.

Edena_of_Neith

12-03-2011, 07:07 PM

It is fortunate the trees were bare of leaves.
Many deciduous trees blew down anyways, more force brought against them than they could bear. I'm sure many, many conifers blew down.

Minor structural damage is, apparently, widespread across Utah, New Mexico, southern California ... and probably in parts of Arizona and Nevada. Things like wrecked fences, lost shingles, broken windows, power lines and poles blown down, and so on.
Major damage is reported in some places, such as damaged cellular towers (like yours, Schizm), heavily damaged roofs, vehicles flipped (and totalled), and widespread damage to structures, power poles, and vehicles from fallen trees.
In Pasadena, half the city lost it's water supply due to the power failure.

Imagine if such a windstorm hit the eastern United States in the summer, when the trees are in full leaf, stretching from Indiana and Illinois, to New York and New Jersey, and south to Missouri, Kentucky, and Virginia.

Gads. Freak system, indeed. Like a Tropical Storm, over an area greater than the size of Texas.

Harry

12-20-2011, 09:07 PM

"I have never seen this before and I am doing video..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcwOn4VeJOE

shiningbrow

12-20-2011, 11:05 PM

Nature imitates art:
http://www.buffaloah.com/a/DCTNRY/v/vitwave.html

Edena_of_Neith

01-23-2012, 04:41 AM

During the first days of January, it was in the 60s in a number of places in Minnesota.

Noteworthy, for the fact that at no time in the history of Minnesota, has any place in that state ever hit 60 in January. Period.

And a White Christmas?
Where?
I'm not sure that even International Falls had one. (Heck, I am not sure that even Winnipeg had one.)

Edena_of_Neith

02-04-2012, 07:08 PM

Woah.

It's colder in the heartland of Europe, right now, than it is in far northern Canada.

http://www.wunderground.com/maps/cn/Temperature.html

(then, click on Europe on the right side, to compare temperatures)

Glass

02-05-2012, 06:22 PM

Oh no. You don't mean to say...have the robber barons put a gun to Punxatawney Phil's head and made him end winter?! THOSE BASTARDS!

Aloysius

02-07-2012, 05:18 AM

For Edena : ;)

Artic sea ice in december : http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2012/01/20110105_Figure1.png

Arctic sea ice NOW : http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png

We are in the middle of winter, and yet, sea ice is decreasing impressively in the area north of Russia and Scandinavia, as if the Gulf Stream was suddenly on steroid. I guess it's about winter storms or something like that, but it's surprising anyway.

Edena_of_Neith

02-07-2012, 10:37 PM

You know the best part?

Man gets a Pass, in the Near Term.

The great Siberian eruption of 400 million years ago released between 3,000 and 4,000 billion tons of CO2. This increased the global temperature by 9 degrees, from 72 to 81 fahrenheit.
Then all the methane frozen at the bottom of the ocean thawed, basically all at once, and this release warmed the Earth by another 9 degrees, to 90 degrees.

The burning of fossil fuels is expected to release 3,000 to 4,000 billion tons of CO2 (at the current rate of burning, that would happen in only 100 years, and the rate of burning is increasing, and the rate of increase is increasing.)
But Antarctica is frozen, and as it melts, it sends frigid water to the bottom of the oceans, preventing the methane frozen there today from melting.
Also, Antarctica, while still frozen, keeps the Earth cooler than it would be, otherwise.
And for Antarctica to melt, even in a worse case scenario, would take a thousand years or longer.

Assuming there is enough coal around, and man goes on burning coal for a thousand years, Man will get a Pass from nature for that period, as Antarctica melts, and prevents the CO2 from producing the titanic warming.
Then, after perhaps tens of thousands of billions of tons of CO2 have been released, and Antarctica is melted - long term - the payback occurs.

Except this time the sun is brighter in the sky, in addition to the effect of the massive CO2 and the sudden melt of trillions of tons of methane.

Last time, the combined effects of the warming and other effects exteriminated 98% of all life, land and sea.
Man is going to have some major adaptation to do, if he wants to survive this particular change.

However, because Antarctica is frozen, and does not want to thaw, Man is given a free Pass to burn all the carbon dioxide he wants for now. In the short term, the effects will be minor (minor, as in, say, 'merely' the melting of the Arctic Sea Ice.)
The really big effects will occur in the long term. (And who, among men, ever care about the long term?)

A 22 fold increase in CO2 from pre-industrial levels, quite possible the way man is going, amounts to an effective 7% increase in the brightness of the sun.
That's a lot of extra heat.
Then, add in the trillions of tons of methane that suddenly melt, as the Earth warms.

Edena_of_Neith

02-07-2012, 10:42 PM

And Man, is gleefully taking that Pass.
World CO2 emissions are greater than ever before, the rate of rise in the rate of rise is skyrocketing, and around the world everyone (except the European Union) is going Full Steam Ahead.

I don't have the 2011 emissions yet, but when I get them, I'll post them here.
The big emitters I know of?

China, America, India, Russia, the EU, Japan, Brazil and Indonesia (due to land use change.)
Oh, and the Arctic, is increasingly getting into the act, ceasing to be a carbon sink, and becoming a carbon emitter (in the worst case scenario, it could end up emitting 10 times all the CO2 being emitted by man, each and every year, as the permafrost melts.)

But then, Rush Limbaugh says there is no Global Warming, that it is all a hoax.
And who am I, Edena_of_Neith, to contradict the one and only Rush Limbaugh? :D

-

In the map above, you are seeing a massive and sustained heat wave (thought to be partially caused by an intensive Positive Arctic Oscillation) hitting the Arctic.
The warmth flooding in, has kept the Barents Sea and Spitzbergen almost completely ice free, and is keeping the Kara Sea from freezing over (it should have been totally frozen by the end of October.) It is causing very warm temperatures in Spitzbergen (sometimes, far warmer than in Great Britain, this particular winter.)

With the warmth heading north and northeast, and not east into Europe, frigid Siberian air has managed to backpedal westward into Europe, producing the colossal cold that is gripping that continent right now. (Meanwhile, warmth from the Arctic has been hitting northern Siberia ... producing curious effects, such as it being in the teens in far northern Siberia, while it is -10 in Berlin and -20 in Minsk, in temperatures in fahrenheit. 30 in southern Spitzbergen, while it is in the teens in parts of Great Britain, and the single digits in France.)

Brynja

02-08-2012, 09:48 AM

CO2 stuff is what piqued me here.

How do you propose developing nations forge into the 1st world?

Edena_of_Neith

02-08-2012, 04:54 PM

CO2 stuff is what piqued me here.

How do you propose developing nations forge into the 1st world?

Fusion power. Efficient, cheap solar power.
Electric vehicles.
Improved lithium ion batteries to store the power, and more developments along this line.
A halt in the growth of the world population (lol ... that will not happen, as the Power Elite want more young people, to power their work forces.)
Forest preserves.
More efficient agriculture.

We know, though, that none of the above are going to happen.
Instead, world population will reach 10 billion this century, and still be racing upward.
The Amazon, the Congo, the forests of Siberia, will all be leveled (just as the forests of Indonesia have been leveled, already.)
More and more coal plants will go online, all over the world. More drilling for oil and shale oil, more natural gas.
They've been discussing fusion power for 50 years, but nothing has ever come of it. Nothing ever will. Same with efficient solar, or electric vehicles.

The world faces one of two futures: Soylent Green or Threads. Or maybe both. Or, if we are very lucky, the world of Bladerunner for a couple of centuries.

Schizm

02-08-2012, 07:03 PM

Edena, is your real name David Brin? Because his novel "earth" is pretty much exactly what you are describing.

Name Lips

02-08-2012, 09:04 PM

They are, in fact, building large-scale fusion reactors at this time. The science says they *should* work, and be virtually pollution free.

But they won't know for sure, of course, until they finish the construction and switch them on.

hobbiteer

02-08-2012, 10:32 PM

A halt in the growth of the world population (lol ... that will not happen, as the Power Elite want more young people, to power their work forces.)

I was going to say sex is fun, thus why population increases.

Name Lips

02-08-2012, 10:49 PM

The population increases because we are, as a species, unable to keep ourselves from trying to have sex. Call it fun, call it biological urges, whatever. It seems by and large beyond our control. People everywhere end up having sex, whether they plan on doing so or not.

However there is a glimmer of hope. Many 1st-world nations are concerned about population decline. France and Japan pop into my head instantly. I think Russia is also worried, and offering monetary incentives to encourage having children.

Most first world nations are, in fact, in a state of equilibrium or decline with the exception of their immigrant population. If there were no immigrants in the US, our population would also be in decline.

The more generations a family exists in a modernized nation, the fewer children each successive generation has. On average of course. There are always Duggers. But they're averaged out by all the families choosing to have 0 or 1 child (or to adopt).

The generally accepted reason for population stability in first world nations is greater sexual education, women's rights, and affordable access to contraception.

However, the counter to the "glimmer" of hope is usually that it is impossible for the entire world to be full of first-world nations, at least in the way things are currently set up. We need 3rd world nations supplying cheap resources and labor to support our extravagant 1st world lifestyles. The whole system would need to be reorganized, which will only happen if we are unified in some way. And that has never happened, so any ideas for how it could happen are just mental exercises. We don't know if it's even possible at all.

There is the far more grim glimmer of "hope" which is simply that all natural systems eventually reach an equilibrium. At some point, if food production doesn't increase, population will level off. It will be because of widespread war and famine, but it will hit a plateau. And also, if we strip the earth of natural resources, the same thing will happen. The population will decrease until it can be supported by what resources remain.

I don't much like the notion of the "grim" equilibrium. But I suppose it is comforting, in a macabre way, to know that one way or another the situation will be resolved. That's just the "if we ignore the problem long enough" default solution.

Aloysius

02-09-2012, 09:37 AM

However there is a glimmer of hope. Many 1st-world nations are concerned about population decline. France and Japan pop into my head instantly.
huh ? France's birth rate is the highest of western Europe. You mean, Italy, Germany, Spain, OK (1.3 or 1.4 children per woman). But our population is NOT declining (2 children per woman).
Our birth rate had been a problem in the past (the whole 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, when Germany outnumbered us by two against one), and there had been some worries during the 80' and the 90', but we have a mini-baby boom since roughly 1998.

Edena_of_Neith

03-11-2012, 05:52 AM

I continue to be unable to get world CO2 emissions by country, for the year 2011.

Edena_of_Neith

03-14-2012, 07:59 AM

I would expect this forecast, for this time of year ... if it was Sarasota, Florida.

But not Minneapolis, Minnesota.

http://www.wunderground.com/US/MN/Minneapolis.html

(blinks)

That's some heat wave, you've got, going up north.

Edena_of_Neith

03-14-2012, 09:51 AM

The heat wave in the north is big enough, long enough, and projected to be severe enough, to be an unprecented event.
As such, I consider it well within the realm of being a result of climate change.

In the Red River Valley of North Dakota, all the snow has melted, the ice is breaking up on the rivers, and the ground is thawing. All of this, a full month early.
Dust storms are raging in North Dakota (in late winter, mind you), with fatalities and injuries, if what I hear is true.

Further north, it hit 52 in Winnipeg (normal high, 26), 50 in Thompson (normal high, about 16), and 35 in Churchill (normal high, 1.)

Now, there is an 82 and an 84 in the forecast, for Minneapolis. I'll believe those, when I see them. (The all time record high for the month of March for Minneapolis, is 81.)

The forecast is similar, for places like Bismarck, Sioux Falls, Omaha, Kansas City, Green Bay, Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, Syracuse, New York City, Hartford, Providence, and Boston. All with near record or record heat, sustained for several days, possibly even intensifying further.
Further south, near summer conditions are attempting to occur in Kansas, southern Missouri, southern Illinois, Kentucky, Virginia, and places southward.

I have to wonder how many 90 degree readings are going to occur out there, if this heatwave really does intensify, the way they say it is going to.

Edena_of_Neith

03-15-2012, 09:35 AM

http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/record-warmth-this-week_2012-03-11

The above link, is about the heat wave in general, and comes from the Weather Channel.

http://www.wunderground.com/US/MN/Minneapolis.html

Again, I would expect that forecast ... if it was for Sarasota, Florida.
But not for Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Equally astonishing forecasts, are being made for pretty much every place from Montana to Maine, Colorado to Virginia, and far into Canada.

Traverse City, Michigan, hit 80, yesterday.
I think we may end up with a bunch of 90 degree readings, before this one is over, in places quite far north.

(muses)

I remember a March, back in 1994, in Plymouth, Michigan.
The snow did not melt, the entire month. Not a square inch of ground was exposed to the air, at any time, at any point in the month of March.
It did not rain. It was far too cold for rain. But it snowed. And snowed. And snowed. With temperatures falling as low as 5 below zero early in the month, and to the single digits in the late part of the month.

That was an exceptionally cold March. But back in the 1970s, most Marches were cold. Not as cold as that, but very cold. A gelid mixture of rain, freezing rain, and snow fell, the ground remained frozen, the rivers and lakes remained frozen, and the ski slopes remained open. Thaw conditions and early spring heat waves might push the temperature as high as ... 50 degrees, by mid month. A major heat wave, if it happened.
The Spring Thaw occurred in early April, Hines Park flooded, the deep frost disappeared (and roads collapsed) in mid to late April, and spring finally came.

doc

03-15-2012, 02:34 PM

80s yesterday, but maybe severe weather next week. Glad it's back to normal

Edena_of_Neith

03-15-2012, 05:30 PM

Violent storms are hitting my home in Southeastern Lower Michigan.

A tornado touched down near Dexter, and was heading towards Ann Arbor (whether it hit or not, I don't know.)
Winds of over 70 miles per hour, hail of 2 inches in diameter, are expected across Metro Detroit, as the storms pass through.

One of these storms (the most violent of them) is near Plymouth (where I grew up) as I write this.

Where I live now, something (I believe dry lightning) just sparked 3 wildfires, and area residents were evacuated and the roads closed, while a large force brought the fires under control.
With a drought index of over 650 and climbing, temperatures in the upper 80s and relatively low humidity, and breezy easterly winds, conditions are favorable for large wildfires in our area, in Western Charlotte County, in Southwest Florida.

Edena_of_Neith

03-17-2012, 10:49 AM

Thunderstorms in Landsdowne House in March?
50 degrees in Moosonee in March?

lol

(The normal high and low in Moosonee for today is 20 and 0. Fahrenheit. And thunderstorms are normally rare enough even in Michigan, in March.)

EDIT: And they're predicting 70 in Moosonee. Considering Moosonee's location and the natural variabilities of climate ... that's so far off the charts, it's out in the realm of Here Be Dragons.

Edena_of_Neith

03-17-2012, 04:57 PM

(blinks)

Near 60 in Moonsonee.
Near 70 in Kenora.
Near 80 in International Falls.

It just doesn't do that, in mid March.

In Colorado, there's a fire weather warning for all areas below 7,000 feet.
In Wyoming, they are advising the skiiers and snowmobilers to watch out for the ... thunderstorms.

Aloysius

03-17-2012, 05:41 PM

(blinks)
Near 80 in International Falls.
It just doesn't do that, in mid March.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Falls#Climate

It does. :D

Edena_of_Neith

03-18-2012, 12:24 PM

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2054

Edena_of_Neith

03-18-2012, 02:06 PM

(crass, vulgar, nauseating humor)

Ok, listen up, you medieval morons!
This, is my BOOM VIDEO!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNcQX033V_M

It created Earth's hottest year, in the last 4.9 billion years.

That explosion occurred at roughly the same height as a weather station would record shade temperatures.
The high temperature at that spot, was 500,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit (And the low? Probably somewhere around 75.)

Well ...

The average for the day, at that recording station was roughly 250,000,000 degrees.

There are around 10,000 official weather stations worldwide, and their combined readings are used to measure the worldwide average temperature.
So, divide that 250,000,000 by 10,000, and you get 25,000.

There are 365 days in a year. Divide 25,000 by 365, and you get, roughly, 70.

Thus, the average temperature for Earth, that year, for that explosion alone, was 70 degrees above normal.
Thus, Earth's temperature rose from 54 or so, to 124 degrees, Fahrenheit.

In subsequent years, multiple hydrogen bomb tests occurred, and each produced a 70 degree rise in the world average temperature.

Prior to those years in the 1950s and 1960s, the previous record for Earth occurred after the event that produced the Siberian Traps, when somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000 billion tons of CO2 released into the atmosphere pushed Earth's average from 72 to 81 degrees, then all the methane released from the oceans at once, pushed it up to 90 degrees.

But that's chilly! 90 degrees? That's nothing!
In the 1950s and 1960s, we got the Earth up to a whopping 120 to 130 degrees, on average! For just one bomb! (Multiple bombs, it might have been 200, 300, 400, even 500 degrees, on average!)
Now, THAT'S Global Warming! :)

Aloysius

03-18-2012, 02:13 PM

...

Now, use the volume of air, rather than the average temperature of nearly 0-dimensional points...

Edena_of_Neith

03-18-2012, 02:55 PM

Ah but ... the area of 500,000,000 degree temperatures did have a recordable size, so it counts as an official weather recording.
It was only a few inches across, maybe, but that's easily large enough, to count as a legitimate temperature recording, for the area.

The local area certainly is not arguing the fact, either (it's not there anymore, just a 2 mile wide crater where it used to be.)

Hatter

03-18-2012, 03:37 PM

weather =/= climate

Edena_of_Neith

03-18-2012, 08:46 PM

Well ok, back on topic ...

They are now predicting a high of 90 in Ypsilanti, a place reasonably close to my home town of Plymouth, Michigan.

The highest temperature I ever saw in March, in Plymouth, was in the upper 70s.
The highest temperature ever recorded in March, in Ypsilanti, is around 80.
The highest temperature ever recorded in the State of Michigan, for the month of March, is probably below 90 degrees.

But 90 is the forecast.

If it happens, it is history in the making.
For every degree above 90, it would be that much more epic.

EDIT:

... Record high temperature set at Detroit mi...

A record high temperature of 75 degrees was set at Detroit mi today.
This breaks the old record of 72 set in 1903.

... Record breaking warmth continues across Southeast Michigan...

High temperatures once again exceeded 70 degrees across Southeast
Michigan today. This Marks the fifth consecutive day of high
temperatures at or above 70 degrees. This streak of high
temperatures at or above 70 degrees is officially the longest
streak on record for the month of March at Detroit and Flint. This
streak breaks the previous record of four consecutive days set
back in 1990... 1945 and 1910 at Detroit and breaks the previous
record of four consecutive days at Flint which was set back in
1990 and 1945.

In Saginaw the streak of 5 consecutive days at or above 70 degrees
is second only to the string of 6 consecutive days set back in
1945. However if the current forecast verifies this streak will be
tied on Monday and broken on Tuesday in Saginaw.

EDIT:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2055

EDIT:

It actually got up to near 70 today, in Moosonee.

Edena_of_Neith

03-20-2012, 01:50 PM

Well, well ...

It is 90 degrees in Dayton, Ohio. (33 celsius)

They might think of coming to Florida. It's cooler here. Cooler in Florida than in Ohio ... in March.

We have now gone into the World of the Bizarre. Off all the charts.

And the record highs are pouring in as I speak. I'll bring in some more, as I see them.

cyphersmith

03-20-2012, 01:58 PM

Aloysius

03-20-2012, 02:14 PM

A huge concentration of record breaking events is not weather, it's climate.

With a condition : it must be really record breaking events, not something that has already happened at the same period of the year. It means, using value record value for the month, not for day. I'm to lazy to check what Edena will post...

Edena_of_Neith

03-20-2012, 02:26 PM

(blinks, sincerely astonished)

87 in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Near 90, in Wisconsin, in March.

(blinks again, unable to believe what he's seeing)

EDIT:

72 in Moosonee. That's about the third day of 70 degrees, in Moosonee.
The normal high and low for today in Moosonee, is 20 and 1.

Edena_of_Neith

03-20-2012, 05:43 PM

At this point, I am concluding that this particular heat wave is a direct product of man-made global warming.

Furthermore, the data shows that no heat wave of this magnitude has ever before struck the United States and southern Canada, in March, at any time in recorded history.
This is an all time first, and each day that it continues, the sheer unprecedented magnitude of it, continues to increase.
And it is expected to continue.

Brynja

03-21-2012, 07:31 AM

That data goes how far back?

Name Lips

03-21-2012, 07:45 AM

The question is always what would the climate look like RIGHT NOW if humans weren't changing it.

Nobody knows. We know we're contributing to climate change, but how much? Are we contributing to 2% of an "unusual" heat wave? Or 20%? Or 90%?

It is an extremely difficult question to answer, even if you are totally objective. Different groups with different climate models will produce different answers.

Hypothetical ethical questions also exist. We know that our planet has had drastic climate swings in the past. If we were to predict that the planet was due to plunge into another ice age, which would decimate humanity, should we increase greenhouse gas production to "stabilize" the climate? How about when the ice age ends, and we need to combat a heating trend? Do we have the tools we need to do that?

Aloysius

03-21-2012, 08:05 AM

Hypothetical ethical questions also exist.

They are hypothetical. Which is not what global warming is. The border of the Mediterranean climate has shifted 100 km north in my country. Lyon now has the climate Montpellier had in the 1900'. The problem is that the forest north of the "midi" are not able to sustain such a shock. And even more dramatic, every wine will need severe adjustment in its production process. :D (You know, there are wines in England now... The horror, the horror...)

Snatch

03-21-2012, 01:09 PM

(You know, there are wines in England now... The horror, the horror...)

Is that what they call mixing Red Bull and Vodka together? English wine?

Edena_of_Neith

03-21-2012, 06:14 PM

The evidence continues to grow, in large amounts, that this heat wave, is unprecented, that no historical equivalent can be found, that very possibly no historical equivalent exists.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2057

Obviously, the records only go back 150 years, so they do not speak for the entire Holocene.
But as far as the last 150 years go, this is becoming ever more and more freakish, more and more off the charts, more and more unprecented.

Not mentioned there, the heat wave has returned to North Dakota, which had 'cooled off', with Bismarck back to 70 degrees. And the forecasts is for 70+ for the next 5 days there. Read: No end to the heat wave in sight in North Dakota, and thus no end in sight for the Midwest.

Edena_of_Neith

03-21-2012, 06:15 PM

That data goes how far back?

Only 150 years.

Edena_of_Neith

03-21-2012, 06:33 PM

The question is always what would the climate look like RIGHT NOW if humans weren't changing it.

That's a good question, and I don't know.
Many people believe the Little Ice Age, would have gone into a full blown drop in temperatures, and the onset of a new Ice Age.
After all, we are at the end of the 10,000 years that Interglacials usually last, the sun angle is getting lower (23.5 degrees and dropping), the Earth is farthest from it's sun during the northern summer, and the land has rebounded, shrinking the Arctic Ocean and replacing water with a large amount of frigid land.
Considering how bad Snowmaggedon was last year, winter in Europe this year, and winter in Bolivia last year, and considering this CO2 and methane effect amounts to an effective 2% increase in the luminosity of the sun and it's still this cold, I just have to wonder.

Nobody knows. We know we're contributing to climate change, but how much? Are we contributing to 2% of an "unusual" heat wave? Or 20%? Or 90%?

True, nobody knows.
I can only venture an opinion.
Based on our modification of the atmosphere, the global temperature record (I appreciate that it is in dispute, but with what I'm going with), and the unprecended nature of this heat wave, I am assigning the 'unprecented' part to man-made global warming.

A kink in the jet stream could have always occurred (although I must say, this jet stream pattern would be unusual even in June).
March heat waves are normal. We've all seen a 70 or two in March, in the far north.
But day after day of 70+, is unprecented. Detroit (near Plymouth, my hometown) has an all time record of 4 70+ days in a row in March. Today marks the 8th such day in a row, and it's expected to continue to keep going.

Then there is 80. I never saw 80 in Plymouth, in all the time I lived in my home town. But it is hitting 80 now. Repeatedly.

And then there is 90 (or even near 90.)
They were predicting a high of 92 in Lansing, the capital of Michigan, today.
I don't know if it hit 92 in Lansing. I'll have a look. But I do know it hit 86 in Traverse City, 200 miles further north yet.
90 should be all but physically impossible, in the Upper Midwest, at this time of year. Many factors - frozen ground, frozen lakes and rivers, snow, cold ground (heck, cold ground now), low sun angle - should make it impossible.

It was 61 at midnight in Moosonee. 61, in the middle of the night? In Moosonee?
There is discontinuous permafrost. At this time of year, the surface is frozen hard, well below freezing, radiating cold into the air. Lakes and rivers are frozen many feet deep. The trees (the hardiest of spruce trees struggling titanically to form even a stunted forest) are chilled, their branches normally burdened with powdery snow.
This is at 55 degrees north latitude, nearly to James Bay, in late winter.
And it is 61 degrees, in the middle of the night?
The warm air must have been TRULY ROARING in from the south, to do that (after a high of 73 the previous day.) I can see the trees creaking and bending in roaring, gale or near storm force winds. A tropical gale, an equatorial windstorm ... in Moosonee, in March.

It is an extremely difficult question to answer, even if you are totally objective. Different groups with different climate models will produce different answers.

Agreed, and true. I give my opinion only.

Hypothetical ethical questions also exist. We know that our planet has had drastic climate swings in the past. If we were to predict that the planet was due to plunge into another ice age, which would decimate humanity, should we increase greenhouse gas production to "stabilize" the climate? How about when the ice age ends, and we need to combat a heating trend? Do we have the tools we need to do that?

Geo-engineering? It could be done, but there are always consequences of their own.
If all pollution stops now, the effect of the CO2 and methane doubles, as smog is gone that reflects the sun's light and heat back into space.
If emissions of CO2 and methane continue, without the smog, the greenhouse effect doubles and it grows.
The current status, according to scientists legitimately trying to make an effort to understand the phoenomenon, is that emissions of CO2, methane, and smog, all continue to grow, so we get half of the full global forcing effect at any time, and the effect in general (halved, or full) continues to grow.

Edena_of_Neith

03-21-2012, 06:42 PM

(reserves this)

Megamieuwsel

03-22-2012, 03:55 PM

One thing:
radiating cold into the air.
:what:
Stop that!

There is no such thing in physics as "cold", only a description of a human perception.
Never an entity. And thus it can't radiate .
It's not a form of energy or mass; you can't measure it.
You only have different levels of heat.

The proper description would be: "Sucking the heat from the air".

...well.. more-or-less accurate; For sucking would imply an active role of the mass with the lowest heat(energy)level, whereas in reality it's the heat that's attempting to equal the energy-levels and thus streams to the parts that are colder.

Just like there's no such thing as "thinth", just width.

Edena_of_Neith

03-22-2012, 04:36 PM

This one really says it.

Here's the part of the entry about Michigan, my home state:

Yesterday, nearly every major airport in Michigan's Lower Peninsula broke the record they set the previous day for their hottest March temperature, including Detroit (84°), Flint (86°F, just 2° below their all-time April record), Saginaw (87°F, just 2° below their all-time April record), Grand Rapids (87°), Muskegon (82°), Lansing (86°), Alpena (87°), Gaylord (83°, which was 26° above the average high for the date), Pellston (85°), Houghton Lake (85°), and Traverse City (87°, which was which was 45°F above the average high for the date, and was the fifth consecutive day they tied or broke their record for hottest March temperature, and just 3° below their record high temperature of 90° for April.) In Michigan's Upper Peninsula, Sault Ste. Marie's 83° (26° above the average high for the date) crushed the previous March record by 8°, and was only 2° shy of the warmest temperature ever measured in April.

Check out Madison, Wisconsin, which is on the verge of beating out one of their colder JULYs.

I'm hearing now, that all the trees are coming out, in many places up there.
Since the normal low is still near freezing, this could be (to understate things) a real problem.

There's no end to the heat wave in sight, despite the cut off low bringing some cooling in the US.
Bismarck, North Dakota, is forecast for another near 80, and 70s through the next 4 days. If North Dakota is staying in this, so goes the northern plains and adjacent Canada, and the Midwest and adjacent Canada. And the heat moving east over New England and adjacent Canada.

Here's the jet stream in Canada (it's off the US map.)

http://www.wunderground.com/maps/cn/JetStream.html

This is a perfectly normal position for the Jet Stream ... for July.

The retreating snow pack, is now back beyond the Discontinuous Permafrost Line, in northern Ontario, and in parts of Quebec. It's almost back to that line in Manitoba, falling back completely north of Lake Winnipeg.

88 yesterday, officially, in Ypsilanti, close to home up in Michigan. 88 yesterday, 87 the day before, 86 the day before that, back at home. Those would be record or near record highs, if they occurred here, in Southwest Florida. There? All time March records, and close to the all time April record. (I only saw the upper 80s a couple of times in my lifetime, in late April, at home.)

Edena_of_Neith

03-22-2012, 07:39 PM

If this heat wave continued for the entire year, and encompassed all of North America, I could draw you a new Köppen map for the continent.
Anyone interested in what the climatic zones would be, and where?

Update:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2059

90 in Lapeer, Michigan. A new all time record for Michigan, for March.
89 in Plymouth, at home.

Edena_of_Neith

03-23-2012, 09:33 PM

I've always said living in Michigan would be much more bearable if we could just get rid of March. March weather here is always horrible, with brutal cold, high winds, damaging ice storms, heavy snow, interminable cloudy stretches with no sun, all interspersed with a few teasing warm spells. Well, this year, I got my wish. This March, we started with twelve days of April weather, followed by ten days of June and July weather, with nine days of May weather predicted to round out the month.

Having lived in Michigan for 35 years, this resonates a lot with me. He is really telling it like it is.
A 70 degree day or two, a few days in the 60s, a few days in the 50s, the rest of the month cold and dreary, powerful winter storms battering away at the region, is the norm.
It can be better than that, or far worse. NO days in the 60s or 70s, no melting of the ground, lakes, rivers, or even the snowpack, virtually no thaws.

I will check Ypsilanti's temperatures (Ypsilanti is close enough to Plymouth, and enough like Plymouth topographically and climatologically, to represent home) and see how they compare to other places in the country.

(Mind you, his description of March in Michigan, above, is for SOUTHERN LOWER Michigan. In NORTHERN Lower Michigan, it's much worse. And in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, they are buried alive in snow in March. Spring? LOL. Spring is that distant something that may or may not arrive in early May.)

-

Ypsilanti, so far for March:

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KYIP/2012/3/23/MonthlyHistory.html

* Average high so far: 65 *
* Average low so far: 41 *
Monthy high: 89 (updated to 90, not shown)
Monthly low: 21

90+ (33+ celsius) days: 1
80+ (27+) days: 6
70+ (21+) days: 11
60+ (15.5+) days: 16

Normal high temperature on March 1st: 44
Normal high temperature on March 31st: 52
Normal low temperature on March 1st: 24
Normal low temperature on March 31st: 32
* Normal average high temperature: Around 48 *
* Normal average low temperature: Around 28 *

Normal number of 90+ days: 0
Normal number of 80+ days: 1, per 100 years.
Normal number of 70+ days: 1 to 3, each year.
Normal number of 60+ days: 4 to 8, each year.

-

Norms for Dallas, Texas, for March (Caf warm temperate, 1,000 miles southwest of Ypsilanti)

Normal high temperature on March 1st: 60
Normal high temperature on March 31st: 69
Normal low temperature on March 1st: 41
Normal low temperature on March 31st: 52
* Normal average high temperature: Around 65 *
* Normal average low temperature: Around 47 *

Norms for Houston, Texas (Caf subtropical, 1,200 miles southwest of Ypsilanti)

Normal high temperature on March 1st: 69
Normal high temperature on March 31st: 76
Normal low temperature on March 1st: 50
Normal low temperature on March 31st: 55
* Normal average high temperature: Around 73 *
* Normal average low temperature: Around 53 *

Edena_of_Neith

03-23-2012, 10:30 PM

Europe (even Iceland) has decided to get in on the act.

Here's Lyon, France.

http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/07480.html

Here's London. They hit 70 yesterday. (The normal high temperature in July is 72.)

http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/03772.html

Have a look at what's normal in Lyon, then what is predicted.
Then compare for other places across Western and Central Europe.

And take a look at the crazy jet stream situation from the weather underground links.
The jet stream is supposed to run west to east. Not: Northeast to Alaska, SOUTHWEST into the Pacific, way over Hudson Bay, east towards Great Britain, NORTHWEST all the way back to central Greenland, east over Scandinavia, southeast, then northeast well over Siberia, then southwest to northern Japan (still well north of it's usually location), then northeast again to Alaska.

Aloysius

03-24-2012, 02:57 AM

21 C° for Lyon in March is absolutely normal. It happens on a regular basis. 5 C° happens as well, on a regular basis. Western Europe has a very unstable weather in Spring. (in Lyon, the record high for March 23 is 25,7°C and the record low is around -5C°... )

Edena_of_Neith

03-24-2012, 03:44 AM

I know. I also realize Europe is emerging from a deep freeze, and the warmth is most needed, and welcome.

Edena_of_Neith

03-25-2012, 06:02 AM

That takes the cake.

http://www.wunderground.com/severe.asp

Have a look at Michigan.
As you can see, the weather service has issued a Special Weather Statement, a Freeze Watch, for northern lower and central lower Michigan.
That is, places such as Traverse City, Gaylord, Grayling, Alpena, Saginaw, Bay City, and Midland, might experience freezing conditions.

The weather service apparently believes, that the possibility of sub-freezing temperatures, in these places, in late March, is a major weather event and worthy of a Special Weather Advisory.

I was not aware that Traverse City, Grayling, and Alpena, had become such warm and pleasant places, that a freeze in late March was some sort of extreme event.
Uh ... yeah. March in Michigan is this pleasantly mild month, and freezing is so cold, they need to issue Special Weather Bulletins warning everyone about the impending disastrously cold weather.

Welcome to the Twilight Zone. (If you don't know March in Michigan, visit sometime, during a normal March. I lived there for 35 years, in the extreme south, and I guarantee you'll get something out of March in Michigan. You'll get something ... but pleasantly warm isn't what you will get.)

I have to wonder if the weather service has ever before issued such an advisory at this time of year. I do not recall one, and I listened to NOAA on the weather radio for decades. It must be due to the early leaf out of the trees, plants, and some crops.

Edena_of_Neith

03-28-2012, 03:56 AM

The warmth over Great Britain became very noteworthy:

The ridge of high pressure that brought "Summer in March" to the U.S. last week moved over Western Europe over the weekend, bringing sunny skies and record-breaking high temperatures to the U.K. Scotland broke its record for hottest March temperature on record on Sunday, when the mercury hit 22.8°C at Fyvie Castle, Aberdeenshire. The record lasted only one day, as a new high of 22.9°C was recorded in Aboyne, Aberdeenshire, on Monday. That record also lasted just one day, as Aboyne, Aberdeenshire has hit 23.4°C today. The previous March record in Scotland was 22.2°C at Gordon Castle (Morayshire) in March 1957, and at Strachan (Kincardineshire) in March 1965.

doc

03-28-2012, 01:06 PM

I blame Mitt and Newt, all that hot air

Name Lips

03-28-2012, 01:20 PM

I've heard conflicting opinions about what climate change means for New Mexico in terms of moisture. Some people say that we will get hotter and wetter, others hotter and dryer.

Edena_of_Neith

04-01-2012, 02:39 PM

Today is April 1st.
It hit 90 degrees (33 celsius) 2 weeks ago, in southern Michigan.
Spring will arrive in 2 weeks, in southern Michigan.

If the above statement does not compute, chalk it up to the freak weather.

cyphersmith

04-01-2012, 05:02 PM

Edena_of_Neith

04-03-2012, 08:11 AM

Some people and public groups are making some awfully extreme statements about global warming, politicizing the subject to the point where objective analysis becomes impossible.
For example, that Global Warming Deniers suffer a Mental Illness, and Need Treatment. (No, I'm not giving links ... and you wouldn't want to see them, anyways.)

Global Warming has been a hobby, and subject of interest, to me since long before any of these people made the scene. I've been looking at this since 1980.
And I wish to say something, based on the information I've collected.

-

Imagine, for just a second, that the United States of America, and the People's Republic of China, simply ceased to exist.
Thus, all CO2 emissions from these two countries, also stopped. Instantly. Permanently.
At the same time, incredibly, every other country in the world went to nuclear power, all automobiles went electric, all felling of forests ended, and all air pollution ceased immediately, and permanently.
What would happen to the global climate?

What would happen is: Earth would rapidly become warmer.

The Global Forcing created by the CO2 already emitted, is fighting a Lag in the world's oceans. This lag is 50 years.
That is, the oceans require 50 years to catch up with the change in the atmosphere.
So, since the Global Forcing of CO2 and methane, has not manifested fully. It will take another 50 years to do so, as the oceans warm.

In addition - in ADDITION - to this, the soot and smog would disappear from the atmosphere, that has been cancelling out half of the Global Forcing.
The Global Forcing, what everyone calls the Greenhouse Effect, would immediately DOUBLE.
DOUBLE.
How much of a forcing is this doubling?
The total forcing effect of the CO2 and methane is an effective 2% increase in the luminosity of the sun. Half of this is cancelled out. So, putting it back in means an immediate effective increase of 1% in the luminosity of the sun.

A 50 year lag in the oceans, a doubled greenhouse effect with an additional 1% effective increase in the luminosity of the sun.

But it does not end there. As bad as that is, it doesn't end there.

This 50 year lag and the doubled forcing means a complete melting of the Arctic sea ice.
The Arctic goes from being a net carbon sink, to a titanic carbon emitter, and a titanic methane emitter. (Methane is 30 times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.)
The feedback, the chain reaction, from the Arctic, alters climate all over the world, leading to drastic changes in the ENSO pattern, the NAO pattern, and ultimately warming the southern hemisphere.
As Greenland rapidly melts and the seas rise, as the storms around Antarctica worsen, the pressure on East Antarctica to collapse increases.

East Antarctica did collapse during a previous interglacial. If it collapses again, the oceans immediately rise 20 feet.
As a beset mankind attempts to melt the ice and stop sudden massive cooling (which occurred back then), coastlines flood, the Arctic Ocean increases in size, and as a result it becomes a warmer place.
Meanwhile, in this future, Greenland is rapidly melting, at the rate of thousands of cubic miles per year.

-

The point?

Global warming is out of control. It is unstoppable now. If the US and China just disappeared today, it would be unstoppable. It is officially out of control and unstoppable.

The only choice left is adaptation.
If Man - especially with a world population of 7 billion and rising at the rate of 100 million per year - refuses to adapt, there is a real problem.
If adaptation is not possible, for some reason, we have a real problem.