R8Z wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 3:02 am
Anyway, Earth is getting greener each and every day and I can't wait until this becomes a "bad thing" and turns itself into headlines and, of course, seed for more panic.
I mean, it's obviously more complex than that. It's the climate of an entire planet and it will be forever changing. It's the law of thermodynamics acting their way; our planet is actually surprisingly mild in its changes; we should count ourselves lucky for that (or not? Anthropic principle in action?). Thinking that climate would stay put in such a complex system is weird, and that's why I don't like the wording that is normally used by alarmists. It's ok for climate to change. Magnitudes are what matter.
R8Z wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 2:35 pmI mean, it's obviously more complex than that. It's the climate of an entire planet and it will be forever changing. It's the law of thermodynamics acting their way; our planet is actually surprisingly mild in its changes; we should count ourselves lucky for that (or not? Anthropic principle in action?). Thinking that climate would stay put in such a complex system is weird, and that's why I don't like the wording that is normally used by alarmists. It's ok for climate to change. Magnitudes are what matter.
Anyway, a shame we aren't technologically advanced enough to modulate the climate as we wish. It's coming. It will come so let's at least avoid panic.
wjfox wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 5:05 pmR8Z wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 2:35 pmI mean, it's obviously more complex than that. It's the climate of an entire planet and it will be forever changing. It's the law of thermodynamics acting their way; our planet is actually surprisingly mild in its changes; we should count ourselves lucky for that (or not? Anthropic principle in action?). Thinking that climate would stay put in such a complex system is weird, and that's why I don't like the wording that is normally used by alarmists. It's ok for climate to change. Magnitudes are what matter.
Anyway, a shame we aren't technologically advanced enough to modulate the climate as we wish. It's coming. It will come so let's at least avoid panic.
The climate isn't "always changing". It was remarkably stable for thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution, which allowed our civilisation to flourish and our agriculture to become so widespread.
The climate doesn't just randomly decide to change. There are reasons why it does so. We know what those reasons are. Even before the advent of computer models, we had the basics figured out – thanks to the work of 19th century scientists who confirmed the physics and maths. Today we have a meticulously detailed vision of the processes involved, thanks to further advances in science, and supercomputers with quintillions of calculations.
Historical records don't suggest these changes will be "mild". In the case of the Ice Age, we're talking only a few degrees being the difference between a mile of ice over your head, or not. In a warmer world, we could see vast areas of land being simply uninhabitable. Even a 1.5°C warmer world is enough to virtually eliminate the coral reefs, which are home to 25% of marine species, and which 500 million people rely on for their livelihoods.
Yet you somehow feel you can reject almost 200 years of scientific canon. You are more qualified than the likes of NASA. You can simply dismiss decades of scientific progress, thousands of peer-reviewed papers, and painstainkingly reviewed observations. You can dismiss all of that, and are happy to literally risk our only home planet in the universe, for reasons I can't quite comprehend.
I wouldn't take too much stock into someone who isn't even an expert in climatology. Besides there is already a strong consensus among scientists in this field that climate change is man-made. A single person, no matter how smart or how deep his/her credentials, doesn't simply rationalize away against the commonly agreed findings unless there is reproducible experimental data that conclusively proves them wrong.R8Z wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 7:29 pmwjfox wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 5:05 pmR8Z wrote: ↑Sat Feb 19, 2022 2:35 pm
I mean, it's obviously more complex than that. It's the climate of an entire planet and it will be forever changing. It's the law of thermodynamics acting their way; our planet is actually surprisingly mild in its changes; we should count ourselves lucky for that (or not? Anthropic principle in action?). Thinking that climate would stay put in such a complex system is weird, and that's why I don't like the wording that is normally used by alarmists. It's ok for climate to change. Magnitudes are what matter.
Anyway, a shame we aren't technologically advanced enough to modulate the climate as we wish. It's coming. It will come so let's at least avoid panic.
The climate isn't "always changing". It was remarkably stable for thousands of years prior to the Industrial Revolution, which allowed our civilisation to flourish and our agriculture to become so widespread.
The climate doesn't just randomly decide to change. There are reasons why it does so. We know what those reasons are. Even before the advent of computer models, we had the basics figured out – thanks to the work of 19th century scientists who confirmed the physics and maths. Today we have a meticulously detailed vision of the processes involved, thanks to further advances in science, and supercomputers with quintillions of calculations.
Historical records don't suggest these changes will be "mild". In the case of the Ice Age, we're talking only a few degrees being the difference between a mile of ice over your head, or not. In a warmer world, we could see vast areas of land being simply uninhabitable. Even a 1.5°C warmer world is enough to virtually eliminate the coral reefs, which are home to 25% of marine species, and which 500 million people rely on for their livelihoods.
Yet you somehow feel you can reject almost 200 years of scientific canon. You are more qualified than the likes of NASA. You can simply dismiss decades of scientific progress, thousands of peer-reviewed papers, and painstainkingly reviewed observations. You can dismiss all of that, and are happy to literally risk our only home planet in the universe, for reasons I can't quite comprehend.
An international team of scientists including Rutgers researchers has found that modern rates of sea level rise began emerging in 1863 as the Industrial Age intensified, coinciding with evidence for early ocean warming and glacier melt.
The study, which used a global database of sea-level records spanning the last 2,000 years, will help local and regional planners prepare for future sea-level rise. The study appears in the journal Nature Communications.
Sea-level rise is an important indicator of broader climate changes. By identifying the time when modern rates of sea-level rise emerged above natural variability, the researchers were able to pinpoint the onset of a significant period of climate change.
By examining the worldwide records, the researchers found that globally, the onset of modern rates of sea-level rise occurred in 1863, in line with the Industrial Revolution. At individual sites in the United States, modern rates emerged earliest in the mid-Atlantic region in the mid to late 19th century, and later in Canada and Europe, emerging by the mid-20th century.
The study is especially timely given NOAA's recently-released report detailing the rapid acceleration of sea-level rise on U.S. coasts.
Look, maybe let's lower the weapons down and set the premises first so that we can debate without name calling each other:
Researchers have observed extremely high rates of melting at the bottom of the Greenland Ice Sheet, caused by huge quantities of meltwater falling from the surface to the base. As the meltwater falls, energy is converted into heat in a process like the hydroelectric power generated by large dams.
An international team of scientists, led by the University of Cambridge, found that the effect of meltwater descending from the surface of the ice sheet to the bed—a kilometer or more below—is by far the largest heat source beneath the world's second-largest ice sheet, leading to phenomenally high rates of melting at its base.
The lubricating effect of meltwater has a strong effect on the movement of glaciers and the quantity of ice discharged into the ocean, but directly measuring conditions beneath a kilometer of ice is a challenge, especially in Greenland where glaciers are among the world's fastest moving.
This lack of direct measurements makes it difficult to understand the dynamic behavior of the Greenland Ice Sheet and predict future changes. With ice losses tied to both melting and discharge, the Greenland Ice Sheet is now the largest single contributor to global sea level rise.
