Change Is Already Here
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 7 years ago

Above: Before and after, Alaska-style - the Muir Glacier.

Ars Technica wrote:
Today, the White House released a massive National Climate Assessment covering the past, present, and future of climate change in the US. With many chapters, multiple authors, and several rounds of review, the effort is a bit like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. But the differences go well beyond the inclusion of Fahrenheit temperature values. By focusing on the US and specific regions within the US, the report provides a finer-grained picture of how a single, global trend can create radically different results in many places.

...

http://arstechnica.com/sc...eady-here/
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 7 years ago
God's just hugging us a little tighter, that's all.
Top
supporter
Posted by Amorette F. Allison (+1917) 7 years ago
LA LA LA. As long as my fingers are in my ears, your science doesn't count. And the earth is 6,000 years old and flat. LA LA LA.
Top
Posted by Forsyth Mike (+475) 7 years ago
I remember when we were screwed in the '70s when they said all the air pollution was still drifting toward the ozone layer and would probably eradicate it all by the year 2000 and we would all sunburn to death, and also when fuel was getting so scarce we would be completely out of gasoline by 2010. We were also screwed in the 2000s when the Gulf Coast was going to be ruined forever by the BP oil spills, and Alaska was going to be spoiled forever when they had the Exxon Valdez spill.

It just seems like nothing is ever as bad as they say it's going to be and nothing is ever as good as they say it's going to be. So I take virtually everything with a grain of salt ESPECIALLY if it's on the internet.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 7 years ago
Top
Posted by UM Griz (+167) 7 years ago
Mike, there was significant damage done to the ozone layer, but thanks to effective environmental policies that severely restricted the use of chlorofluorocarbons(CFCs) we have largely mitigated that damage. You probably shouldn't use environmentalist accomplishments as an excuse for not acting on climate change.

[This message has been edited by UM Griz (5/8/2014)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 7 years ago
First I'm agreeing with Kacey, now I'm applauding some goddamned griz.

It's been a strange week.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11757) 7 years ago
LA LA LA.

Sure, the USDA is taking action to help farmers and ranchers cope with the climate change that is NOT HAPPENING and low lying islands are having desperate times trying to cope with the climate change that is NOT HAPPENING and no one is really having to deal with unusually strong polar vortexes or tornados because climate change is NOT HAPPENING.

LA LA LA!!!
Top
Posted by Tongue River Millworks & Meado (+240) 7 years ago
Climate has changed from the first day that the world started turning,and will continue with or without you.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 7 years ago
Indeed. The planet is fine, it's the people that are procreateed. Or at least that's what Mr. Carlin tells me.
Top
Posted by Steve Sullivan (+1334) 7 years ago
Good short video.

http://www.businessinside...gas-2014-4

[This message has been edited by Steve Sullivan (5/9/2014)]
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
posted by UM Griz,
Mike,… but thanks to effective environmental policies that severely restricted the use of chlorofluorocarbons(CFCs) we have largely mitigated that damage.


I find it interesting that you would think any progress has been made. We have not mitigated anything.

We may have reduced what the United States of America has been producing. However, there are other countries that have done nothing, and the overall rate of “Greenhouse” gas emissions have risen continuously around the globe.

I am posting a link to the EPA, please review what you find there. Among that information, you will find a few charts. The first I would direct your attention to shows the Greenhouse Gases by type and percentage, then there is one showing the breakdown of producing sources, a chart showing use of CO2 emissions from 1900 to 2008, and from 2008 data showing that the USA still produced 19% of the worlds CO2 emissions.

http://www.epa.gov/clima...obal.html

The fact is that even if we and all of the countries producing less than we do, were to bring our 49% of global production of greenhouse gases to “0” -- zero, our globe is still in trouble, because the countries who presently are producing 51% of those gases have no plans to curtail their greenhouse gas production. And as long as the Rain-forest is cut and cleared, killing millions of trees each year, our globes ability to heal itself is being killed off.

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (5/11/2014)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 7 years ago
*cough* CFC's are not greenhouse gasses *cough*
Top
Posted by UM Griz (+167) 7 years ago
Donald, you are taking my statement out of context. I was specifically speaking in regards to damage done to the ozone layer. When it was discovered that the break down of CFCs in the upper atmosphere led to the diminishing function of this protective stratum, environmentalists headed the charge to get the products that emitted them off the market. Currently the only use of CFCs that is permitted in the U.S. (as far as I know) is in very small volumes for use in medical inhalers. This, as I stated, can be seen as an environmentalist accomplishment. I am perfectly aware that we are not doing nearly enough to curb our GHG emissions and, even if begin to do so, it will not reverse damage but rather just slow the rate of change. Your statement, “We have not mitigated anything” is fairly correct in regards to GHG emissions, but not in the CFC issue. I was merely trying to show that Mike was using some considerably flawed reasoning in his comment. Thanks for your comment though, it was a nice distraction from studying for finals!
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
posted byBridgier,
*cough* CFC's are not greenhouse gasses *cough*


AU contraire, please use the link I had provided previously, and you may find enlightenment. Please note the key phrase in the quote given say’s “which include” not “all inclusive”.
Fluorinated gases (F-gases) - Industrial processes, refrigeration, and the use of a variety of consumer products contribute to emissions of F-gases, which include hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).


CFC’s are still fluorocarbons, they are a chlorine based fluorinated gas, mixed with carbons, and are thus called chlorofluorocarbons.

To learn more about other gases that are also Ozone depleting, and thus are included in those called greenhouse gases, go to http://www2.epa.gov/abou...depleters

You will find that even chemicals like hydrobromofluorocarbons will also be included in that list.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
UM Griz,

The problem is that, unlike what you claimed, nothing is or has been mitigated.

Additionally, please refer to my comment to Bridgier, CFC's are a greenhouse gas, the fact that they are in effect banned here in the USA, does not provide healing to the Ozone layer when such products are widely and popularly used across the rest of the globe.

The problem is escalating. What we here in the USA are doing is minimal at best. Yes, with our being the producer of even 19% of global CO2's cutting our production is imperative, but still will not extend the Earths life supporting ability, even marginally, until we can get countries like China on board.

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (5/11/2014)]
Top
Posted by UM Griz (+167) 7 years ago
I agree 100% with your latter statement but you cannot say that largely eliminating CFC use did nothing. See: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/...efits.html
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+140) 7 years ago
Can anyone tell me what Freon is? That is a rhetorical question, so please allow me to answer it for you.

Freon refers to the automotive refrigerant generally identified as R-12. The actually chemical is Dichlorodifluoromethane and is a CFC.

Even though it can no longer be produced in the USA, it is still available around the globe in 12oz can’s up to 30lb canisters. Check E-Bay and you will still find it being sold openly. http://www.ebay.com/itm/...6&vxp=mtr

This link will only work for a short while, but here is proof of what I am saying. As long as R-12 continues to be used in the USA the USA cannot claim to be free of CFC’s.
Top
Posted by UM Griz (+167) 7 years ago
I am going to have to leave the conversation after this post but I must reaffirm my statements. "The chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) production phaseout is an important turning point in the recovery of the ozone layer. Currently, we are experiencing depletion of approximately 3 percent at Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes and 6 percent at Southern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, but if no action had been taken to limit CFCs, ozone depletion at mid-latitudes would eventually have reached 20 percent or more"-EPA. I am not trying to state that that this CFC reduction solved the worlds climate change issue. I am just attempting to point out that policies can be effective.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17335) 7 years ago
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—After claiming on Sunday that human activity does not cause climate change, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) suddenly found his ignorance credentials under attack by potential rivals for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination.

“Now that Marco’s thinking of running for President, he doesn’t believe in climate change,” said Texas Governor Rick Perry. “To those of us with long track records of ignorance on this issue, he seems a little late to the rodeo.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) echoed Gov. Perry’s criticism, calling Rubio a “dummy-come-lately” on climate change.

“At the end of the day, I have faith that Republican voters can tell the difference between someone who’s truly uninformed and someone who’s just faking it,” he said. “These comments by Marco don’t pass the smell test.”

By Sunday evening, a defensive Sen. Rubio was pushing back against the attacks, telling reporters, “Any questions about the authenticity of my ignorance are deeply offensive to me.”

“My refusal to accept the scientific research on climate change is a matter of public record,” he said. “On this issue and many others my ignorance should take a back seat to no one’s.”
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 7 years ago
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 7 years ago
I stand corrected - CFC's ARE greenhouse gasses - they're just not particularly strong ones in relation to C02 or methane.

https://www.skepticalscie...arming.htm

Donald is conflating two different issues: Global Warming, which is driven by greenhouse gasses such as C02 or methane, and ozone depletion, which is caused by CFC's.

We're ignoring the former, while having more success on the latter.

Would this be an accurate summary UMGriz?
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10001) 7 years ago
Ars Technica wrote:
Today, researchers at UC Irvine and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory have announced results indicating that glaciers across a large area of West Antarctica have been destabilized and that there is little that will stop their continuing retreat. These glaciers are all that stand between the ocean and a massive basin of ice that sits below sea level. Should the sea invade this basin, we'd be committed to several meters of sea level rise.

...

http://arstechnica.com/sc...t-certain/
Top
Posted by UM Griz (+167) 7 years ago
That is an absolutely fair summary Bridger. Again, I was just just trying to highlight the effectiveness of this particular policy outcome. I, as well as anyone else with an exiguous knowledge of our economic or political system, know perfectly well that protecting ourselves from the impending injurious impacts of climate change will require a much more significant departure from the status quo than the ozone issue demanded. I do hope, though, that the magnitude of this required paradigm shift will not intimidate the human race into inaction. Unfortunately, the United States tends to place economic interests ahead of environmental polices and has, so far, been anything but cooperative in committing to international accords that call for significant reduction of GHG emissions. See: http://www.nytimes.com/20...wanted=all
Although, if the U.S. were to actually take the lead on this predicament, I feel that we could efficaciously mitigate some of the damage that has been (and will continue to be) done as a result of inaction on the matter.

[This message has been edited by UM Griz (5/13/2014)]
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 7 years ago
Ars Technica wrote:

"These glaciers are all that stand between the ocean and a massive basin of ice that sits below sea level. Should the sea invade this basin, we'd be committed to several meters of sea level rise."

If the ice barrier is breached and the sea rushes in to fill a hole (basin), would not that displacement of sea water, facilitate a drop in sea level?

In the event that the surface of the ice is above sea level, it's not going anywhere (it sits in a hole) and its not going to calve any faster than the receding glaciers. I fail to see any short term "sky is falling" scenario here.

You could probably still plan a trip to the Maldives.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 7 years ago
OH MY GOD ODDJOB'S FIGURED IT OUT THE JIG IS UP ABORT ABORT ABORT.

It's not a deep procreateing hole in the ground, it's a basin that sits slightly under sea-level, but there's an ASS TON of ice sitting in that a basin, ice that's been protected from destabilization from the sea by an ice dam which has itself been compromised.

IF YOU ACTUALLY READ ANY OF THESE FINE ARTICLES, you would also note that the timelines for sea-level rise are on the order of decades, not months or years, but given that this shelf appears to be done for, it's now a question of when and not if, and we really need to start talking about how we're going to deal with these higher sea levels.

Which are going to happen, no matter how deeply you stick your head up your ass into the sand.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 7 years ago
Ars Technica wrote:

"The authors simulated the behavior of Thwaites using a number of different melting rates. These ranged from a low that approximated the behavior typical in the early 90s, to a high rate of melt that is similar to what was observed in recent years. Every single one of these situations saw the Thwaites retreat into the deep basin within the next 1,000 years. In the higher melt scenarios—the ones most reflective of current conditions—this typically took only a few centuries."

I read the article and I saw how they are constructing their models. For starters they are biasing the data by selecting low/high melt rates from a very narrow range ( the '90's to "recent years"). Then, within that range, they cherry-pick the rates they like and construct the model around that variable. A "variable" they will hold constant in the run to create their future projections. Finally, they go to press with the results that fit their original assumptions. The only problem with this is that nothing in nature stays constant. That, and the fact that all models contain the bias of your original assumptions, so all models are flawed out of the starting gate, in more ways than one.

I have constructed and worked with a number of models over the years, using the best available software and I know a few things about the accuracy of projected results. In several cases, I had the opportunity to monitor the actual results and reconcile back to the original model. None of them were within a prediction range acceptable to bean counters, which is why most modelers get to work for lots of different companies.

On average, simple models can produce an accuracy of plus or minus 15% over a short range. More complex models can turn into nothing more than witchcraft very quickly because the interaction of a higher numbers of variables can compound error exponentially. On top of that, I don't give a s**t who you are; you don't know what the box is doing with the iterations from input to spit-out, because it's too complex to check.

Predicting a distribution of gold grades in an 2500' x 2500 x 500' cube with a million data points, should be a hell of a lot easier than predicting complex weather over a range of 10, 50 or 100 years.

It isn't.

If you don't believe me, ask your pal Gunnar how easy it is. If he's had any experience with modeling, I'm sure he isn't betting his life on any of them.

All of these predictions of future Armageddon are completely bogus because it's impossible to build complex models that will predict the future any better than a Carney with a crystal ball.
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2706) 7 years ago
We love the military right?!

http://www.cna.org/sites/...B_2014.pdf
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 7 years ago
So, "it's too complex to understand" is going to be your argument?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 7 years ago
Science is hard.

Math is hard too.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 7 years ago
No.

Seeing that the models are bogus is the easy part. All you need to know is how they set up the run. Anybody who got a "D" or better in Statistics, should be able to figure out the quality of the result. Math and science are not hard if you can focus on more than one word at a time.

"Life's hard. It's even harder when ..."
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9195) 7 years ago
So you pivot from 'The models are too complex' to 'all of these people are doing it wrong', where 'all of these people' is most of the people who study this stuff, and 'wrong' is implied to be maliciously so.

But why should I believe you and not them? Tell me which of these facts are wrong:

1) C02 levels are currently higher now then they've been in roughly the last million years

2) The last time the earth's atmosphere contained this much carbon, the sea level was significantly greater.

3) C02 levels are being driven to their current values by human activity.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 7 years ago
Bridgier:

The world is only 6,000 years old. Don't you read The Bible?

Heathen!

[This message has been edited by Bob L. (5/19/2014)]
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 7 years ago
"So you pivot from 'The models are too complex' to 'all of these people are doing it wrong', where 'all of these people' is most of the people who study this stuff, and 'wrong' is implied to be maliciously so."

I never said the models are "too complex". I said they are completely bogus. Learn how to read.

Absolutely, it's malicious. When you purposely ignore data that negates or diminishes the result you are looking to find and you do it for enrichment, it's called "fraud".

You can believe whoever you want to believe. It's not my problem that you don't understand the Scientific Method.

Finally, do your own research. If you refuse to question the mantra, then you accept being blind.

I don't read the Bible either, Bob. I'm an old Commie from way back and I know how it works. Alinsky's #5 and #12 are the most useful.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob L. (+5095) 7 years ago
Random Task:

Perhaps you should consult with a mental health professional. It couldn't hurt.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+194) 7 years ago
More of a cat fight than a "consensus".

http://www.scribd.com/doc...A-Rebuttal
Top