Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-17-2017, 03:40 PM
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Dogpatch/Middle TN.
Posts: 30,445
Global Warming And Ruined Florida Wells

Cecil discusses global warming in this column.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...d-going-to-get


My follow-up question--will rising sea levels, combined with drought (brought on by climate change), cause Florida water wells to be contaminated with seawater?

If so, how soon can we expect to see coastal wells ruined?
__________________
“Superstition sets the whole world in flames; philosophy quenches them.”
~~~Voltaire
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 06-17-2017, 04:00 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor View Post
Cecil discusses global warming in this column.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...d-going-to-get


My follow-up question--will rising sea levels, combined with drought (brought on by climate change), cause Florida water wells to be contaminated with seawater?

If so, how soon can we expect to see coastal wells ruined?
How about: now?

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loca...e41416653.html
Quote:
As sea level inches up, keeping out that salt water will become more challenging because canals can be raised only so far without crippling their ability to control flooding. The drainage capacity of the entire system, which relies on pumps and gravity to slough storm water into the bay, is also slowly decreasing as sea levels rise.

The last time the South Florida Water Management District assessed that risk was in 2009. According to a document provided by the district, 20 flood control structures were expected to fail with as little as a half foot rise in sea level, the levels now projected for the region in 15 years. Another nine were in danger if seas rise between a half foot and five feet.

The inland creep of saltwater has already put some wellfields in Broward County out of service. The county has stopped using two southern wellfields, said Mike Zygnerski, a hydrologist with the county’s water resources assessment section. Deerfield Beach closed its eastern wells. Hallandale no longer uses six of its eight wells and Dania moved a wellfield west. Hollywood only uses two of its three wellfields, he said.

Imagine what will happen with a higher sea level.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-17-2017 at 04:00 PM.
  #3  
Old 06-17-2017, 05:22 PM
wolfpup wolfpup is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,234
Florida has addressed the problem by banning the use of the terms "global warming" and "climate change".
  #4  
Old 06-17-2017, 06:12 PM
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Dogpatch/Middle TN.
Posts: 30,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfpup View Post
Florida has addressed the problem by banning the use of the terms "global warming" and "climate change".
As usual, everything in Florida is about real estate scams.
  #5  
Old 06-17-2017, 06:20 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor View Post
As usual, everything in Florida is about real estate scams.
Groucho Marx in the Cocoanuts: "800 wonderful residences will be built right here. Why they're as good as up -- better. You can have any kind of a home you want.... why, you can even get stucco. Oh, how you can get stucco!"
  #6  
Old 06-18-2017, 02:42 PM
waddlingeagle waddlingeagle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 121
I live in Florida. It's a nice place, Groucho notwithstanding.

Look, Miami is in trouble even without climate change. The entire state of Florida is karst, and it is rotting from underneath. It is sinking faster than the sea level is rising. I figure my house in central Florida will be beachfront property inside of 100 years.

People are too busy blaming each other for climate change instead of doing anything useful to mitigate its effects. There are, after all, plenty of things we could do beyond driving Priuses. Spraying seawater into the upper atmosphere is cheap and would have a significant cooling effect. Reforestation pulls carbon out of the air.

Paying trillions of dollars to third world dictators who will just use the money to buy yachts, jets, and gas guzzling cars is a lousy way to fight climate change. But, so far, that seems to be the favorite option among the watermelon socialists (green on the outside, red on the inside). We need that money to protect our own cities and our own people.
  #7  
Old 06-18-2017, 03:17 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 71,697
Paying trillions of dollars to third-world dictators is even more popular among the right wing than the left.
  #8  
Old 06-18-2017, 03:20 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by waddlingeagle View Post
I live in Florida. It's a nice place, Groucho notwithstanding.

Look, Miami is in trouble even without climate change. The entire state of Florida is karst, and it is rotting from underneath. It is sinking faster than the sea level is rising. I figure my house in central Florida will be beachfront property inside of 100 years.

People are too busy blaming each other for climate change instead of doing anything useful to mitigate its effects. There are, after all, plenty of things we could do beyond driving Priuses. Spraying seawater into the upper atmosphere is cheap and would have a significant cooling effect. Reforestation pulls carbon out of the air.
http://e360.yale.edu/features/solar_..._the_suns_rays
Quote:
Clearly, there are good reasons for concern. Solar geoengineering would likely make the planet drier, potentially disrupting monsoons in places like India and creating drought in parts of the tropics. The technique could help eat away the protective ozone shield of our planet, and it would cause air pollution. It would also do nothing to counteract the problem of ocean acidification, which occurs when the seas absorb high levels of CO2 from the atmosphere.
Oh, and as the article points out, you do need the climate scientists and the computer models to propose and properly deploy solutions like that one, until many contrarians decide to finally drop their hate for climate scientists and computer models not much will be done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waddlingeagle View Post
Paying trillions of dollars to third world dictators who will just use the money to buy yachts, jets, and gas guzzling cars is a lousy way to fight climate change. But, so far, that seems to be the favorite option among the watermelon socialists (green on the outside, red on the inside). We need that money to protect our own cities and our own people.
Clearly you do not check General Questions.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...6&postcount=32
Quote:
Originally Posted by GIGObuster View Post
One interesting fact that I like to point out (because of the efforts of others out there that attempt to politicize the issue): equations like that come as the result of work made by scientists like Gilbert Plass in the 1950's.

http://www.americanscientist.org/iss...nd-the-climate

Before Plass and others the consensus before the 1960's was that yes, CO2 and other gases do warm the earth, and while the CO2 was increasing the evidence then pointed at the natural sinks of CO2 to control the issue and the absorption bands of CO2 and other gases were understood enough.

However, almost at the same time, the evidence popped up that the absorption bands were not quite right and that the natural sinks were not doing what was expected. (Cue most of the scientists then thinking: "Oh, S**T!")


Now, getting back to Plass and the reason to point at his work, Plass and others like him were actually working to make reality and to then improve the new heat seeking missiles being developed, and what was the main reason (looking at how climate was affected was just Plass wondering if the data could be used for climate) to take a look at how heat was being absorbed in different layers of the atmosphere to make better missiles? To shoot down those commie planes during the Korean war.

To me it is an important fact to point out because, sadly, many contrarians out there do launch accusations to the ones doing climate research or the ones proposing changes as being communists, fascists or enemies of freedom. As well as to point out to the contrarians that this is not a new idea.
Bold added, and I may add that I have to say that I did see that watermelon analogy used against the Cristian Democrats in El Salvador back in the 80's (Green was their color used in their flag. By then the real communists and plain people that demanded change had taken to arms and even the moderates like the Christian democrats were demonized by the right). As the Truth commissions showed, the extreme right then (in the USA and in El Salvador) used analogies like that to demonize others falsely and to justify the killing of a lot of politicians that did not have any communistic leanings.

Of course that "watermelon" analogy was also used against environmentalists further in the past in the USA but the Point here is that you need to be aware of how many others are aware of the hate contained in that analogy.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-18-2017 at 03:23 PM.
  #9  
Old 06-18-2017, 06:37 PM
Melbourne Melbourne is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor View Post
Cecil discusses global warming in this column.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...d-going-to-get


My follow-up question--will rising sea levels, combined with drought (brought on by climate change), cause Florida water wells to be contaminated with seawater?

If so, how soon can we expect to see coastal wells ruined?
So, now we are going to use Global Warming to avoid taking any responsibility for everglade destruction and over-pumping?
  #10  
Old 06-18-2017, 06:47 PM
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Dogpatch/Middle TN.
Posts: 30,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne View Post
So, now we are going to use Global Warming to avoid taking any responsibility for everglade destruction and over-pumping?
HAH?
  #11  
Old 06-20-2017, 10:18 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: People's Rep. of Eugene
Posts: 7,346
Geez ... I lose internet connection for a week and a half and look what happens ...

C'mon, Unca Cece ... are you seriously saying that moving tens if not hundreds of millions of people is cheaper than building one meter sea walls ... and we have 100 years to build these one meter sea walls ...

bo-whoa-whoa-whoa-whoa-gus ...

So I'm driving down my local rural interstate freeway and it's a least one meter above ground level, let's call it 20 meters wide for the lanes going one way ... a proper sea wall can be half that width, and we have the 20 cm steel-reinforced concrete for armoring (which is decidedly overbuilt for a sea wall) ... now we've crisscrossed the entire United States with freeways like this and it only took us a lousy 25 years ... please please explain how using a quarter of the materials for a tenth the length of just Interstate 80 is going to bankrupt the World Economy ...

I challenge anyone who lives near the coast to take a one meter stick down to the shoreline during high tide when the Moon is either full or new (best in January) ... that's how high the ocean water will be at it's very highest ... and that only for a couple hours ... that's all your great-great-grandchildren will have to deal with ...

If we need to be hysterical about anything, maybe we should think about running out of fossil fuels ... it's not like the filthy stuff bubbles up from the Earth's interior ... half the world's population lives in cities, that means half the world's food supply has to be transported from the farms to the cities ... and right now this transportation is all but completely depended on the burning of fossil fuels ... this one meter sea level rise is trivial compared to three billion city folks starving ...

Unca Cece ... didn't this occur to you when you were waiting in line for two hours to buy five gallons of gasoline back in the 1970's?

Whatever the uncertainties ... climate changes at a glacial pace ... and only where it is indeed changing ... 79% of the world's surface is ocean, and there's nothing that will change the climate over the open ocean ... it's "Oceanic" today, it will be "Oceanic" ten thousand years from now ...
  #12  
Old 06-20-2017, 11:03 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Whatever the uncertainties ... climate changes at a glacial pace ...
Even the glaciers beg to differ.

https://www.ted.com/talks/james_balo...treme_ice_loss

Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
and only where it is indeed changing ... 79% of the world's surface is ocean, and there's nothing that will change the climate over the open ocean ... it's "Oceanic" today, it will be "Oceanic" ten thousand years from now ...
It will be if we do make a concerted effort to avoid the worse scenarios, with ideas like yours the contrarians only want to get us into the then more likely worse scenarios that also do mention things like the entire oceans turning to poison in less time than the one you are referring to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2Jxs7lR8ZI
Quote:
In which Hank details the five scariest things that will likely happen because of climate change. At SciShow
One thing to take into account: once we do decide to do something about the issue all the costs of that and taking care of all the displaced and the wars that are likely to come does not translate into the improvement of the world economy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGG7JGT4Fdo
Quote:
Hank boils down a new report from the United Nations about global warming and tells you five things you really need to know about our warming world.
  #13  
Old 06-20-2017, 11:10 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
I challenge anyone who lives near the coast to take a one meter stick down to the shoreline during high tide when the Moon is either full or new (best in January) ... that's how high the ocean water will be at it's very highest ... and that only for a couple hours ... that's all your great-great-grandchildren will have to deal with ...
And it seems that you need to catch up a lot still. The reports told us that the ocean rise was likely to reach about a meter by the end of the century, provided that an acceleration of the loss of cap ice was not observed. Unfortunately it has been observed. So, the estimations change.

http://e360.yale.edu/features/abrupt...and_antarctica
Quote:
The planet’s polar ice is melting fast, and recent satellite data, models, and fieldwork have left scientists sobered by the speed of the sea level rise we should expect over the coming decades. Although researchers have long projected that the planet’s biggest ice sheets and glaciers will wilt in the face of rising temperatures, estimates of the rate of that change keep going up. When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) put out its last report in 2013, the consensus was for under a meter (3.3 feet) of sea level rise by 2100. In just the last few years, at least one modeling study suggests we might need to double that.

Eric Rignot at the University of California, Irvine says that study underscores the possible speed of ice sheet melt and collapse. “Once these processes start to kick in,” he says, “they’re very fast.”

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-20-2017 at 11:11 AM.
  #14  
Old 06-20-2017, 01:55 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 16,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by waddlingeagle View Post
People are too busy blaming each other for climate change instead of doing anything useful to mitigate its effects. There are, after all, plenty of things we could do beyond driving Priuses. Spraying seawater into the upper atmosphere is cheap and would have a significant cooling effect. Reforestation pulls carbon out of the air.
"Spraying seawater into the upper atmosphere" (I presume you mean the upper stratosphere or mesosphere) even if feasible, will have little effect on average temperature and may even increase CO2 concentrations from entrained gas while the water vapor itself returns to the ocean. Atmospheric temperature is actually dominated by the oceans which act as heat reservoirs, so just cooling the atmosphere by some kind of hypothetical evaporation effect is impractical, notwithstanding the additional energy that would have to be applied (presumably in the form of cargo jets or other transportation system) to delivery water to the appropriate altitude. The impact of atmospheric carbon sequestration by forestation is difficult to assess but even the most optimistic efforts provide only a fraction of an order of magnitude of the amount of carbon we are pumping into the atmosphere. The only practical means to sequester large volumes of carbon dioxide is from entrained air in the oceans, and the lag time to come to equilibrium with the atmosphere is still measured in centuries. There isn't any magic fairy dust technology that is going to offset the impact of global climate change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by waddlingeagle View Post
Paying trillions of dollars to third world dictators who will just use the money to buy yachts, jets, and gas guzzling cars is a lousy way to fight climate change. But, so far, that seems to be the favorite option among the watermelon socialists (green on the outside, red on the inside). We need that money to protect our own cities and our own people.
I don't know where this straw man argument comes from but this doesn't represent anyones' proposed solution. Providing subsidies and aid to developing nations to use renewable sources rather than cheaper but highly polluting fossil fuels is a way to avoid increases in carbon output as those nations grow in both population and expected standard of living, but even that is only a partial mitigation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
C'mon, Unca Cece ... are you seriously saying that moving tens if not hundreds of millions of people is cheaper than building one meter sea walls ... and we have 100 years to build these one meter sea walls ...

... {a bunch of semantically void verbiage removed} ...

Whatever the uncertainties ... climate changes at a glacial pace ... and only where it is indeed changing ... 79% of the world's surface is ocean, and there's nothing that will change the climate over the open ocean ... it's "Oceanic" today, it will be "Oceanic" ten thousand years from now ...
The problem of climate change isn't just what you characterize as a slight increase in sea level; it is vastly more energy stored in the atmosphere and oceans, which translates into into more climate activity (e.g. extreme weather events) along with an elmination of heat sinks (polar and glacial ice), which will result in both more destruction and displacement of both populationsand agricultural regions which populations that are geographically separated are dependant for sustinence. These changes have not been occurring "at a glacial pace"; in fact, they've been radically faster than the historic record, and in fact faster than anything we see in the geologic record in the last fifty million years, which is consistent with the release of tens of millions of years of sequestered atmospheric carbon in the span of less than two centuries.

As you note, nearly 4/5 of the world surface is water, and while we often regard the oceans as being distinct from the atmosphere, there is actually a very active and complex interplay between the oceans and air that is largely driven by ocean dynamics, in which we have also seen radical changes. This is not withstanding the potential for release of of methane clathrates which could radically enhance the greenhouse effects producing climate warming. Ignorantly dismissing all of this as essentially "too big to fail" is obtuse and foolish. In fact, the system is too big and too dynamic to control by any means at our disposal or even practicably conceived, and we're going to have to take steps starting now to cope with inevitable changes that go vastly beyond building sea walls to protect ocean front property.

Stranger
  #15  
Old 06-20-2017, 01:57 PM
Enginerd Enginerd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor View Post
HAH?
Saltwater Intrusion. Overpumping depletes the amount of freshwater available above the fresh-saline interface. Draining wetlands reduces the recharge of freshwater to the upper aquifer, further depleting it. The combination of both processes means that the elevation of the regional freshwater-saltwater interface is rising.

Melbourne's point was that the scenario you asked about in your OP (Florida water wells contaminated with seawater) would be happening regardless of climate change. Climate change is certainly exacerbating it, but that's a long-term process. Mismanagement of water resources happens on much shorter timescales.

Last edited by Enginerd; 06-20-2017 at 01:59 PM.
  #16  
Old 06-20-2017, 02:41 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,747
Indeed, almost all the cases I heard mentioned of water sources close to the sea are being lost for over pumping, the clear and small increase in the ocean rise seen so far makes one wonder though, hence the question mark in the early post I made.

But the main point was that the ocean rise is beginning to be a factor on that issue. If we do not control emissions soon what it is provable will become more certain as seeing an increase of just a foot to be really bad for wells and if the quantity of emissions that matches the bad scenarios continue, we are likely to see that foot rise before the middle of this century.
  #17  
Old 06-20-2017, 03:05 PM
Enginerd Enginerd is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 5,694
No disagreement there - was just explaining Melbourne's post for Bosda.
  #18  
Old 06-20-2017, 04:58 PM
Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Dogpatch/Middle TN.
Posts: 30,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enginerd View Post
No disagreement there - was just explaining Melbourne's post for Bosda.
Thanks, that did help.
  #19  
Old 06-21-2017, 11:35 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: People's Rep. of Eugene
Posts: 7,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
[snip] ... The problem of climate change isn't just what you characterize as a slight increase in sea level; it is vastly more energy stored in the atmosphere and oceans, which translates into into more climate activity (e.g. extreme weather events) along with an elmination of heat sinks (polar and glacial ice), which will result in both more destruction and displacement of both populationsand agricultural regions which populations that are geographically separated are dependant for sustinence. These changes have not been occurring "at a glacial pace"; in fact, they've been radically faster than the historic record, and in fact faster than anything we see in the geologic record in the last fifty million years, which is consistent with the release of tens of millions of years of sequestered atmospheric carbon in the span of less than two centuries.
In the conclusion of The Master's article, He touches upon the uncertainties inherent in just about all the claims that are being made about the future ... my comments were about one thing we can be certain of ... the cost of mitigating sea level rise isn't even trivial compared to the cost of building 500 commercial nuclear power plants ... hell's bells, just the cost of the sea wall is trivial compared to the cost of buying up the real estate to put the fool thing on ...

Here's a blurb from NASA describing "Arctic Amplification" ... over the past 50 years we've noted that the poles are warming faster than the equator ... this means that the temperature difference is becoming smaller, thus the energy flow is reduced leading to less average power in the atmosphere, regardless of total energy content ... now if we're talking about droughts, floods or hurricanes ... then we're talking about dynamic events that require power to form ... so if this short term tread is in fact an indicator of the long term treads, then we'll be seeing less extreme events and they will be less powerful (on average) ... this is just a simple application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics ...

Your dread and catastrophe about our agricultural lands is somewhat misguided ... most deserts form underneath the divergent zones created by the large-scale convective circulation cells in our atmosphere ... where the tropical cell meets the temperate cell (aka the horse latitudes) we find a narrow band of descending air, which increases pressure and in turn decrease relative humidity; inhibiting precipitation ... perhaps you could clarify what physical process would also inhibit precipitation in areas removed from these divergent zones ... I'm sure The Master would be interested as well ... "they’ll merely have drought and general aridity to deal with" ... have a teaspoon of hyperbole with your cup of StraightDope? ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train View Post
As you note, nearly 4/5 of the world surface is water, and while we often regard the oceans as being distinct from the atmosphere, there is actually a very active and complex interplay between the oceans and air that is largely driven by ocean dynamics, in which we have also seen radical changes. This is not withstanding the potential for release of of methane clathrates which could radically enhance the greenhouse effects producing climate warming. Ignorantly dismissing all of this as essentially "too big to fail" is obtuse and foolish. In fact, the system is too big and too dynamic to control by any means at our disposal or even practicably conceived, and we're going to have to take steps starting now to cope with inevitable changes that go vastly beyond building sea walls to protect ocean front property.

Stranger
The atmosphere/ocean interaction is abundantly obvious where I live, as in how many times I have to empty a 5 gallon bucket in winter ... four times this last winter, about average ... please fight my ignorance, what magical property of the methane clathrates causes it to release energy as it sublimes ... because if we're waiting for solar energy to conduct down to these depths, we'll be waiting a very very long time ... and please focus on the conservation of energy, violations of this law are considered felonies around here ...

I agree that "too big to fail" is obtuse and foolish ... I spent many an hour waiting in line to buy 5 gallons of gasoline back in the 1970's thinking of all the ways to deprive Big Oil of my money ... working within a few miles of my home ... using almost strictly BPA hydroelectricity ... recycling plastics and metals ... living like it's Yom Kippor 1973 everyday of my adult life ... easy peasy ...

So ... yeah ... you folks do need to start making the changes, and you'll be paying a hell of a lot more for energy ... either pay or conserve, your choice ...
  #20  
Old 06-21-2017, 12:06 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
In the conclusion of The Master's article, He touches upon the uncertainties inherent in just about all the claims that are being made about the future ... my comments were about one thing we can be certain of ... the cost of mitigating sea level rise isn't even trivial compared to the cost of building 500 commercial nuclear power plants ... hell's bells, just the cost of the sea wall is trivial compared to the cost of buying up the real estate to put the fool thing on ...

Here's a blurb from NASA describing "Arctic Amplification" ... over the past 50 years we've noted that the poles are warming faster than the equator ... this means that the temperature difference is becoming smaller, thus the energy flow is reduced leading to less average power in the atmosphere, regardless of total energy content ... now if we're talking about droughts, floods or hurricanes ... then we're talking about dynamic events that require power to form ... so if this short term tread is in fact an indicator of the long term treads, then we'll be seeing less extreme events and they will be less powerful (on average) ... this is just a simple application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics ...
Of course this shows that you did not learn anything from Jennifer Frances and the other Polar expert that contrarians pointed before as the beesnees; when in reality they were pointing out that the reduction of the winds actually leads to weather patterns getting stuck for longer periods of time, incidentally the energy coming from the sun is still there and accumulating thanks to the greenhouse effect.

Regarding that what I understood is that currently the wind shear is one reason why hurricanes are not developing as often in the north Atlantic, unfortunately since the temperature is increasing that state of affairs is bound to change, the reckless position is indeed to demand that we follow a path where more hurricanes appear besides being stronger thanks to the increase of the water vapor and the energy from the sun that accumulates thanks to the greenhouse effect.

As for the risks of Methane, more is bound to be released if the permafrost melts more.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...global-warming
Quote:
As the Earth warms, and the Arctic warms especially fast, the permafrost melts and soil decomposition accelerates. Consequently, an initial warming leads to more emission, leading to more warming and more emission. It is a vicious cycle and there may be a tipping point where this self-reinforcing cycle takes over.

Recently, a policy briefing from the world-leading Woods Hole Research Center has moved our understanding of this risk further through a clearly-written summary. The briefing cites two recent papers (here and here) that study the so-called permafrost carbon feedback.

One of these studies makes use of projections from the most recent IPCC report to estimate that up to 205 gigatons equivalent of carbon dioxide could be released due to melting permafrost. This would cause up to 0.5°C (up to 0.9°F) extra warming. Just as bad, the permafrost melting would continue after 2100 which would lock us into even more warming. Under this scenario, meeting a 2°C limit would be harder than anticipated. The current IPCC targets do not adequately account for this feedback.

To put this in perspective, permafrost contains almost twice as much carbon as is present in the atmosphere. In the rapidly warming Arctic (warming twice as fast as the globe as a whole), the upper layers of this frozen soil begin to thaw, allowing deposited organic material to decompose. The plant material, which has accumulated over thousands of years, is concentrated in to upper layers (half of it is in the top 10 feet). There is a network of monitoring stations that are measuring ground temperatures have detected a significant heating trend over the past few decades and so has the active layer thickness.

I communicated with Woods Hole expert Robert Max Holmes, who told me,
Quote:
It’s essential that policymakers begin to seriously consider the possibility of a substantial permafrost carbon feedback to global warming. If they don’t, I suspect that down the road we’ll all be looking at the 2°C threshold in our rear-view mirror.
So, this means that reducing carbon dioxide pollution is even more important. If we are to stop the warming–thawing–more warming cycle, it is critical to reduce emissions now. According to these experts, this is a serious issue, and we should listen to them.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-21-2017 at 12:06 PM.
  #21  
Old 06-21-2017, 12:27 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,747
What it is clear to me is that, even if you do not want to acknowledge it, your message is to just not do much of anything in controlling emissions; but that is betting not just the farm but many states, that could get an increase in hurricanes (and for sure an increase in their intensity) and then to lose a lot of money. Those costs could be added to the costs that many other states or nations will have to face most likely: such as an increase in droughts, loss of land thanks to ocean rise and the loss of resources thanks to ocean acidification and changes in precipitation.

Here is once again the explanation from Jennifer Frances at Rutgers University that it is clear you skipped many, many times in the past, were she explains why is that a reduction of the wind speeds in the upper atmosphere is not a reason to expect less extreme weather events:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nzwJg4Ebzo
Quote:
A short review of how the jetstream and Rossby waves work, and some emerging indications that the dynamics may be changing in a warming world.
Longer explanation about the connection that has with extreme weather events:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAiA-_iQjdU

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-21-2017 at 12:29 PM.
  #22  
Old 06-23-2017, 04:58 AM
foolsguinea foolsguinea is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Tornado Alley
Posts: 14,614
With the political turn to fantasy and increased CO2 emissions, it looks like the "clathrate gun" could go off in the next 12 years or so. At least rapid flooding due to subsiding land in the world's major cities, combined with rolling droughts and heatwaves, will lead to deaths in the hundreds of millions. Maybe if the death toll from catastrophe and accidental environmental genocide hits two billion, this will take a little strain off a planet swiftly losing room for mankind.

Wow, compared to the probable chaos of disappearing nations and a few billion refugees—and that's just the human cost—neutron bombs are starting to look relatively friendly!
  #23  
Old 06-23-2017, 06:52 AM
constanze constanze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 4,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
C'mon, Unca Cece ... are you seriously saying that moving tens if not hundreds of millions of people is cheaper than building one meter sea walls ... and we have 100 years to build these one meter sea walls ...

bo-whoa-whoa-whoa-whoa-gus ...

So I'm driving down my local rural interstate freeway and it's a least one meter above ground level, let's call it 20 meters wide for the lanes going one way ... a proper sea wall can be half that width, and we have the 20 cm steel-reinforced concrete for armoring (which is decidedly overbuilt for a sea wall)
1. Ocean is not static, and the 1 m is the average worldwide. Depending on local shape of the coast and shelf, it can be much more.

2. Oceans have tides, which, depending on local conditions, mean that you Need much more than a 1m sea wall.

3. Steel-reinforced concrete "doesn't grow on trees": worldwide, the right Kind of sand is getting scarce (see the GQ thread on Daytona Beach for links), which means that concrete will either be shoddier or very expensive.

And steel is made from iron using a lot of heat = energy.

4. Ocean is not static: waves Keep battering at some parts, eating away natural shorelines and coasts (see e.g. parts of the British coast in danger of collapse that are cleared by the govt.) In Addition, rising temps. lead to higher water temp. in the ocean, leads to more warm vapour-laden air, leads to more and violent hurricanes and so on.
Also, water expanding as it warms (aside from melted ice adding water volume) means that Tide flows will be more violent.
So it's not a case of "we build one seawall and are safe", it's a case of "concrete is getting scarce, we Need a seawall much higher than 1 m (and even then water will get over it quite often with spring Tide and hurricanes and storms) and we will Need to repair it (with concrete getting scarcer in the future) regularly."

The Money spent on ads denying global warming and Lobbying politicans could be spent much better in investing solar and wind to shut down coal, for a start, or improve infrastructure so less cars are necessary.
  #24  
Old 06-23-2017, 10:36 AM
constanze constanze is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 4,951
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...-burps/528654/

Hundreds of Huge Craters Discovered in the Arctic Ocean

The potentially ominous depressions in the sea floor formed after ice sheets melted, letting trapped methane blow out.


One of many factors that, once the 2-3 C mark is stepped over, will dramatically increase the Speed of warming from the current linear pace to a sharper angle: in this case, melting ice Releases methane which Speeds up global warming. (Plus less ice = less refraction of sunlight, more absorbtion => further temp. increase).
  #25  
Old 06-23-2017, 12:24 PM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: People's Rep. of Eugene
Posts: 7,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by constanze View Post
1. Ocean is not static, and the 1 m is the average worldwide. Depending on local shape of the coast and shelf, it can be much more.

2. Oceans have tides, which, depending on local conditions, mean that you Need much more than a 1m sea wall.

3. Steel-reinforced concrete "doesn't grow on trees": worldwide, the right Kind of sand is getting scarce (see the GQ thread on Daytona Beach for links), which means that concrete will either be shoddier or very expensive.

And steel is made from iron using a lot of heat = energy.

4. Ocean is not static: waves Keep battering at some parts, eating away natural shorelines and coasts (see e.g. parts of the British coast in danger of collapse that are cleared by the govt.) In Addition, rising temps. lead to higher water temp. in the ocean, leads to more warm vapour-laden air, leads to more and violent hurricanes and so on.
Also, water expanding as it warms (aside from melted ice adding water volume) means that Tide flows will be more violent.
So it's not a case of "we build one seawall and are safe", it's a case of "concrete is getting scarce, we Need a seawall much higher than 1 m (and even then water will get over it quite often with spring Tide and hurricanes and storms) and we will Need to repair it (with concrete getting scarcer in the future) regularly."

The Money spent on ads denying global warming and Lobbying politicans could be spent much better in investing solar and wind to shut down coal, for a start, or improve infrastructure so less cars are necessary.
1. Liquids conform to the shape of the container, even local average sea level is unaffected by the shape of the coast lines ... "Water seeks it's own level" is based on the surface having equal gravitational potential ... thus any difference must have another force acting on the water ... what you seem to be describing is a hydraulic bore and so you'll need to specify what force would be causing this ... and why this force was unavailable these past several million years ...

Kitchen counter science ... half fill the sink with water and let the turbulence dampen down ... now pour a glass of water into the sink ... see how the surface level universally increases ... the water doesn't "build up" where it was poured in (except of course when you're actually pouring the water in) ... use oobleck (corn starch + water) instead of water, the process is the same but it happens much much slower ... eventually the mound will sink until the surface is level ...

Note The Master specified 1 m sea level increase and a 1 m land subsidence for His 2 m total ... land subsidence is unrelated to CO2 in the atmosphere ... Washington DC is a GREAT example of this, but The Master's article is about what bad things will happen ... Washington DC sinking below the ocean's waves may actually be a good thing ...

2. The tidal force is a component of the Moon's gravity on the Earth ... global warming isn't increasing the mass of the Moon nor is it causing the Moon to orbit closer to the Earth ... the 1 m average sea level increase means high tide will be 1 m higher, and no more ... if a community is already being flooded by tides, the community has bigger problems than global warming ... go look how high the tide gets this January 2nd, 2018, add 1 m ... that will be the highest tide in a century ... underwhelming isn't it?

3. I've never heard of this "critical shortage of aggregate" ... I don't mean to be insulting here, but this idea is really scraping the bottom of the barrel as it were ... pressure wash a railroad coal car and it'll be completely suitable for hauling sand and gravel ... and if you are right, then we've a serious argument against building commercial nuclear power plants ... not sure wood is an effective substitute material for building cooling towers or containment structures ...

Cement production has a rather large carbon footprint ... heating limestone up to 1,000ºC in a kiln requires burning a shitload of fossil fuels ... and at those temperatures, any mercury in the limestone matrix is vaporized and released to the environment ... I agree the cost of concrete will be increasing at a profound rate, but this has nothing to do with a national shortage of rocks ... just saying ...

4. There's a general misunderstanding about how much absolute humidity affects hurricanes ... with higher air temperatures, the air can hold more water vapor and it's 2.2 J/g of latent heat of evaporation ... but this extra energy doesn't do anything as long as it's contained in the water vapor ... far far far more important is relative humidity, and there's nothing in the physics here that says average relative humidity is changing over climatic time periods ... either your air mass is 100% relative humidity, or it's not; there's no in-between here ... and the air has to be 100% relative humidity before it will release it's latent heat, no matter the absolute humidity ... as long as the need to transport energy from the equator to the poles remains the same, then hurricane frequency/intensity will remain the same ...

My argument is that if the need to move this energy is less, then all the turbulence caused by this movement will be less ...

=====

1] I agree the Earth is warming
2] I agree man-kind's activities contribute to this effect
3] Only the hyperbole is bad, what's most likely in our future is (at best) ... an inconvenience ...

There are better reasons to stop burning fossil fuels ...
  #26  
Old 06-23-2017, 01:48 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
1. Liquids conform to the shape of the container, even local average sea level is unaffected by the shape of the coast lines ... "Water seeks it's own level" is based on the surface having equal gravitational potential ... thus any difference must have another force acting on the water ... what you seem to be describing is a hydraulic bore and so you'll need to specify what force would be causing this ... and why this force was unavailable these past several million years ...

Kitchen counter science ... half fill the sink with water and let the turbulence dampen down ... now pour a glass of water into the sink ... see how the surface level universally increases ... the water doesn't "build up" where it was poured in (except of course when you're actually pouring the water in) ... use oobleck (corn starch + water) instead of water, the process is the same but it happens much much slower ... eventually the mound will sink until the surface is level ...

Note The Master specified 1 m sea level increase and a 1 m land subsidence for His 2 m total ... land subsidence is unrelated to CO2 in the atmosphere ... Washington DC is a GREAT example of this, but The Master's article is about what bad things will happen ... Washington DC sinking below the ocean's waves may actually be a good thing ...

2. The tidal force is a component of the Moon's gravity on the Earth ... global warming isn't increasing the mass of the Moon nor is it causing the Moon to orbit closer to the Earth ... the 1 m average sea level increase means high tide will be 1 m higher, and no more ... if a community is already being flooded by tides, the community has bigger problems than global warming ... go look how high the tide gets this January 2nd, 2018, add 1 m ... that will be the highest tide in a century ... underwhelming isn't it?
It is actually more underwhelming when it is clear that you are ignoring the evidence. (Already posted here; so your point here is double underwhelming) when one looks at the rate of cap ice loss it is clear that the ocean rise will be higher than that.

[snip]

Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
4. There's a general misunderstanding about how much absolute humidity affects hurricanes ... with higher air temperatures, the air can hold more water vapor and it's 2.2 J/g of latent heat of evaporation ... but this extra energy doesn't do anything as long as it's contained in the water vapor ... far far far more important is relative humidity, and there's nothing in the physics here that says average relative humidity is changing over climatic time periods ... either your air mass is 100% relative humidity, or it's not; there's no in-between here ... and the air has to be 100% relative humidity before it will release it's latent heat, no matter the absolute humidity ... as long as the need to transport energy from the equator to the poles remains the same, then hurricane frequency/intensity will remain the same ...

My argument is that if the need to move this energy is less, then all the turbulence caused by this movement will be less ...
And still ignoring what the polar experts told us. I will have to add here that you are ignoring that the increase in heat on the polar regions is making the temperature differences from the poles to the mid latitudes to be less, but the changes are not what you need to avoid extreme weather events.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-eviden...tream.html#jCp

Quote:
Prolonged cold snaps on the East Coast, California drought and frozen mornings in the South all have something in common – the atmospheric jet stream which transports weather systems that's taken to meandering all over North America.

Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis and colleagues link that wavy jet stream to a warming Arctic, where climate changes near the top of the world are happening faster than in Earth's middle latitudes.

A new study from Francis and University of Wisconsin-Madison scientist Stephen Vavrus, published in IOPscience, backs up that theory, with evidence linking regional and seasonal conditions in the Arctic to deeper north-south jet stream waves which will lead to more extreme weather across the country.

"The real story is how persistent the pattern has been. It's been this way nearly continually since December 2013…Warm in the west, cold in the east," Francis said. "We think with the warming Arctic these types of very wavy patterns, although probably not in the same locations, will happen more often in the future."

This research has been controversial since the Hurricane Sandy disaster, when the wavy jet stream steered the storm on its sharp left turn and smack into the Jersey Shore. Francis and other researchers say the jet stream's configuration was a key ingredient in the monster storm.

Very wavy jet-stream patterns have been occurring more often since the 1990s, Francis says, and are now affecting weather around the northern hemisphere. This mid-February cold snap, for example, that has left millions of people waking up to below-zero and single-digit temperatures, might not be as deep as some southward dips, called troughs, in the jet stream. But the overall pattern has been around for weeks, and is also responsible for Boston's record snowfall this winter and the worsening drought in western states.
As for the point that we can disregard humidity, it seems that it comes from the evidence that shows less of an increase over land, but this ignore that over the oceans the increase is observed, this is just another version of a favorite contrarian argument of looking at an specific area to discount the whole.

https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/...ate-lo-rez.pdf
Quote:
The IPCC conclusion (Alley et al. 2007) that “warming of
the climate system is unequivocal” does not rest solely upon
LSAT records. These constitute only one line of evidence
among many, for example: uptake of heat by the oceans, melt-
ing of land ice such as glaciers, the associated rise in sea level,
and increased atmospheric surface humidity (Fig. 2.5). If the
land surface records were systematically flawed and the globe
had not really warmed, then it would be almost impossible to
explain the concurrent changes in this wide range of indicators
produced by many independent groups. The observed changes
in a broad range of indicators provide a self-consistent story
of a warming world.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/hum...al-warming.htm

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams
Quote:
Despite drier conditions on the ground, there was
generally more moisture in the air as shown by the
peaks in surface specific humidity and total column
water vapor. These peaks were especially high over
oceans, consistent with the generally warmer air.
These warmer, moister conditions tend to lag El Niño
by a few months, and the event was ongoing at year
end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
=====

1] I agree the Earth is warming
2] I agree man-kind's activities contribute to this effect
3] Only the hyperbole is bad, what's most likely in our future is (at best) ... an inconvenience ...

There are better reasons to stop burning fossil fuels ...
Nope, you are ignoring plenty of evidence that tell us that we need to do more to make it an inconvenience. You are indeed just pushing for not doing much about this.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-23-2017 at 01:53 PM.
  #27  
Old 06-23-2017, 06:16 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 16,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
{...two posts worth of nearly incomprehensible blather deleted...}

My argument is that if the need to move this energy is less, then all the turbulence caused by this movement will be less ...
It is clear that your comprehension of climate dynamics is even more tenuous than that on the use of punctuation but I'll spend a few moments to address your more egregious misapprehensions.

First of all, I'll reiterate that the rise in average sea level and erosion of low lying areas is about the least of the dramatic issues with climate change. Nonetheless, the notion that even the most wealthy nations with protect thousands of miles of coastline and river deltas with water control and flood abatement systems at a construction and maintenance cost that isn't going to be prohibitive is pure fantasy. Such structures not only have to cope with the increase in average high tide level but storm surges, increasingly aggressive tropical and mid-latitude cyclones, flooding due to excessively heavy rainfall, and backups in delta structures due to storm surges and flooding. Such events can wipe out entire port cities and devastate regions as both the occupants of New Orleans and citizens of the Netherlands can attest to despite extensive efforts to protect those areas. In poorer nations with large low laying areas prone to flooding, relocation of the population (or just letting them suffer through devastating storms) is the only option.

You misconstrue the hazard to currently fertile agricultural regions as desertification; while this is a concern in the long run as tropical and temperate zones shift poleward and there is more difficulty maintaining temperate wetlands, but the more immediate impacts are high fluctuations in rainfall, and subsequent depletion of fertile topsoil from both flooding and drought-induced dust storms. We've already seen clear indications if abnormal seasonal cycles due to changes in the stability of normal seasonal hydrological cycles. This will place an even greater burden on so-called "fossil water" aquifers such as the Ogallala Aquifer, and further competition for upstream water rights in regions such as the Indus Basin.

The release of methane from benthic clathrates is not the "magical property" you sardonically castigate, but instead releases methane into the atmosphere where it acts as a potent greenhouse gas, capturing infrared radiation escaping from the Earth at a rate eighty-six times as effectively as carbon dioxide. Unlike carbon dioxide, methane eventually breaks down; unfortunately, it does so as carbon dioxide and water vapor, further increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the upper atmosphere.

Your "simple application of the Second Law of Thermodynamics" to climate dynamics and the assumption that rising temperatures in the polar and temperate regions will result in less climate activity as the Earth comes to some kind of equilibrium are risible to an extreme. The Earth's climate is not an equilibrium system, and if the amount of energy it retains from solar incidence increases and is not stabilized through natural heat sinks (e.g. the polar ice caps, circulation of lower temperature water) then the response has to be more energetic just, to use your "kitchen counter science" as water in a heated pot will boil with increasing turbulence. You are correct in one sense that as the ocean heats up and the polar regions lose ice the ocean currents will suffer reduced mean flow, resulting in a stratification. This will not result in your claimed "less extreme events and they will be less powerful (on average)", a point you would understand had you actually bothered to read the link at the bottom of the very article you cited: NASA Earth Observatory: "In a Warming World, Storms May Be Fewer but Stronger".

Please learn something of actual climatology before trying to make authoritative claims about climate dynamics. And also get yourself a copy of Strunk & White and learn how to form sentences and paragraphs instead of this vomiting ellipsis stream-of-consciousness.

Stranger
  #28  
Old 06-24-2017, 10:53 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: People's Rep. of Eugene
Posts: 7,346
Tough talk ... kinda thin on science ... as long as you insist that methane can move from its solid state into its gaseous state without the addition of energy, I'm going to question your understanding of thermodynamics ... which is saying something because my own understanding of such is rudimentary at best ... I'd suggest a textbook on physics, but I think you'd be better off with a textbook on chemistry ... the information about change-in-state is the same but the math isn't quite as thick ...

If all you have is hyperbole ... you should maybe stick to criticizing other people's written English skills ... something you know a little about ...

=====

The NWS is reporting (Public Advisory #20) that Ocean Springs, MS received 18.74" of rain from Tropical Storm Cindy these past couple of days ... not hyperbole, just routine ... climate change not required ...

Last edited by watchwolf49; 06-24-2017 at 10:53 AM. Reason: Four commas this post ... I'm losing my touch ...
  #29  
Old 06-24-2017, 11:52 AM
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,414
...Without additional energy? Um... buddy... The whole point is that there is a ton of additional energy going into the ocean! I'm rather confused as to your confusion here. The water gets warmer, and therefore solid gases melt. What's so complex about that?

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 06-24-2017 at 11:52 AM.
  #30  
Old 06-24-2017, 12:42 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 16,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
Tough talk ... kinda thin on science ... as long as you insist that methane can move from its solid state into its gaseous state without the addition of energy, I'm going to question your understanding of thermodynamics ...
Critiquing my posts as "kind of thin on science" is pretty farcical from a poster who hasn't even read the links he cites and introduces counterfactual speculation bordering on fantasy, e.g. by retaining more thermal energy the atmosphere will come to some kind of equilibrium where storms are less energetic, which belies any comprehension of how storm systems form and evolve. I'm not going to attempt a survey of fundamental atmospheric science in the length of a message board post, but if you actually want to understand the subject you are attempting to pontificate over, a good place to start is Wallace and Hobbes Atmospheric Science, Second Edition: An Introductory Survey. To understand it you're going to need a more comprehensive grasp on atmospheric thermodynamics (Chapter 3) but the areas salient to this discussion are atmospheric dynamics (Chapter 7), weather systems (Chapter 8), interactions between the atmosphere and ocean and terrestrial surface of the plaet (Chapter 9), and the parameters that lead to variability in local climate dynamics (Chapter 10, Sections 2 and 3). While the book is an introductory survey that does not delve deeply into upper atmosphere dynamics and long term predictive climate models, it does have a section on the effects of greenhouse gases (Chapter 10, Section 4) that serves as a basic primer for what is known.

As for "...methane can move from its solid state into its gaseous state without the addition of energy..." that energy comes from heat retained by excessive atmospheric carbon dioxide trapped in the atmosphere and being transferred to the ocean, mostly by convection. With dramatic reductions in sea ice minimums based on upon satellite observations from 1980, the stability of temperatures in arctic zones which accumulate methane clathrates, as well as regions which nominally receive cold water currents stabilizing temperatures where clathrates form in temperate and near-equatorial benthic regions, the release of methane from methane clathrate ice is speculated with some circumstantial evidence, although it is unclear how much of the methane makes it to the ocean surface and transfers to the atmosphere. However, even a modest exchange of methane from clathrate reserves to the atmosphere may act as a significant accelerant to greenhouse warming processes in a shorter term than carbon dioxide released by combustion processes and escape of carbon dioxide sequestered in permafrost. We have no historical examples of this occurring and only sparse circumstantial data that this may have occurred in the past leading to dramatic shifts in climate behavior and global average temperature, but climate models indicate that this "clathrate gun hypothesis" is plausible and would create an open feedback loop should it occur. If you actually want to learn something about methane clathrate distribution, concentration, and potential action the United States Geological Survey has and entire program dedicated to the study of subsea methane clathrates.

On the other hand, if you just want to throw out thinly veiled invective in the form of labelling any response you don't like as "hyperbole", please continue with your fact-free regurgitation of barely connected thoughts.

Stranger
  #31  
Old 06-25-2017, 09:25 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: People's Rep. of Eugene
Posts: 7,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
...Without additional energy? Um... buddy... The whole point is that there is a ton of additional energy going into the ocean! I'm rather confused as to your confusion here. The water gets warmer, and therefore solid gases melt.
1] There exists a temperature inversion in the oceans ... it gets colder as we descend ... this inhibits convection ... adding energy to the surface just increases this temperature inversion ... we're left with conducting this energy down the water column ... and conduction is a notoriously slow process ...

2] Water is densest at 4ºC, thus this is the temperature at the bottom of the ocean ...

These two complexities together are going to make an extremely s-l-o-w process to bring this extra energy down to the bottom of the ocean where we are trying to melt the methane ... I'll even go as far as saying we first have to melt every last ice crystal at or near the ocean surface first, where we're applying our extra energy ... if you remember, the liquid water from ice melt is 0ºC, and that's buoyant in the water column ... a 2ºC temperature increase due to global warming over the next hundred years still keeps this ice melt buoyant ...

I'm not saying this doesn't happen, just the amounts of methane reaching the atmosphere with this mechanic is trivial compared to even natural seepage ... which in turn is trivial compared to a horrifically leaky natural gas infrastructure ... good luck getting the rate-payers to spend all the extra money to fix that particular problem ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
What's so complex about that?
All of this is very complex ... and everything affects everything else ... it just takes one parameter to be uncertain to cast all the projections into uncertainty ... really the only thing we can say is for certain is the cost of energy is going to rise ... conserve or pay, your choice ... and we knew this way way back during the Carter administration ...
  #32  
Old 06-25-2017, 11:53 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by watchwolf49 View Post
All of this is very complex ... and everything affects everything else ... it just takes one parameter to be uncertain to cast all the projections into uncertainty ... really the only thing we can say is for certain is the cost of energy is going to rise ... conserve or pay, your choice ... and we knew this way way back during the Carter administration ...
This is really silly, the parameter you are talking here is yet another one of the specific ones that groups like the IPCC have not dealt with much because it is indeed uncertain, the gross simplification you are going for ignores that most of the numbers used in the projections for many other factors have been studied, you are thinking with magic here, because it looks as if you do think that minimizing what Budget Player Cadet then minimizes everything else. Wrong, wrong wrong.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/f...00409_methane/

The very, very basic point you are missing here is that the calthrate releasing methane would be very bad if it comes later as a result of continuous warming, a warming that that does not need that extra carbon to see it increase. In other words, this is just your ongoing mantra of trying to pretend that the uncertainty of things like hurricanes, for example, will not increase in a warming world.

Many of the cost projections I see are based on the likelihood of different factors taking place in a warming world. The problem for you is that you are somehow thinking that telling us that the effect of the less likely things such as the calthrate gun are being added to the projections right now. That is wrong. (It can point to even worse scenarios, but that is, once again in addition to the ones that are already more likely to take place)


BTW what I did point early was about the methane stored in the permafrost, that is indeed a bit different than the calthrate that Budget Player Cadet was going about.

The point is that conservative groups like the IPCC are already missing a lot about how fast the poles are melting, and that leads to things that were more uncertain as the release of methane from the permafrost to become more likely. In your attempt at making this to be just a nuisance you are indeed ignoring that what science groups have warned us mostly about it are things that are the most likely to happen in a warming world. Things that are already not likely to be "just a nuisance".

So, the methane release from the permafrost is becoming more likely, issues like the Clathrate gun (not really the same thing, but related to methane anyhow) are becoming plausible, and the warming that will cause will increase the level of ocean rise, number of droughts, etc. But those last 2 items and others were investigated early, continue to be investigated; and in the case of the loss of cap ice, the early projections are showing to be inadequate already. It is worse than expected and so it will the ocean rise.

As mentioned many times before, your point of this becoming just "a nuisance" does ignore first that many science groups do not add factors nilly Willy. Factors that are more likely to come are but there remains a frustration from many researchers that find evidence that we will have to add to the already bad levels of increase worse numbers than were predicted. However when I remember the history of this is that the new research will eventually be added the new reports. And so it will also lead to the likely increase on the costs that we still have to deal with the issue in the near and far future.

Items like what calthrate methane would do in a warming world (and again, do not forget that methane in the permafrost is more likely to become a problem first), what hurricanes and tornadoes would do in the same, are issues that depend on when we control the issue ahead of the time those nasty factors may take place. Again, trying to tell others that we should gamble and assume with even less evidence that those items will never be added to the items that already the experts expect that will increase our costs is really reckless.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-25-2017 at 11:57 AM.
  #33  
Old 06-25-2017, 12:03 PM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,747
Huh, please put "Clathrate" every time you see "calthrate"
  #34  
Old 06-27-2017, 10:27 AM
watchwolf49 watchwolf49 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: People's Rep. of Eugene
Posts: 7,346
The Climate Change Denialists blogs are lighting up with this recently published article ... here's the abstract: "Causes of differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates" -- Nature Geoscience -- June 19th, 2017 ... the text is behind the paywall ...

It's always risky to make long period predictions based on short period data sets ... too much uncertainty ... and it's not like the middle ground between the two extremes isn't enough to curtail fossil fuel burning ... and to both sides of this debate: "It’d be foolish to make such [claims] now."
  #35  
Old 06-27-2017, 10:39 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,747
I think that as Peter Hadfield would say, the deniers out there in this case too are just copying and pasting what one or few denier blogs misunderstood or missing:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/study-wh...satellite-data

Quote:
Overall, the study suggests that while tropospheric warming has not accelerated to the extent that models have predicted in recent years, there’s little evidence that it has slowed down.
The other issue is that wile we humans are living in the troposphere the temperature of it is not surface temperature, were humans, the oceans and the cap ice are located.
  #36  
Old 06-27-2017, 11:11 AM
GIGObuster GIGObuster is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 26,747
I was forgetting another issue, the problem here is with the modeling of the tropospheric temperatures. As noted, most of the modeling has been close to the real world at the surface of the planet, where we live and the oceans and cap ice are located (of course the biggest issue has been with the modeling of cap ice loss but then again it is a different area than atmospheric modeling). And it is not just computer modeling what is telling us how sensitive the atmosphere reacts to the increase of CO2. Here one should remember that deniers attempt to use the less reliable tropospheric temperatures (that are really not surface temperatures) in a dumb attempt to even discredit more direct methods of recording the actual temperatures. (And it is really sad that it has to be pointed here that those are not modeled temperatures, that is what the record shows)

Really watchwolf49, it is when the deniers report that we should be distrustful of the science the time when we all should be skeptic about them based on the well documented acts of misleading and disinformation recorded many, many times; so no, the default should not be that "both sides are doing the same", they are not. You are reaching for the fallacy of the middle ground. The issues with tropospheric measurements and modeling have been noted and reported for years.

What the study did was to make us understand the climate better and the reasons why models were not getting the troposphere right (in this case the point can be made that the deniers are the ones that are deeper in the hole for depending on the troposphere as a way to justify their denial of what is happening with surface temperatures).
Quote:
Ultimately, the paper finds that while there is a mismatch between climate models and observations in the troposphere since the year 2000, there is little evidence to-date that the model/observation differences imply that the climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases. The results suggest that while these short-term differences between models and observations are a subject of great scientific interest, it does not diminish the reality of long-term human-driven warming.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/study-wh...satellite-data

Last edited by GIGObuster; 06-27-2017 at 11:14 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017