MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Climate Change
- Thread starter Michael Scally MD
- Start date
How Can We Make People Care About Climate Change?
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/how_can_we_make_people_care_about_climate_change/2892/
Norwegian psychologist Per Espen Stoknes has studied why so many people have remained unconcerned about climate change. In a Yale Environment 360 interview, he talks about the psychological barriers to public action on climate and how to overcome them.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/how_can_we_make_people_care_about_climate_change/2892/
Norwegian psychologist Per Espen Stoknes has studied why so many people have remained unconcerned about climate change. In a Yale Environment 360 interview, he talks about the psychological barriers to public action on climate and how to overcome them.
there is no climate change ...
but there are certificates of how much tons polution can throw in the air.
If a company has such tons left they can sell these certificates to other companies.
but there is no climate change those people say which are "by random" in the lobbys of the biggest companies.
but there are certificates of how much tons polution can throw in the air.
If a company has such tons left they can sell these certificates to other companies.
but there is no climate change those people say which are "by random" in the lobbys of the biggest companies.
When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job
Among many climate scientists, gloom has set in. Things are worse than we think, but they can't really talk about it.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/
Among many climate scientists, gloom has set in. Things are worse than we think, but they can't really talk about it.
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/
Not usually a good idea relying on the alignment of multiple sine waves over numerous cycles. But it's an interesting read all the same..
Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet
Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet
- New study claims to have cracked predicting solar cycles
- Says that between 2030 and 2040 solar cycles will cancel each other out
- Could lead to 'Maunder minimum' effect that saw River Thames freeze over
A grand solar minimum would barely make a dent in human-caused global warming
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...g/14/global-warming-solar-minimum-barely-dent
Are we heading into a newIce Age?
https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm
The Big Unchill
The Arctic ice is melting faster than ever recorded, the warmth tied to the emissions of modern life. But it is the ancient ways at the top of the world that are most at risk.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/11/the-big-unchill/JNbnstRLER1EGErgBEO7MO/story.html#
The Arctic ice is melting faster than ever recorded, the warmth tied to the emissions of modern life. But it is the ancient ways at the top of the world that are most at risk.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/07/11/the-big-unchill/JNbnstRLER1EGErgBEO7MO/story.html#
whatever is going on for real we will never know as the ones who earn billions of money by destroying the environment still have millions to pay TV senders raio shows and newspapers what to write.
Remember George bush and irak war II regarding the bio weapons of irak.
Money makes alot of "legit" as the majority of humans is stupid and easy to manipulate
Remember George bush and irak war II regarding the bio weapons of irak.
Money makes alot of "legit" as the majority of humans is stupid and easy to manipulate
No, the Earth Is Not Heading for a “Mini Ice Age”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...cles_won_t_cause_a_mini_ice_age_by_2030.html?
A new study and related press release from the Royal Astronomical Society is making the rounds in recent days, claiming that a new statistical analysis of sunspot cycles shows “solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s” to a level that last occurred during the so-called Little Ice Age, which ended 300 years ago.
Since climate change deniers have a particular fascination with sunspot cycles, this story has predictably been picked up by all manner of conservative news media, with a post in the Telegraph quickly gathering up tens of thousands of shares. The only problem is, it’s a wildly inaccurate reading of the research.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...cles_won_t_cause_a_mini_ice_age_by_2030.html?
A new study and related press release from the Royal Astronomical Society is making the rounds in recent days, claiming that a new statistical analysis of sunspot cycles shows “solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s” to a level that last occurred during the so-called Little Ice Age, which ended 300 years ago.
Since climate change deniers have a particular fascination with sunspot cycles, this story has predictably been picked up by all manner of conservative news media, with a post in the Telegraph quickly gathering up tens of thousands of shares. The only problem is, it’s a wildly inaccurate reading of the research.
Not CC, but related.
Schramski JR, Gattie DK, Brown JH. Human domination of the biosphere: Rapid discharge of the earth-space battery foretells the future of humankind. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/07/14/1508353112.abstract
Earth is a chemical battery where, over evolutionary time with a trickle-charge of photosynthesis using solar energy, billions of tons of living biomass were stored in forests and other ecosystems and in vast reserves of fossil fuels.
In just the last few hundred years, humans extracted exploitable energy from these living and fossilized biomass fuels to build the modern industrial-technological-informational economy, to grow our population to more than 7 billion, and to transform the biogeochemical cycles and biodiversity of the earth.
This rapid discharge of the earth’s store of organic energy fuels the human domination of the biosphere, including conversion of natural habitats to agricultural fields and the resulting loss of native species, emission of carbon dioxide and the resulting climate and sea level change, and use of supplemental nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar energy sources.
The laws of thermodynamics governing the trickle-charge and rapid discharge of the earth’s battery are universal and absolute; the earth is only temporarily poised a quantifiable distance from the thermodynamic equilibrium of outer space.
Although this distance from equilibrium is comprised of all energy types, most critical for humans is the store of living biomass.
With the rapid depletion of this chemical energy, the earth is shifting back toward the inhospitable equilibrium of outer space with fundamental ramifications for the biosphere and humanity.
Because there is no substitute or replacement energy for living biomass, the remaining distance from equilibrium that will be required to support human life is unknown.
Schramski JR, Gattie DK, Brown JH. Human domination of the biosphere: Rapid discharge of the earth-space battery foretells the future of humankind. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/07/14/1508353112.abstract
Earth is a chemical battery where, over evolutionary time with a trickle-charge of photosynthesis using solar energy, billions of tons of living biomass were stored in forests and other ecosystems and in vast reserves of fossil fuels.
In just the last few hundred years, humans extracted exploitable energy from these living and fossilized biomass fuels to build the modern industrial-technological-informational economy, to grow our population to more than 7 billion, and to transform the biogeochemical cycles and biodiversity of the earth.
This rapid discharge of the earth’s store of organic energy fuels the human domination of the biosphere, including conversion of natural habitats to agricultural fields and the resulting loss of native species, emission of carbon dioxide and the resulting climate and sea level change, and use of supplemental nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar energy sources.
The laws of thermodynamics governing the trickle-charge and rapid discharge of the earth’s battery are universal and absolute; the earth is only temporarily poised a quantifiable distance from the thermodynamic equilibrium of outer space.
Although this distance from equilibrium is comprised of all energy types, most critical for humans is the store of living biomass.
With the rapid depletion of this chemical energy, the earth is shifting back toward the inhospitable equilibrium of outer space with fundamental ramifications for the biosphere and humanity.
Because there is no substitute or replacement energy for living biomass, the remaining distance from equilibrium that will be required to support human life is unknown.
NOAA State of the Climate report: Which seven records were broken in 2014?
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/201...port-which-seven-records-were-broken-in-2014/
From greenhouse gas levels to ocean heat content, 2014 was a record-breaking year for the Earth system in many different ways. That's the finding of the latest State of the Climatereport from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) published today.
Now in its 25th year, the report provides a checkup of global climate using data collected from land, sea, ice and space. We take a look at seven of the records that tumbled last year.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/201...port-which-seven-records-were-broken-in-2014/
From greenhouse gas levels to ocean heat content, 2014 was a record-breaking year for the Earth system in many different ways. That's the finding of the latest State of the Climatereport from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) published today.
Now in its 25th year, the report provides a checkup of global climate using data collected from land, sea, ice and space. We take a look at seven of the records that tumbled last year.
NASA: Climate Change
http://climate.nasa.gov/
http://climate.nasa.gov/
Hansen J, Sato M, Hearty P, Ruedy R, Kelley M, et al. Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming is highly dangerous. Atmos Chem Phys Discuss. 2015;15(14):20059-179. http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.html
There is evidence of ice melt, sea level rise to +5–9 m, and extreme storms in the prior interglacial period that was less than 1 °C warmer than today. Human-made climate forcing is stronger and more rapid than paleo forcings, but much can be learned by combining insights from paleoclimate, climate modeling, and on-going observations.
We argue that ice sheets in contact with the ocean are vulnerable to non-linear disintegration in response to ocean warming, and we posit that ice sheet mass loss can be approximated by a doubling time up to sea level rise of at least several meters. Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield sea level rise of several meters in 50, 100 or 200 years. Paleoclimate data reveal that subsurface ocean warming causes ice shelf melt and ice sheet discharge.
Our climate model exposes amplifying feedbacks in the Southern Ocean that slow Antarctic bottom water formation and increase ocean temperature near ice shelf grounding lines, while cooling the surface ocean and increasing sea ice cover and water column stability. Ocean surface cooling, in the North Atlantic as well as the Southern Ocean, increases tropospheric horizontal temperature gradients, eddy kinetic energy and baroclinicity, which drive more powerful storms.
We focus attention on the Southern Ocean's role in affecting atmospheric CO2 amount, which in turn is a tight control knob on global climate. The millennial (500–2000 year) time scale of deep ocean ventilation affects the time scale for natural CO2 change, thus the time scale for paleo global climate, ice sheet and sea level changes.
This millennial carbon cycle time scale should not be misinterpreted as the ice sheet time scale for response to a rapid human-made climate forcing. Recent ice sheet melt rates have a doubling time near the lower end of the 10–40 year range.
We conclude that 2 °C global warming above the preindustrial level, which would spur more ice shelf melt, is highly dangerous. Earth's energy imbalance, which must be eliminated to stabilize climate, provides a crucial metric.
There is evidence of ice melt, sea level rise to +5–9 m, and extreme storms in the prior interglacial period that was less than 1 °C warmer than today. Human-made climate forcing is stronger and more rapid than paleo forcings, but much can be learned by combining insights from paleoclimate, climate modeling, and on-going observations.
We argue that ice sheets in contact with the ocean are vulnerable to non-linear disintegration in response to ocean warming, and we posit that ice sheet mass loss can be approximated by a doubling time up to sea level rise of at least several meters. Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield sea level rise of several meters in 50, 100 or 200 years. Paleoclimate data reveal that subsurface ocean warming causes ice shelf melt and ice sheet discharge.
Our climate model exposes amplifying feedbacks in the Southern Ocean that slow Antarctic bottom water formation and increase ocean temperature near ice shelf grounding lines, while cooling the surface ocean and increasing sea ice cover and water column stability. Ocean surface cooling, in the North Atlantic as well as the Southern Ocean, increases tropospheric horizontal temperature gradients, eddy kinetic energy and baroclinicity, which drive more powerful storms.
We focus attention on the Southern Ocean's role in affecting atmospheric CO2 amount, which in turn is a tight control knob on global climate. The millennial (500–2000 year) time scale of deep ocean ventilation affects the time scale for natural CO2 change, thus the time scale for paleo global climate, ice sheet and sea level changes.
This millennial carbon cycle time scale should not be misinterpreted as the ice sheet time scale for response to a rapid human-made climate forcing. Recent ice sheet melt rates have a doubling time near the lower end of the 10–40 year range.
We conclude that 2 °C global warming above the preindustrial level, which would spur more ice shelf melt, is highly dangerous. Earth's energy imbalance, which must be eliminated to stabilize climate, provides a crucial metric.
Last edited:
15000 years ago Canada was under a mile thick ice sheet. The climate has been changing for some time.
We are just speeding things up some. We will worry about it when we get there.
We are just speeding things up some. We will worry about it when we get there.
A New Climate-Change Danger Zone?
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/a-new-climate-change-danger-zone
By Elizabeth Kolbert
How much does the climate have to change for it to be “dangerous”? This question has vexed scientists ever since the first climate models were developed, back in the nineteen-seventies. It was provisionally answered in 2009, though by politicians rather than scientists. According to an agreement known as the Copenhagen Accord, which was brokered by President Barack Obama, to avoid danger, the world needs “to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius” (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
Now a group of climate modellers is arguing that the danger point is, in fact, a lot lower than that. In a paper set to appear online this week in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, the modellers, led by James Hansen, the former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, warn that an increase of two degrees Celsius could still be enough to melt large portions of Antarctica, which, in turn, could result in several metres’ worth of sea-level rise in a matter of decades. What’s important about the paper from a layperson’s perspective—besides the fate of the world’s major coastal cities, many of which would be swamped if the oceans rose that high—is that it shows just how far from resolved, scientifically speaking, the question of danger levels remains. And this has important political implications, though it seems doubtful that politicians will heed them.
To understand the significance of the new paper, it helps to go back to a pair of earlier papers on Antarctic melt, which appeared last year. In those papers, two teams of scientists independently reached the same conclusion: the disintegration of a major portion of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is probably already under way. “Early stage collapse has begun,” one of the teams wrote in the journal Science. The leader of the other team seconded that view, saying, “The collapse of this sector of West Antarctica appears unstoppable.”
The two papers were, to put it mildly, bad news. “This is what a holy shit moment for global warming looks like” is how Mother Jones put it. All told, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet contains enough water to raise global sea levels by more than ten feet. Still, both of last year’s papers concluded that the melt of a major portion of the ice sheet, while perhaps already irreversible, would likely take centuries to play out.
What the new paper does is look back at a previous relatively warm period, known as the Eemian, or, even less melodically, as Marine Isotope Stage 5e, which took place before the last ice age, about a hundred and twenty thousand years ago. During the Eemian, average global temperatures seem to have been only about one degree Celsius above today’s, but sea levels were several metres higher. The explanation for this, the new paper suggests, is that melt from Antarctica is a non-linear process. Its rate accelerates as fresh water spills off the ice sheet, producing a sort of “lid” that keeps heat locked in the ocean and helps to melt more ice from below. From this, the authors conclude that “rapid sea level rise may begin sooner than is generally assumed,” and also that a temperature increase of two degrees Celsius would put the world well beyond “danger.”
“We conclude that the 2°C global warming ‘guardrail,’ affirmed in the Copenhagen Accord, does not provide safety, as such warming would likely yield sea level rise of several metres along with numerous other severely disruptive consequences for human society and ecosystems,” Hansen and his colleagues wrote.
The new paper has received a lot of attention because, as Eric Holthaus put it for Slate, Hansen is “known for being alarmist and also right.” (I wrote a Profile of Hansen for the magazine, in 2009.) The paper has not been peer-reviewed—it is being published in a “discussion” journal—and several other scientists have called its methods iffy. Kevin Trenberth, a prominent researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colorado, for example, told the Washington Post that the paper was “rife with speculation and ‘what if’ scenarios,’ ” and that many of the scenarios “did not seem at all realistic.”
But whether or not Hansen is in this case right, his new paper highlights a crucial point, one that even those who question his methods would probably agree on. The two-degree goal offered in the Copenhagen Accord is more a reflection of what seemed politically feasible than what is scientifically advisable. A group of prominent climatologists put it this way a few months before the accord was drafted: “We feel compelled to note that even a ‘moderate’ warming of 2°C stands a strong chance of provoking drought and storm responses that could challenge civilized society, leading potentially to the conflict and suffering that go with failed states and mass migrations.”
Meanwhile, holding warming to two degrees would, at this point, require a herculean effort—one that the same world leaders who agreed to the Copenhagen Accord now seem unwilling or unable to make. A number of commentators have recently questioned whether, practically speaking, it is even still possible. “The goal is effectively unachievable,” David Victor, of the University of California, San Diego, and Charles Kennel, of the Scripps Institution, wrote recently in Nature. (The commentary was accompanied by a drawing of a feverish and exhausted-looking globe hooked up to a variety of life-support systems.) Thus, whether the “danger” zone lies below two degrees Celsius or above, the world seems bent on reaching it—with all the suffering and challenges to “civilized society” that go with it.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/a-new-climate-change-danger-zone
By Elizabeth Kolbert
How much does the climate have to change for it to be “dangerous”? This question has vexed scientists ever since the first climate models were developed, back in the nineteen-seventies. It was provisionally answered in 2009, though by politicians rather than scientists. According to an agreement known as the Copenhagen Accord, which was brokered by President Barack Obama, to avoid danger, the world needs “to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius” (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit).
Now a group of climate modellers is arguing that the danger point is, in fact, a lot lower than that. In a paper set to appear online this week in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, the modellers, led by James Hansen, the former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, warn that an increase of two degrees Celsius could still be enough to melt large portions of Antarctica, which, in turn, could result in several metres’ worth of sea-level rise in a matter of decades. What’s important about the paper from a layperson’s perspective—besides the fate of the world’s major coastal cities, many of which would be swamped if the oceans rose that high—is that it shows just how far from resolved, scientifically speaking, the question of danger levels remains. And this has important political implications, though it seems doubtful that politicians will heed them.
To understand the significance of the new paper, it helps to go back to a pair of earlier papers on Antarctic melt, which appeared last year. In those papers, two teams of scientists independently reached the same conclusion: the disintegration of a major portion of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is probably already under way. “Early stage collapse has begun,” one of the teams wrote in the journal Science. The leader of the other team seconded that view, saying, “The collapse of this sector of West Antarctica appears unstoppable.”
The two papers were, to put it mildly, bad news. “This is what a holy shit moment for global warming looks like” is how Mother Jones put it. All told, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet contains enough water to raise global sea levels by more than ten feet. Still, both of last year’s papers concluded that the melt of a major portion of the ice sheet, while perhaps already irreversible, would likely take centuries to play out.
What the new paper does is look back at a previous relatively warm period, known as the Eemian, or, even less melodically, as Marine Isotope Stage 5e, which took place before the last ice age, about a hundred and twenty thousand years ago. During the Eemian, average global temperatures seem to have been only about one degree Celsius above today’s, but sea levels were several metres higher. The explanation for this, the new paper suggests, is that melt from Antarctica is a non-linear process. Its rate accelerates as fresh water spills off the ice sheet, producing a sort of “lid” that keeps heat locked in the ocean and helps to melt more ice from below. From this, the authors conclude that “rapid sea level rise may begin sooner than is generally assumed,” and also that a temperature increase of two degrees Celsius would put the world well beyond “danger.”
“We conclude that the 2°C global warming ‘guardrail,’ affirmed in the Copenhagen Accord, does not provide safety, as such warming would likely yield sea level rise of several metres along with numerous other severely disruptive consequences for human society and ecosystems,” Hansen and his colleagues wrote.
The new paper has received a lot of attention because, as Eric Holthaus put it for Slate, Hansen is “known for being alarmist and also right.” (I wrote a Profile of Hansen for the magazine, in 2009.) The paper has not been peer-reviewed—it is being published in a “discussion” journal—and several other scientists have called its methods iffy. Kevin Trenberth, a prominent researcher at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Boulder, Colorado, for example, told the Washington Post that the paper was “rife with speculation and ‘what if’ scenarios,’ ” and that many of the scenarios “did not seem at all realistic.”
But whether or not Hansen is in this case right, his new paper highlights a crucial point, one that even those who question his methods would probably agree on. The two-degree goal offered in the Copenhagen Accord is more a reflection of what seemed politically feasible than what is scientifically advisable. A group of prominent climatologists put it this way a few months before the accord was drafted: “We feel compelled to note that even a ‘moderate’ warming of 2°C stands a strong chance of provoking drought and storm responses that could challenge civilized society, leading potentially to the conflict and suffering that go with failed states and mass migrations.”
Meanwhile, holding warming to two degrees would, at this point, require a herculean effort—one that the same world leaders who agreed to the Copenhagen Accord now seem unwilling or unable to make. A number of commentators have recently questioned whether, practically speaking, it is even still possible. “The goal is effectively unachievable,” David Victor, of the University of California, San Diego, and Charles Kennel, of the Scripps Institution, wrote recently in Nature. (The commentary was accompanied by a drawing of a feverish and exhausted-looking globe hooked up to a variety of life-support systems.) Thus, whether the “danger” zone lies below two degrees Celsius or above, the world seems bent on reaching it—with all the suffering and challenges to “civilized society” that go with it.
ronin17
New Member
That's not true big paul. God had not even blinked the earth into existence 15,000 years ago. No wait, did he create the earth 6,000 years ago?
Two or Three Degrees: CO2 Emissions and Global Temperature Impacts
http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/140630/140639.aspx
Carbon dioxide emissions from human activities have grown substantially over the past decade, reaching about 40 Gt CO2 per year in 2013 and some 2,000 Gt of cumulative CO2 since 1870. Very high mitigation rates and sustained reductions in greenhouse gases are now required to have any chance of keeping global temperatures from rising less than 2°C compared to preindustrial levels. To date, however, such aggressive mitigation is not consistent with observed mitigation over the past 25 years or with current national emission reduction targets. Keeping global warming below 2°C also implies that the majority of proven fossil fuel reserves will stay in the ground, unless CCS techniques—unproven at the necessary scale—are rapidly implemented (McGlade and Ekins 2015).
Despite all the important global policy discussions to keep global temperature increases below 2°C, few people realize how quickly the world is approaching the cumulative emission threshold for an increase of 3°C. If global CO2 emissions continue to grow at the annual rate of 2 percent observed for the past 15 years, increases of 3°C could be the reality only 30 years from now.
Stronger mitigation efforts are needed to reduce the rate of climate change, and adaptation policies are, and will be, needed to cope with the unavoidable climate impacts.
http://www.nae.edu/Publications/Bridge/140630/140639.aspx
Carbon dioxide emissions from human activities have grown substantially over the past decade, reaching about 40 Gt CO2 per year in 2013 and some 2,000 Gt of cumulative CO2 since 1870. Very high mitigation rates and sustained reductions in greenhouse gases are now required to have any chance of keeping global temperatures from rising less than 2°C compared to preindustrial levels. To date, however, such aggressive mitigation is not consistent with observed mitigation over the past 25 years or with current national emission reduction targets. Keeping global warming below 2°C also implies that the majority of proven fossil fuel reserves will stay in the ground, unless CCS techniques—unproven at the necessary scale—are rapidly implemented (McGlade and Ekins 2015).
Despite all the important global policy discussions to keep global temperature increases below 2°C, few people realize how quickly the world is approaching the cumulative emission threshold for an increase of 3°C. If global CO2 emissions continue to grow at the annual rate of 2 percent observed for the past 15 years, increases of 3°C could be the reality only 30 years from now.
Stronger mitigation efforts are needed to reduce the rate of climate change, and adaptation policies are, and will be, needed to cope with the unavoidable climate impacts.
Similar threads
