Earth warming to climate tipping point

[paperdyer]

OK, let me get this straight.  based on an article posted a few days ago, the speed of light is slowing.  This should effect the rate the Sun warms the Earth, correct?  Also the Earth as been warming since after the ice age or we'd still be covered mostly in ice.  With over population we need Antarctica to thaw out so people can colonize the continent and start new nations, wars,  you know, the usual stuff we humans do.  If scientists are so worried about global warming, why don't they find a way to block the Sun in a similar fashion to killing ourselves with nukes and cause a non-nuclear cooling instead of be Chicken Littles.

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, paperdyer said:

OK, let me get this straight.  based on an article posted a few days ago, the speed of light is slowing.  This should effect the rate the Sun warms the Earth, correct?  Also the Earth as been warming since after the ice age or we'd still be covered mostly in ice.  With over population we need Antarctica to thaw out so people can colonize the continent and start new nations, wars,  you know, the usual stuff we humans do.  If scientists are so worried about global warming, why don't they find a way to block the Sun in a similar fashion to killing ourselves with nukes and cause a non-nuclear cooling instead of be Chicken Littles.

There's already an idea about orbiting mirrors to reflect sunlight away from earth.  Hope we don't get that desperate.

Doug

[Doug1029]

5 hours ago, Merc14 said:

World to end tomorrow, women and minorities affected the most

 

Probably Trump's idea.

Doug

[deusex]

That's funny because I just read this http://www.infowars.com/antarctic-expeditions-confirm-no-global-warming/

[seeder]

7 minutes ago, deusex said:

That's funny because I just read this http://www.infowars.com/antarctic-expeditions-confirm-no-global-warming/

 

Infowars..... 

Lousy source and well known for ridiculous conspiracy BS

Tried a NASA source? Have a read

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

 

[seeder]

On 01/12/2016 at 8:47 PM, Doug1o29 said:

The problem with most claims of a "tipping point" is that the authors don't define the tipping point.  

warmer deep water causes sudden methane release. 

 

 

Point one: What do you need.... an actual day and date?

Point 2:     
 

Quote

 

Arctic methane emissions ‘greater’ than previous estimates

The quantity of methane leaking from the frozen soil during the long Arctic winters is probably much greater than climate models estimate, scientists have found.

They say at least half of annual methane emissions occur in the cold months from September to May, and that drier, upland tundra can emit more methane than wetlands.

The multinational team, led by San Diego State University (SDSU) in the US and including colleagues from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the University of Sheffield and the Open University in the UK, have published their conclusion, which challenges critical assumptions in current global climate models, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/01/06/arctic-methane-emissions-greater-than-previous-estimates/

 

 

[seeder]

Quote

 

SUMMARY:

There is strong evidence of advanced acceleration in:
• Arctic warming and sea ice decline in a vicious cycle
• Substantial ice loss in Greenland with potential massive loss due to unstable glaciers
• Disruption of jet stream behaviour, with abrupt climate change leading to crop failures, rising food prices and conflict in the Northern Hemisphere
• Rapid emissions of methane from the Arctic seabed, permafrost and tundra.

The tipping point for the Arctic sea ice has already passed.

Our conclusions are:

• The meltdown is accelerating and could become unstoppable as early as Sept 2015
• Immediate action must be taken to refreeze the Arctic to halt runaway melting
• Greenhouse gas emissions reduction, however drastic, cannot solve this problem
• Calculations show that powerful interventions are needed to cool the Arctic
• Any delay escalates the risk of failure
• Arctic meltdown is a catastrophic threat for civilisation.

http://ameg.me/

 

 

[seeder]

who remembers the posts here about huge craters appearing in Russia? Deep mystery craters suddenly appeared....

reminder:   http://uk.businessinsider.com/russian-exploding-methane-craters-global-warming-2016-3?r=US&IR=T

 

Quote

 

Enormous gas bubbles trapped underground are causing areas of grass in Siberia to tremble like trampolines.

Methane gas, which is twice as potent as carbon dioxide  in warming the Earth's atmosphere and is usually locked beneath permafrost, is reportedly being released as warmer weather causes the soil to thaw.

Scientists on the remote Bely Island located off a northern peninsula in Siberia have been videoed prodding patches of earth which appear to bounce and wobble like an airbed.

They have speculated that warmer temperatures in the Arctic circle are allowing methane gas to move up through soil that is usually frozen solid, according to the Siberian Times.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/gas-siberia-underground-earth-bounce-climate-change-siberia-global-warming-a7153486.html

 

 

[Sundew]

From various articles I have read over the years I seem to recall the earth was much hotter during certain periods, the Amazon Basin was much warmer, there were reptiles, tree ferns, and so forth in Antarctica, which was not in it's present position but still far to the south. Sea levels were higher. Australia was a wet forested continent, not the arid place it largely is today. Point is, from what scientists have said about the past, we are nowhere near as warm as it was previously. As to what caused the warming before man, I don't know. Could be solar output, various gases spewed into the atmosphere by volcanos, or something else. But since then, we have been through ice ages, periods of warm benign winters, colder harsher winters and so forth.  Just in my lifetime the scientific circles have said we were "going into a new ice age" to that noted scientist Al Gore pontificating about "global warming" Now some scientists are thinking maybe ice age again, I have no idea of the validity of their hypothesis, but there it is. 

Our climate is dynamic, seems to me that more CO2 means more plant growth, and thus more O2 for animal life. I hear worries about the permafrost melting releasing trapped "greenhouse gases" or the island of Greenland melting flooding all the low lying coastal regions of the Earth. But this must all be cyclical I would suspect when the Earth was much hotter Greenland had little or no ice cover and there was much less, if any permafrost at high latitudes and yet, here we are today. The climate did not run amok and the Earth did not become like it's neighbor Venus, somehow it stabilized. 

We are beginning to develop energy that does not give off CO2, and if such sources become cheap enough and common place. I would think the CO2 levels might just start dropping.

Oh and one other thing, supposedly the most dynamic, universal and abundant "greenhouse gas" is not CO2, nor is it something we can ever regulate. Period. It's H20: water vapor. 

[Grandpa Greenman]

On 12/2/2016 at 2:19 PM, Doug1o29 said:

The Milankovitch Cycles ARE cyclical and operate on tens to hundreds of thousands of years.  But the current warming is IN ADDITION (literally additive) to what is occurring naturally.  When trying to determine how much warming has occurred, one must first determine the amount due to natural causes and subtract that from actual temperatures to get a residual.  Climate change will be included in that residual (along with random noise).  If the signal is strong enough to overcome the random effects, then one has proven warming.  If not, then one concludes that there has been no unnatural warming.

In working with tree rings, I first have to determine a growth model for what tree ring width would be without warming.  That is done by taking short segments of series (usually 30 years) for each age class and time interval.  Thus we have 50 samples from trees that were 30 to 60 years old in 1890 to 1920, and 50 from trees that were 30 to 60 years old from 1860 to 1890, and trees that were 60 to 90 years old in 1890 to 1920, etc.  Equal samples in each group.  By averaging these, we average out the effects of both tree age and temperature rise.  That gives us a model for climate-free tree growth for one species in one region.  In practice, this is a list of tree-ring widths for each year going back as far as our samples go (Mine reach 1772 for shortleaf pine.).  We then multiply every ring width by a constant that causes our model to have the same average as a specific tree.  Then we subtract the actual ring widths from the model widths for each tree and average the result by year to give a list of residuals which contain any climate-change signal.  But we still have to extract that signal.

Next regress the residual ring widths onto temperature.  In dendrochronology, that is usually the average summer temperature going back as far as we have written records.  Once a regression model (equation) is obtained (The SAS program does this automatically.), we can apply it to ring widths from centuries long before written records were available.  After that, it is just a matter of comparing the 30-year averages to see if there is a change.

That's an awful lot of data preparation, so the process isn't done very often.

 

The methane gun is the mechanism most-likely to trigger the big one - catastrophic climate change.  Warming sea water melts methane deposits on the sea floor, causing methane blowouts.  Methane, being a powerful greenhouse gas, further warms the air, which warms the sea, which causes more methane blowouts, raising the temperature still further.  That's what we're really worried about.  Rising sea levels, flooded cities and crop failures are nothing next to ecosystem failure brought on by high temps.  We THINK (not certain) that this is still at least a century in the future, probably two or even three centuries and in that time we can reverse the effects.  But what if we're wrong?  Just how much time is left before the methane gun fires?  We do not know, but if temps keep going up, it will.

Doug

Thanks for your input, Doug. I value your thoughts on this.  When I read the article I thought they were missing the methane issue. 

[Herr Falukorv]

 Interesting article about Methane melting from the arctic seafloor.

http://earthsky.org/earth/scientists-discover-vast-methane-plumes-escaping-from-arctic-seafloor

[Doug1029]

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 7:50 PM, deusex said:

That's funny because I just read this http://www.infowars.com/antarctic-expeditions-confirm-no-global-warming/

Shackleton's and other's reports of ice thickness were limited to places where they could get with their ships.  Thus, their measurements are biased to the low side.  Nowadays we can measure sea ice thickness from underneath using a submarine and echo-sounding in reverse.

Antarctica is pretty much its own system, weatherwise.  It is surrounded by the Southern Ocean and the Polar Jet does not cross land, except on the Antarctic Peninsula.  It is well-protected from the rest of the world.

The Magellan Strait opened a new evaporation basin about 1976.  That draws warmer water southward, accelerating ice melt.  So there are a lot of things about Antarctica that differ from 100 years ago.

Doug

[Doug1029]

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 8:50 PM, seeder said:

 

Point one: What do you need.... an actual day and date?

Point 2:     
 

 

I need to know what mechanism the author proposes will bring about sudden change and what level of CO2 it will take to do that.  Then it's just a matter of dividing current rate-of-rise into the difference between the required level and the current level and out pops a time interval.  Add that to the current date and you have an estimate of when the proposed disaster will occur.

Yes, methane emissions are occurring now and have been occurring, at least since the last ice age.  So far, the ecosystem has been able to absorb them (we think).  But emissions appear to be increasing.

Doug

Edited December 4, 2016 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 9:39 PM, Sundew said:

We are beginning to develop energy that does not give off CO2, and if such sources become cheap enough and common place. I would think the CO2 levels might just start dropping.

Wind and gas-fired turbines are tied for the cheapest source of electricity.  Next is oil-fired and gas-fired boilers, followed by passive solar and then coal.  Wind and solar costs are falling rapidly.  The others have plateaued.

I think utilities are stalling on purchase of new equipment.  With prices dropping, it would be wise to wait two or three years and install the cheaper version.

Doug

[seeder]

17 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

I need to know what mechanism the author proposes will bring about sudden change and what level of CO2 it will take to do that.  Then it's just a matter of dividing current rate-of-rise into the difference between the required level and the current level and out pops a time interval.  Add that to the current date and you have an estimate of when the proposed disaster will occur.

Yes, methane emissions are occurring now and have been occurring, at least since the last ice age.  So far, the ecosystem has been able to absorb them (we think).  But emissions appear to be increasing.

Doug

 

OK understood. I dont know either...but I do know.....there must be a tipping point

 

.

Edited December 4, 2016 by seeder

[Doug1029]

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 8:16 AM, Buzz_Light_Year said:

Climate change is a cycle. There have been 6 climate changes in the last 80,000 years. This data comes from Vostok Ice Station ice cores and Blue Hole stalagmite cross sections that collaborate the data from the ice cores. Now if the earth undergoes periodic climate change due to the earth wobble then climate change could occur on the average of every 13,3333 years (well that's the average for the last 80,000 years). Now the last ice age ended ~12,900 years ago so the earth may well be entering a naturally occurring climate change pattern.

I guess that depends on what you would call a climate change.  There have been at least 30 distinct climates during the Holocene alone (10,660 YBP to present).  But, one place can have a climate change while nothing at all happens somewhere else.  The 30 different climates is for North America and that's a very different place from Vostok Ice Station.

The "official" end of the "Ice Age" was the end of the Younger Dryas Cold Period, which began about 12,900 YBP and ended about 10,660 YBP.  Before that there were two other Cold Periods, the Older Dryas and the Oldest Dryas, each about a hundred years long and probably due to catastrophic draining of one of the Great Lakes.  They were separated by the Allerod and Bolling Warm Periods in which temps were comparable to modern.  The collapse of the Baltic Ice Dam ended the Younger Dryas (probably:  the mechanism is unknown, but the timing is perfect).  The collapse of the Agassiz-Ojibwa Ice Dam caused a 400-year cold snap about 8200 BP.

BUT:  as of 3000 years ago, sea levels were still rising, indicating that somewhere on earth glacial ice was still melting.  The high sea level for the Holocene occurred about 400 AD and was about 5.4 feet ABOVE modern.  In case you'd like to see the great Laurentide Ice Sheet, a tiny remnant still survives on Baffin Island - but you'd better get up there pretty soon - it's melting.

Doug

[docyabut2]

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2016 at 5:09 PM, Doug1o29 said:

There's already an idea about orbiting mirrors to reflect sunlight away from earth.  Hope we don't get that desperate.

Doug

I remember watching a debate in Congress  on making a moon laser  station to reflect  the sun `s energy to heat the earth in spots for warming, but like one Congressman said we will be like one big micro wave oven. Some thing like the old Edgar Cayce visions of a dome of crystals of the Atlantis( Atlas)  story  that destroys the earth. I think they are more worried about the earth going into a deep freeze then global  warming.      

Edited December 6, 2016 by docyabut2

[Doug1029]

16 hours ago, docyabut2 said:

I remember watching a debate in Congress  on making a moon laser  station to reflect  the sun `s energy to heat the earth in spots for warming, but like one Congressman said we will be like one big micro wave oven. Some thing like the old Edgar Cayce visions of a dome of crystals of the Atlantis( Atlas)  story  that destroys the earth. I think they are more worried about the earth going into a deep freeze then global  warming.      

There's an idea to generate electricity from solar electric panels in space and beam it to earth via microwaves.  Might work, but anything flying through the beams like birds, or a plane full of people, would be cooked.  There's always a tradeoff.

Doug

[Gingitsune]

On 12/2/2016 at 2:20 PM, paperdyer said:

OK, let me get this straight.  based on an article posted a few days ago, the speed of light is slowing.  This should effect the rate the Sun warms the Earth, correct?  Also the Earth as been warming since after the ice age or we'd still be covered mostly in ice.  With over population we need Antarctica to thaw out so people can colonize the continent and start new nations, wars,  you know, the usual stuff we humans do.  If scientists are so worried about global warming, why don't they find a way to block the Sun in a similar fashion to killing ourselves with nukes and cause a non-nuclear cooling instead of be Chicken Littles.

The trouble is, if the Ice Sheet on Antarctica melt, the level of the sea will rise... about 200 meters, that is. The land below the Ice Sheet is not suitable to agriculture, it's bare rock. It's not clear if we will gain anything with warm Antarctica.

[Doug1029]

20 hours ago, Gingitsune said:

The trouble is, if the Ice Sheet on Antarctica melt, the level of the sea will rise... about 200 meters, that is. The land below the Ice Sheet is not suitable to agriculture, it's bare rock. It's not clear if we will gain anything with warm Antarctica.

Even if Antarctica turns out to be useful for farming, will there be more land available after 300 feet of sea level rise, or less?

Sudan seems to be the first country headed for complete dessication.  It will probably cease to exist as a separate nation by the end of this century.  It's in trouble right now.

Doug

[Gingitsune]

With just a 100m sea level rise we lost most arable land in Europe, Asia and Australia:

[Doug1029]

Sign of the Times?  The amount of seaside property being insured against flood damage has risen dramatically over the last decade.  Once insurance companies start suffering losses they'll raise the insurance prices, which will have a chilling effect on 30-year mortgages.  The next sign of global warming could well be a real estate bubble in Miami Beach - long before we get anywhere near 100 meters.  Like maybe just one or two meters.

Doug

[seeder]

Quote

 

Polar sea ice the size of India vanishes in record heat

Sea ice off Antarctica and in the Arctic is at record lows for this time of year after declining by twice the size of Alaska in a sign of rising global temperatures, climate scientists say.

Against a trend of global warming and a steady retreat of ice at earth's northern tip, ice floating on the Southern Ocean off Antarctica has tended to expand in recent years.

But now it is shrinking at both ends of the planet, a development alarming scientists and to which a build-up of man-made greenhouse gases, an El Nino weather event that this year unlocked heat from the Pacific Ocean and freak natural swings may all be contributing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-ice-idUSKBN13U24P

 

 

[docyabut2]

I always thought that if part of the Antarctica should melt,there would be a whole new continent for people to live on . Sure the sea  levels might rise gradually  as in the past,  but  people can moved as in the past

[Gingitsune]

But once again, it's not arable land. It's like ice sheet scrubbed North Canada.





The land won't be able to feed her population before millennia. There was no life there since millions of years, which means no organic deposit, which mean no arable soil. An alternative would be soil under the sea close to the shore, where the ice push the former soil, but with the sea 100m higher, it will take the mother of all dike to access it.