Are we going to have winter?

[Skip Towne]

It's 70 degrees here with blue skies and a mild breeze. It hasn't gotten really cold yet. Will this weather hold till Spring?

[RedNFeisty]

It is cold a blah here today. It sucks.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by tiptap

Having discussed the inhibitor feedback it would be important to mention positive feedback. You mentioned that ice lost would mean positive feedback. The big concern amoung climatologists is frozen methane. As a enviromental chemist you should have some introduction to this. The methane tied up under the ocean is quite large. But the exposure is more close to the shore (and includes shore in Siberia and Northern Canada) in higher latitudes. Methane with increase in temperature of a few degrees will become gaseous and not trapped. Methane ultimately adds to the COtwo but even as Methane it will as heat trapping gas. And this conversion could be cataclysmic. It is a real concern as ice retreats in the northern latitudes.

In the scale of millions of years this burb may have little effect (though a similar event is tied to the Permian Extinctions). But within the lifescales of human civiliztion of 10,000 years the 100 years of displacement as the climate shifts wildly even more so than now before settling down into some quasi equilibrium would be dire.

It would seem prudent to cut back rather than accelerate the gamble. And as the most advanced country it would seem we could choose to do the hard and right thing rather than the easy and profitable notion.

One of the hardest human understandings is to recognize when the status quo is an extreme position. To understand and anticipate when to change as opposed to reacting and being behind in changing.

Most studies in behavior whether it is economic, biological or otherwise tend to indicate we wait to long in accomodating change to our harm. We don't have confidence in the prediction of the future vs the evidence within our life. Well this thread is all about how we use to have snow and winters in Kansas or Iowa or Missouri. And now we have a blistery December and winter plays out for the rest of the season. So we have indications of change already, not just predictions.

So go back and look at the timing for prediction of change of even the most conservative predictions. And understand how large a ship that we will need to steer clear of the danger. And it is your responsibility to calmly ask for a more conservative direction in the economy rather than the rather peculiar outlier now (compared to so much of human history production) of such huge production of hothouse gases. I do think opportunities for industry will still exist. But energy plants don't want to lose their cash cow.
Reform in the energy economy requires distributed energy production. But that would mean the trend would be everyone producing their own energy. This parallels the distributed process in computing. We do have the technology to make a difference. The solutions are easily democratic and not autocratic. But it does require we all move in the general direction. And so this plea.

If it all comes to pass we will make adjustments to the situation. Human's are remarkably adaptable.

And the idea that everyone will be generating their own power is just ludicrous. Here on campus they have demo wind/solar unit. The people who sponsored it were disappointed that on what they considered a windy day (think breezey) that the wind mill wasn't really turning. It takes a lot of wind to drive a windmill. The solar units were not efficient enough to keep the batteries at the site charged. Once you are generating enough power for your house and to recharge your electric car and are completely disconnected from the grid, you can tell me about your experiences and maybe I'll listen then.

When you start advocating the construction of hundereds of new nuclear plants, I'll consider that you are serious about CO2 emissions. If we are going to shift our energy supply away from fossil fuels, nuclear is the only current enery source that will be able to bear the burden. Some other technologies such as wind can contribut 10 to 20%, but nuclear will lead the way.

[redfan]

Originally Posted by cdcox

When you start advocating the construction of hundereds of new nuclear plants, I'll consider that you are serious about CO2 emissions. If we are going to shift our energy supply away from fossil fuels, nuclear is the only current enery source that will be able to bear the burden. Some other technologies such as wind can contribut 10 to 20%, but nuclear will lead the way.

I say we go completey Nuke, and put all the waste on a rocket and launch it into the Sun.

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by redhed

I say we go completey Nuke, and put all the waste on a rocket and launch it into the Sun.

Yeah, that wouldn't be bad when a ring went faulty and it exploded in the atmosphere.

[redfan]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

Yeah, that wouldn't be bad when a ring went faulty and it exploded in the atmosphere.

You doubt the quality of our space program?
Maybe wave action (oceans) is the answer.

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by redhed

You doubt the quality of our space program?
Maybe wave action (oceans) is the answer.

I doubt the quality of anything run by any govt.

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

Finally, the 'It's warmer AND cooler because of global warming" argument comes out.

First there is not a growing number of scientist that are disbelieving Global Warming. That is a bold face lie. It was true 10 years ago when Global Warming first was raised. I was on the sidelines at that point. But we have had 10 years of study and the average temperature of the entire world has been going up. The scientist who dispute the trends in temperature of air and water, of reduction in ice and such are dwindling at this point. You, as always are 10 years behind the debate.

That heat is used to melt ice where ice exists. One of those places is north North America. That location has been the source for the Alberta Clipper cold weather for the US for almost all of the 20th century. And still is where cold air collects before plummeting into the US. The difference now is that heat is melting ice further and further north. And in the summer that melting is more pronounced. That cools the air and that cooler air plummets south to moderate the temperatures especially in June and early July. August still is hot and dry, as well as September and October. And the extra heat shortens the winter season.

Where in the world are ice glaciers growing? Where in the world are ice packs expanding. If I am wrong where are the trends in the world measured that otherwise. And all this at a time when the largest amount of COtwo ever, 150 times more than produced by volcanoes, billions vs millions of tons and you want to say it can't make any difference.

This is a HUGE outlier for what has been convervatively done up until the later half of the 20th century. IT IS RADICALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE HAD BEFORE THE 20TH CENTURY.

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by cdcox

If it all comes to pass we will make adjustments to the situation. Human's are remarkably adaptable.

And the idea that everyone will be generating their own power is just ludicrous. Here on campus they have demo wind/solar unit. The people who sponsored it were disappointed that on what they considered a windy day (think breezey) that the wind mill wasn't really turning. It takes a lot of wind to drive a windmill. The solar units were not efficient enough to keep the batteries at the site charged. Once you are generating enough power for your house and to recharge your electric car and are completely disconnected from the grid, you can tell me about your experiences and maybe I'll listen then.

When you start advocating the construction of hundereds of new nuclear plants, I'll consider that you are serious about CO2 emissions. If we are going to shift our energy supply away from fossil fuels, nuclear is the only current enery source that will be able to bear the burden. Some other technologies such as wind can contribut 10 to 20%, but nuclear will lead the way.

I have little problem with Nuclear Plants. But new technologies can be inplimented. Dual grid systems one lower voltage for lighting say. Houses have been built very tightly that can be heated by just the water heater. But the cost can't be brought down and the energy production reduced unless there is a concerted effort. You want to discount the needed change instead of looking for solutions. You are still grounded in Adam Smith mentality in an information age economy. (Not that scarcity doesn't play a part but that we generate novel solutions with our scientific understandings).

This in face of the reality of the effects of greenhouse gases. There have been plenty of times that resilency and been exceeded and the result is dire.

[Frosty]

Four inches of snow this morning.

C'mon global warming, get it together.

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by tiptap

You, as always are 10 years behind the debate.

1. And you, like the rest of the "OMG CRISIS X IS GOING TO KILL US ALL!!!", are overreacting to a minimal amount of data.

2. The Earth underwent drastic climate changes long before humans. See "ice ages" and "topical ages". You idiots are basing your findings on about 50 years of solid meteorlogical data which doesn't show up as a speck in a gnat turd on the geological timescale.

3. This might strike home:

Many organizations abhor uncertainty so intensely that they attempt to magically convert ignorance to knowledge by stating something as fact, when in reality it is unknown.

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

1. And you, like the rest of the "OMG CRISIS X IS GOING TO KILL US ALL!!!", are overreacting to a minimal amount of data.

2. The Earth underwent drastic climate changes long before humans. See "ice ages" and "topical ages". You idiots are basing your findings on about 50 years of solid meteorlogical data which doesn't show up as a speck in a gnat turd on the geological timescale.

3. This might strike home:

Yes it is true the earth underwent drastic climate changes long before humans. We are in an ice age chap. In the Interglacial period within an ice age. That is why people in the 1970's were thinking we would be heading back to glacial building period of this ice age. So that is when they started looking at the data. Yep since the time of Christ the temperatures have been coming down expcept they started going back up in the second half of the 20th century.

It is against this expectation of a ice age regime that we find escalating temperatures. I have said in the past that some Global Warming is better than another ice age period. So I am not looking to stop all COtwo production. But we are escalating the process. We have produced more COtwo in the last 30 years than all the rest of mankinds existence. 150 times the amount produced by volcanoes EACH YEAR. That is exponential growth. We are being radical in our actions by assuming we can dump the garbage into the atmosphere and it will just drift away.

You want to be a conservative but you are willing to ignore the gross manner in which we have decided to support the oil dominated energy paradigm. I am not a luddite and want to live off just berries. But that is what I see we are heading for (along with a lot of killing for the few berries) if we IGNORE the determinations. Moderation not expansion is what I am talking about.

You wave around facts of prehistoric time as if they are more sound then the fact that last year was the hottest temperature average EVER. And this trend has been repeated over the last 10 years. Glaciers have been melting. Nowhere in the world are they building. NOWHERE. Where is the evidence to the contrary that temperatures are lowering.

You live in the middle ages. You think your words are more important in influencing the weather than the rise in temperature. And you dismiss science that the relationship of greenhouse gases and rise in temperatures are fact. If this is wrong come forward with the process that allows for increase of greenhouse gases and lower temperatures. Give me the evidence that temperatures are falling.

Energy drives the weather system. More energy drives more weather. And that means more severe weather events. Longer dry spells, when it rains it rains heavier, more or stronger weather patterns and melting of existing ice.

I am seeking moderation of the gluttony that we have practiced these last 40 years. Not complete shutdown.

[Skip Towne]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

I doubt the quality of anything run by any govt.

Me too.

[sedated]

Originally Posted by tiptap

The glaciers and ice caps are melting. They are tempering the effects of temperature. There is the melting "heat of fusion" cooling effect as the mass of ice melts.

This is why you can see mild conditions in summer. We live in the Alberta Clipper area where cold builds up in the north and plummets toward the plains. Except now we see this as a moderation of summer as the ice melts.

None of this changes the fact that the average temperature around the world was higher in 2005 than at any other time we have been keeping score. And higher than indications for thousands of years.

thanks, bill nye.

I want 70 degrees in winter, fuck my great-grandkids

[Dunit35]

Hey, it snowed for like an hour here today, maybe longer and rained also. Its 30 degrees right now too.

[Frazod]

The weather's gone to hell up here. Rain has turned to a freezing rain/snow mix, sticking to the streets big time. I'm glad I'm in for the night. The Mustang does NOT do well in this shit.