BHS1975
Member
Here’s the paper
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/06/25/1906556116
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!
Learning Global Warming facts and fiction
- Thread starter Stormlover
- Start date
- Status
Here’s the paper
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/06/25/1906556116
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
snowlover91
Member
What does this article have to do with meltwater? Their conclusion is very open ended, see below.
“I hope that the 40-y record discussed in this paper will encourage further studies into the atmospheric and oceanic conditions that could have led to the extremely rapid 2014–2017 decline of the Antarctic sea ice cover, the comparably rapid decline in the mid-1970s, and the uneven but overall gradual increases in Antarctic sea ice coverage in the intervening decades. More broadly, the environmental datasets may be nearing the point where they are long enough and rich enough to enable the linking of several of the modes and dipoles and oscillations now spoken of separately, just as the El Niño and Southern Oscillation phenomena were linked together years ago as ENSO; once that further linkage happens, the understanding of Earth’s very interconnected climate system, including the sea ice cover, could be markedly enhanced.”
BHS1975
Member
Sounds like it’s a work in progress just like the rest of the climate which we are changing without fully understanding the consequences. The meltwater would cool ssts down just like it does in Greenland.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
snowlover91
Member
But it doesn’t make sense. Temperatures in Antarctica over land and the surrounding ocean have been decreasing. Colder air temps and water temps would produce less melting ice not more of it. The point of that paper you linked was basically there are several possible explanations for the rapid variations in the Antarctic ice extent and temperature fluctuations and we aren’t sure what exactly it is yet. Melting ice and melt water was not mentioned and usually if there is increased melt water it means the surrounding land temps are increasing, not decreasing like we’ve seen.
BHS1975
Member
It’s way above my head as the climate system
is extremely complex. I was just speculating. The scientists are playing catch up with the observations. By the time scientists fully understand whats going on it’s going to be too late if we aren’t being proactive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
snowlover91
Member
I don’t think so. Humanity has shown the ability to adapt to changing environments. If you look at the past there were massive heatwaves, hurricanes, and other natural disasters that would kill thousands or hundreds of thousands since mankind didn’t have the technology to prepare for what was coming. It’s been demonstrated that the advances in technology and reliable energy have significant reduced the death toll/mortality in developed countries and building codes have improved to better hold up to hurricanes in those areas.
There is also a good number of articles and research out there that points to natural cycles at play explaining the changes in Arctic and Antarctic ice as well. Changes over 30-40 years are comparably insignificant to a climate that has naturally changed over periods of hundreds of years and thousands even from warmer to colder and back warmer again. There have been periods where scientists believe the Arctic was actually ice free and that happened naturally. Also keep in mind that since the end of the little ice age the temperatures have been gradually increasing anyways as we return to a warmer state in the climate.
As someone else mentioned, the greater danger to the environment that’s not being discussed is all the waste from the batteries and solar cells that’s going to have to be dealt with in the coming years... not to mention deforestation. Why is no one advocating for planting more trees across the US and other places to help balance things out? Not to mention solar and wind farms they end up clearing massive tracts of land to use for a very inefficient and unreliable method of power. It’s incredibly stupid.
We don't have a long term trash plan. We can't even reliably recycle anymore. But barring an ELE, humanity, at least some portion of it, will make it through climate change, deforestation, pollution, etc. At the same time, it's really sad that we'd rather fight about old statues than to come together around figuring out how to keep our house clean and habitable.
In the "conspiracy theory world", it's a cornerstone belief that the "elite" (the ones with the wealth and power to influence/control the destiny of humanity) secretly want to greatly reduce the population. That seems crazy and sci fi on the surface, but if you carefully watch how things are evolving (on so many fronts), it does make you scratch your head and wonder if there just isn't a little nugget of truth to that idea...at least on some level.
weatherfide
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2017
- Messages
- 3,076
- Reaction score
- 4,498
Reducing the population would make it easier to control the masses and thinning the herd usually encourages healthier members of any population of animals, to an extent. Also, you want the population distribution to be more heavily weighted toward the young/fertile members.
Yeah, this doesn’t compute at all.
Something not mentioned by GW alarmists is that increased CO2 increases crop sizes due to CO2 being plant food. Also, assuming the CO2 AGW connection, increased CO2 means longer growing seasons meaning larger crops. The Earth is getting greener, partially due to increased CO2.
Moreover, wouldn’t increased greening then lead to increased rainfall/reduced droughts which would mean even more increases in greening? And with even more greening, wouldn’t more CO2 be taken out of the air? Are these feedbacks incorporated in the models and would they mean that CO2 in the air would be naturally limiting at some point?
Moreover, wouldn’t increased greening then lead to increased rainfall/reduced droughts which would mean even more increases in greening? And with even more greening, wouldn’t more CO2 be taken out of the air? Are these feedbacks incorporated in the models and would they mean that CO2 in the air would be naturally limiting at some point?
pcbjr
Member
It means, Larry, that you, and a few others, actually bother to ponder, and think ...
Another thing to consider in this very complicated mess is that warmer oceans actually emit back more CO2 than cooler oceans. So, it is a vicious cycle. CO2 causes warming and vice versa. Which actually came first, the higher CO2 that then caused warming or warming from non-CO2 sources like the 
, which only then would have lead to higher CO2 due to more coming out of the ocean, which then leads to even more warming? Did the higher CO2 from human activity predate the initial warming or not? If the oceans were to cool, would that allow CO2 in the air to actually decrease even without decreasing human induced CO2 emissions?
, which only then would have lead to higher CO2 due to more coming out of the ocean, which then leads to even more warming? Did the higher CO2 from human activity predate the initial warming or not? If the oceans were to cool, would that allow CO2 in the air to actually decrease even without decreasing human induced CO2 emissions?
Last edited:
snowlover91
Member
Indeed, increased CO2 brings with it significant greening and many examples of increased crop production as well. Also, here is an article from 2016 discussing the greening effects in places like the Sahel region.
“As researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg report in the current edition of the journal Nature Climate Change, due to higher sea temperatures in the Mediterranean more moisture from the eastern Mediterranean is reaching the southern edge of the Sahara at the start of the West African monsoon in June. Moreover, according to the current study, the future development of precipitation in the Sahel region is crucially dependent on the warming of the Mediterranean.”
It’s also interesting to note that the Sahara Desert used to be a vast forest and some believe the reason everything dried up was due to a period of global cooling many years ago. In theory this reduced the amount of available moisture in the air which then caused the area now known as the Sahara Desert to dry up and all plant life died out. There are other theories as well but it’s interesting to note that something big happened to transition a massive area from trees to sand/desert.
If it's true that CO2 levels were much higher in the past, then obviously the earth has some sort of self-correcting mechanism that will kick in at some point. Question is, will that be a quick or a very slow process?
I agree that humans have the ability to adapt and overcome anything that comes our way, our Creator made us this way. But going in a different direction I know, but each new generation is losing touch with that ability more and more. They depend on someone or something to complete any task, survivalist they aren't. With that said, while I'm not in anyway suggesting civilization is doomed, I'm not convinced either that the world as a whole can adapt as they have in the past.
Also I agree we are not good stewards of the planet God has given us, we are trashy people (pun intended). But convenience, laziness, technology has led to some of this.... when the people used cloth diapers, paper products and built everything from what the land provided instead of all the synthetic last forever products, the world was a cleaner place.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
It's human nature to more greatly care for things for which you have to work. Our lives, especially in the west, are dominated by a general sense of entitlement, laziness, and apathy toward things that aren't convenient -- things that don't fit neatly into our fast and self-centered lifestyles. Technology, to a large extent, fosters this mentality. I'm not saying we're bad. It's just that if things aren't beating us over the head, then we're not apt to pay them much mind.
Eventually, the rubber band will snap in the other direction, and those that aren't prepared or have any skills will be in real trouble. I hate to sound doom and gloom, but it really is inevitable.
dsaur
Member
Well, I can't be young anymore, but I can sure be firtile...that means furry right? I can wear fake fur coats, and leer at the women..is that close enough?
BHS1975
Member
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme...not-part-of-earths-natural-cycle?source=opera
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
MichaelJ
Member
Sorry, I don't believe you can accurately estimate temperatures down to 2-3C just by studying tree rings or ice cores. Yes you can determine the severity for specific years of the Climate but to think you can use it to compare to precise thermometers we have today is ridiculous.
- Status