Southern Ocean Heating - re: "Irreversible" on SA headline

[EYESAILOR]

"But personally, if I were in a burning building, I would not be asking for a fully reliable prediction on when it will collapse before I got the hell out."

Hahahaha, that's funny.

Jiffy is not a full on crazy crazy climate change denier. He points out that there have historically been other contributors to climate change. There likely still are other contributing factors today. It is hard not to agree with that. Some of them we can control, others we cannot. If the factors that we can control can preserve the planet for the foreseeable future of our children and their children, shouldn't we try and do what we can?

What is the point of all this extraordinary knowledge and technology that we have acquired, if we cannot do some good with it? There are only so many versions of the i-phone and Samsung Galaxy I can tolerate.

We are already producing non-fossil fuel cars that cost less, last longer and drive better, As soon as range and recharge times are solved, I'm all in. I eagerly await the refinement of next generation heat sources. I have had my fill of a lifetime of furnace repair bills.

 

[EYESAILOR]

Yep. It's called 'avulsion' in fluvial geomorphology --- the rapid abandonment of a river channel and the formation of a new river channel. Same word for an amputation in medicine, as you know well.

Thank you for that. I was not aware of the geological use of the word.
Avulsion is more often caused by trauma than surgery.
So, did the Nile change its course due to trauma (a storm or climate change) or surgery (Clever Egyptian engineers) ?

 

[d'ranger]

The climate has and will always change. Easily agreed upon. The issue is the rate of change which is unprecedented since the start of the industrial age. It is really that simple. The issue is what to do about it.

 

[floater]

Back in the day of the when the Egyptians were building the pyramids (assuming they were the ones that built them), artifacts of large sailing craft were unearthed in an ancient harbor that went up near one of the pyramids. That would indicate that at least 4,000 years ago the river water level was up close to the pyramids, which is about 5 miles away from the pyramids now. The Nile River either got a lot smaller, or a section of the Nile River to the pyramids dried up because of Climate Change. Then there is the Sahara Desert to ponder. How did that change from a much wetter and greener environment change? I don't even get into all the Ice Ages. No industrial revolutions in those days.

no.

Yep. It's called 'avulsion' in fluvial geomorphology --- the rapid abandonment of a river channel and the formation of a new river channel. Same word for an amputation in medicine, as you know well.

anybody who has ever studied a road-cut can't help but be at least a little bit perplexed at the river bottom sediments stacked up here. there. everywhere.

 

[Go Left]

Science is never fully "settled." Physicists still argue about gravity, 350 years after Newton.

They only argue about what gravity might actually be, how it works, why it works, what bits are required to make it work, what happens if there is too much of it, what happens if there isn't any of it, how it acts over distance, why it's such a teeny number. Stuff like that.

Not the important stuff like which god, out of 10,000 candidates, do you believe is the one true god and why.

Or why "true believers" have such confidence in their counter-factual beliefs.

 

[Go Left]

They only argue about what gravity might actually be, how it works, why it works, what bits are required to make it work, what happens if there is too much of it, what happens if there isn't any of it, how it acts over distance, why it's such a teeny number. Stuff like that.

Not the important stuff like which god, out of 10,000 candidates, do you believe is the one true god and why.*

Or why "true believers" have such confidence in their counter-factual beliefs.

* Especially when the answer is obvious: It's Scarlett Johansson

 

[billsreef]

* Especially when the answer is obvious: It's Scarlett Johansson View attachment 542412

That is not a God, she is a Godess!

 

[Danceswithoctopus]

That is not a God, she is a Godess!

That's: Goddess, with double 'd's.

 

[billsreef]

That's: Goddess, with double 'd's.

Oops! Auto correct fail, yeah, I am going with that.

 

[Danceswithoctopus]

Oops! Auto correct fail, yeah, I am going with that.

Oh yeah: I guess spelling, too.

 

[Steam Flyer]

That's: Goddess, with double 'd's.

GoDDess

 

[JiffyLube]

There are no climate scientists who would assert that there has been no previous climate change. It's well understood that there have been and that significant change over the course of only decades is quite possible, presumably because of feedback effects. That should not make us feel relaxed about continuing with CO2 emissions. On the contrary, the fact that global temperature has been known to shift over a human lifetime should scare the crap out of anyone concerned with the lives of their children or grandchildren.

Of course, on the bright side, we have a known and possibly imminent solution to global warming. Nuclear winter.

I will agree, that would be the ultimate climate change.

 

[JiffyLube]

Hi Jiffy,

Can you clarify your point.

It is uncontroversial that there have been periods of climate change before and that large rivers change their location in very short geological time spans.

Are you suggesting that either
1) This is proof the climate is not changing this time? or
2) This is proof that the increase in the CO2 content in the atmosphere is not caused by burning carbon fossil fuels?

Climate is always changing, and there has always been some level of CO2 in the atmosphere. I don't think anyone knows what the right or wrong level of CO2 is. And right and wrong for what.

 

[JiffyLube]

Sorry...should have read further down the post. You concur that man is playing a role this time...but just pointing out there are previous periods of climate change where man did not play a role. I fully agree with this.

Wow, I am not aware of any scientists who speculate that all climate change was entirely due to mankind . I suppose I should not be surprised. There are scientists who speculate all kinds of crazy stuff (and lets avoid going down the rabbit hole about scientists who believe that Ivermectin cures covid). Sanity is not a requirement to get a phd.

I more worried about the fact that I might have to raise my house by 8 feet due to the flood zone being revised in the town I live in.

Some scientists must believe that man has been responsible for climate change, otherwise no one would be trying to claim that man is responsible.

I live near a possible flood zone if it rains 40 day and 40 nights, or in the unlikely event of a tsunami.

 

[Go Left]

All y'all are welcome, BTW.

BTW, Scarlett J. has made her opinion clear that rapid post-industrial era raises in the air and ocean temperatures are not "normal cyclical" and are very largely due to human activities.

(Of which she, alone, is probably 3.69 percent responsible.)

 

[stinky]

Climate is always changing, and there has always been some level of CO2 in the atmosphere. I don't think anyone knows what the right or wrong level of CO2 is. And right and wrong for what.

as mentioned previously upthread, it's the rate of change thats the issue.

 

[JiffyLube]

Jiffy is not a full on crazy crazy climate change denier. He points out that there have historically been other contributors to climate change. There likely still are other contributing factors today. It is hard not to agree with that. Some of them we can control, others we cannot. If the factors that we can control can preserve the planet for the foreseeable future of our children and their children, shouldn't we try and do what we can?

What is the point of all this extraordinary knowledge and technology that we have acquired, if we cannot do some good with it? There are only so many versions of the i-phone and Samsung Galaxy I can tolerate.

We are already producing non-fossil fuel cars that cost less, last longer and drive better, As soon as range and recharge times are solved, I'm all in. I eagerly await the refinement of next generation heat sources. I have had my fill of a lifetime of furnace repair bills.

I would be more worried about DARPA's plan for humans called Humans 2.0 than I am of climate change, but that is for another discussion.

The only problem with non-fossil fuel cars as you call them, is where is the 'reliable' electric power generation going to come? Solar depends on a good source of sun aimed right at the panels (less than sunny days vastly reduce electric production), and wind driving generation depends on good, reliable sources of wind (not always available in amounts for good generation). Those two forms of generation are helpful, but not all that reliable as the only sources. Fossil fuel will be around for some time to come, as that is the only thing besides nuclear that will round things out. There are way to many things that run on electricity to live of the sun and wind now, and for quite a while to come.

 

[EYESAILOR]

Climate is always changing, and

Historically the planet's climate has been relatively stable for long periods of time, and then periodically experienced sudden or accelerating change. Weather is always changing of course.

there has always been some level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Yes, for many thousands of years the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was around 280+/- ppm .

I don't think anyone knows what the right or wrong level of CO2 is. And right and wrong for what.

The level of carbon in the atmosphere has increased to 420 ppm in the last 70 years.
Would you agree that it has increased .....whether right or wrong....it has increased?

Do you agree that infrared rays (heat) pass through oxygen and nitrogen unimpeded, and that CO2 absorbs infrared rays and then radiates the heat. ? You can verify this yourself by a simple high school level experiment at home if you dont believe what is written in text books.

Thus an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere of a planet being bombarded with infrared rays (aka the sun), all other things being equal, will lead to an increase in the temperature of that planet.

Then, it is up to you to conclude if a increase in the temperature of the planet is right and wrong ....and who it is right or wrong for.

 

[EYESAILOR]

Some scientists must believe that man has been responsible for climate change, otherwise no one would be trying to claim that man is responsible.

A great many scientists believe that the current climate change , characterized by rising temperatures, is caused and/or exacerbated by human activity. However you were talking about the ice age and ancient civilizations. I dont think you will find many scientists attributing the end of the dinosaurs or the end of the ice age to human activity.

 

[EYESAILOR]

BTW, Scarlett J. has made her opinion clear that rapid post-industrial era raises in the air and ocean temperatures are not "normal cyclical" and are very largely due to human activities.

Well if the Goddess saidd it then it must be true, ddue to a rapidd post-inddustrial era.