Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Abrupt Climate Change

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 09 Jan 2017, 15:04:47

Tanada,
I was all set to argue with you until your last long post. I still see things more pessimisticly than you but with shouting distance. The one thing where we seem to differ is the survivability of nuclear winter. From Wiki it seems they have worked out 2 simulations 1) regional exchange of 100 warheads total. That sounds a lot like what you describe. 2) is a full out exchange between major powers. The following winter is estimated to be so severe as to eliminate almost all agriculture for several years. Maybe not extinction but very deep die off.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9068
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby Subjectivist » Mon 09 Jan 2017, 17:01:24

Newfie wrote:Tanada,
I was all set to argue with you until your last long post. I still see things more pessimisticly than you but with shouting distance. The one thing where we seem to differ is the survivability of nuclear winter. From Wiki it seems they have worked out 2 simulations 1) regional exchange of 100 warheads total. That sounds a lot like what you describe. 2) is a full out exchange between major powers. The following winter is estimated to be so severe as to eliminate almost all agriculture for several years. Maybe not extinction but very deep die off.


Wasn't it some Congressman who said, a billion here a billion there and eventually it adds up? Or something like that. I have always been fascinated in an apalked kind of way by nuclear war. Spent a lot of years expecting it any time, you know what I mean? I just think that if Mount Pinotubo could make it cold all by itself an all out war would be pretty bad!
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4026
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby Cog » Mon 09 Jan 2017, 17:06:46

Most nuclear weapons would be used in the airburst mode, reducing not only dust and smoke clouds, but also radioactive fallout. When the Kuwaiti oil fields were set ablaze, I remember similar predictions about global cooling. Didn't happen.
User avatar
Cog
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 9125
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Metro-East Illinois

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 09 Jan 2017, 18:36:18

Subjectivist wrote:
Newfie wrote:Tanada,
I was all set to argue with you until your last long post. I still see things more pessimisticly than you but with shouting distance. The one thing where we seem to differ is the survivability of nuclear winter. From Wiki it seems they have worked out 2 simulations 1) regional exchange of 100 warheads total. That sounds a lot like what you describe. 2) is a full out exchange between major powers. The following winter is estimated to be so severe as to eliminate almost all agriculture for several years. Maybe not extinction but very deep die off.


Wasn't it some Congressman who said, a billion here a billion there and eventually it adds up? Or something like that. I have always been fascinated in an apalked kind of way by nuclear war. Spent a lot of years expecting it any time, you know what I mean? I just think that if Mount Pinotubo could make it cold all by itself an all out war would be pretty bad!


Barry Goldwater IIRC.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9068
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 09 Jan 2017, 18:41:32

Cog wrote:Most nuclear weapons would be used in the airburst mode, reducing not only dust and smoke clouds, but also radioactive fallout. When the Kuwaiti oil fields were set ablaze, I remember similar predictions about global cooling. Didn't happen.


From the reading I got that it want the initial blast that was the issue but the ensuing fires. The oil field fires were not of sufficient size to raise the dust high enough. So even an air host would start enough fires that would spread.

Ther appears to be debate about how much combustible material there is in a modern city as oppose to the mid century ajapanese cities, or German for that matter. But judging by the WTC and a big fire in Philly there's plenty of combustibles inside the buildings.

Let's hope this all remains speculation.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9068
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby vox_mundi » Mon 09 Jan 2017, 19:46:08

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money. - Everett Dirksen
“There are three classes of people: those who see. Those who see when they are shown. Those who do not see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci

Insensible before the wave so soon released by callous fate. Affected most, they understand the least, and understanding, when it comes, invariably arrives too late.
User avatar
vox_mundi
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3576
Joined: Wed 27 Sep 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 09 Jan 2017, 19:52:50

vox_mundi wrote:A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money. - Everett Dirksen

Why is this post exactly like the one that AdamB just posted . . . and subsequently removed minutes later.

Interesting?
There's nothing deeper than love. In fairy tales, the princesses kiss the frogs, and the frogs become princes. In real life,the princesses kiss princes, and the princes turn into frogs

“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.”
― Maya Angelou
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 25722
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby clif » Wed 11 Jan 2017, 20:19:45

Most nuclear weapons would be used in the airburst mode,


Not even close to reality, the FIRST strike will be almost entirely ground bursts, when each side tries to eliminate each others ground based nukes. Then you have the strikes at the sited used for evacuation of essential personnel, like Greenbrier WV and command and control sites, that will be around 2-3000 ground bursts if all world wide sites are attacked. Most large military installations like Norfolk Naval Base and all airbases will be ground attacks to destroy the infrastructure in the way an air burst cannot. Add to this the double wave attacks to destroy hardened targets like Cheyenne Mountain Complex, where the first strike is to remove the top cover and the second strike is the breach and destroy the target. Lots of ground bursts in the actual way you HAVE to fight a nuclear war between super powers.

Of course add to this air-bursts over modern synthetic-plastic urban centres and the resulting carbon from all the flammable petroleum based products we currently use in our culture, and an air burst causes as much soot and stratospheric cloud/sun blocking as ground bursts. A good many people will be killed because of the toxicity of the new synthetics when they burn. After a nuke burst a large urban center could be more dangerous then Hamburg or Dresden during the fire bombing of WW2.

Very little study has been done considering the toxicity of the fires after a nuke attack given the modern synthetic culture we currently live in. People who live directly down wind might die from the toxic air quicker then from the radioactivity.

BTW I walked the desert of Kuwait in the spring of 1991, and remember having to use a flash-light to ground guide trucks at noon from the density of the oil fields burning. Was with 3AD in the first gulf war.
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 12:04:10

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby Newfie » Wed 11 Jan 2017, 21:21:36

The winter bit is different yet. The ground strikes kick up dirt and dust but not sufficiently high to do the long term damage. You need BIG hot fires to carry the soot WAAAAY up into the atmosphere where it can loll around for a few years. That's when you get the 20°C to 30°C temperature drop that stops agriculture dead for 4-5 years.

The argument is that modern cities don't burn like the old Japaneese cities. Maybe, maybe not. All those office buildings are full of paper and plastics. Ever watch a car burn? Modern houses are full of synthetics that burn like crazy. Sounds to me like an air burst would start the maximum number of fires and do the most to start a nuclear winter.

Cherry discussion. Hope you all sleep well.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9068
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Wed 11 Jan 2017, 22:13:22

I'm sure we can all agree that an all-out, blow-every-warhead, worldwide nuclear holocaust would be a very bad thing, and not good for one's skin unless you were wearing sun block factor 3000 or so skin cream.

Which has nothing to do with carbon-dioxide-induced climate change, which has not yet been observed anywhere, although speculation about such is common.

I don't know where this thread is going. Nobody liked my suggestion that abrupt climate change was the norm for the last half million years BP. Nobody has established that such changes are presently happening anywhere, either.

Meanwhile we are having a wet year here in the Silly Valley, rain for the past week alone has exceeded the annual totals in three drought years, and we are having mudslides.

Doubtless many feel that I am responsible because I burn gasoline in an SUV. I'm tired of that BS too.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3960
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 12 Jan 2017, 07:38:34

KJ,
You have an obvious minority view over an issue that effects many folks and has them upset.

Your kind of like the guy that comes to an anti smoking rally puffing up a storm and saying it's all BS.

It's a bit disingenuous to complain your ideas are not welcome.

We all remember the tobacco companies testifying that smoking was good for us. So while we may not understand the motive for such bald face lieing and profiteering we do understand it exists and are highly skeptical of our business model.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9068
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby kiwichick » Thu 12 Jan 2017, 08:36:56

@ kj...here is another observation for you

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... ays-report

you will note what the article says about the water temperatures
User avatar
kiwichick
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2212
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 12 Jan 2017, 10:11:44

Remember that evidence of warming is not evidence of AGW. Nobody disputes that the globe is warming and has been warming for 15,000 years since the end of the last glacial, in a natural pattern independent of any possible impact from mankind.

Nobody disputes that this globe is overpopulated and the excess humans are killing the environment, either. We are in the midst of a global mass extinction event, species are disappearing at an ever-increasing rate.

The seas are dying from pollution, the air and freshwater and soil we use to grow food, all are in crisis. The existence of humans on this planet grows more difficult and less likely every day.

Worst of all, we are going to run out of fossil fuels to burn for cheap energy. That is the only one of all the terrible things that are happening to us that we cannot avoid, it is the biggest disaster the human race has ever faced. I at least am hoping that we can find away to survive that particular disaster.

Most people here are in denial of what "stopping climate change" means. It means that you will in effect be telling more than 6 billion humans that they have no right to be on the Earth, that their presence is disruptive, inconvenient, and even fatal for the rest of us. Therefore you will take it upon yourself to starve them, for the good of the planet we live on, by eliminating the use of inexpensive fossil fuels that are the only thing feeding the vast majority of humans.

I say that a starving child in Mumbai has just the same right to life as anybody else. Just because somebody else lives in a different country, has a different skin color, and speaks a different language, doesn't mean that they are deserving of the death that all you murderous and genocidal AGW fanboys would prescribe for them. Because that is what "ending climate change" actually means, everybody who depends upon mechanized, petroleum-powered agriculture, must starve.

If you are going to kill all those people with your actions, best make sure - beyond all reasonable doubts - that you are doing the right thing, and that there are no alternatives to mass genocide on your part.

So, tell me, are you one of the AGW fanboys or not? When you tell your grandchildren how your efforts to "end climate change" saved the planet, will you be proud, or ashamed and riddled with guilt?

It seems to me that I am one of the few people here who is not in denial about the true state of our planet, and whom has thought this through, and am unflinchingly facing the true choice to be made. Even if you had successfully made a case for AGW, beyond the pitiful, unscientific, and entirely lame "consensus of opinion" argument made because of the IPCC and the 93% of the climatologists who signed their last report saying that "it is likely" that mankind is changing the climate, is that report - the simple opinion of a few thousand climate experts, enough to deliberately kill 6+ billion people via starvation?
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3960
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby kiwichick » Thu 12 Jan 2017, 14:02:52

@ kj ....your argument is completely wrong.....the majority of GHG emissions come from developed countries .....tens of millions of people currently live with very little input from fossil fuels

and failing to stabilize the planets climate will result in the deaths of billions of people and most other species.....as evidenced by the post on the Japanese reef dying for example

I would suggest you get hold of a copy of " 6 Degrees " by Mark Lynas.....get back to us after you have read it
User avatar
kiwichick
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2212
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 12 Jan 2017, 14:41:19

User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9068
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 12 Jan 2017, 15:02:52

kiwichick wrote:@ kj ....your argument is completely wrong.....the majority of GHG emissions come from developed countries .....tens of millions of people currently live with very little input from fossil fuels

and failing to stabilize the planets climate will result in the deaths of billions of people and most other species.....as evidenced by the post on the Japanese reef dying for example

I would suggest you get hold of a copy of " 6 Degrees " by Mark Lynas.....get back to us after you have read it


You to all appearances do not even understand my argument. While it is true that more petroleum is burned over here, we also export thousands of containers and ships full of grain to the third world. The oil "we" burn makes all the difference between malnutrition and starvation for "them". Likewise, they don't own cars, trucks, motorcycles for the most part, what little petroleum fuels they consume are almost 100% used for agriculture or food transport. Most of the world's peoples live in cities, and cities are not viable without cheap fossil fuels.

So stop being deliberately obtuse, stop denying what you know is true, and admit that 6+ billion humans are being fed by mechanized agriculture, cheap food transport, and pesticides/herbicides/fertilizers made from petroleum.

We can both agree we don't care about fat and lazy first world people who thoughtlessly drive 2-ton automobiles everywhere, but that is not the problem, the problem is the 6+ billion humans who will starve when gasoline and diesel fuels become too expensive for food production. Because when that happens, you will grumble as you dispense expensive fuel into your motor vehicle, and they will starve.

Likewise, I have in past messages and other threads related what life was like for my grandparents in 1950's Arkansas without the electrical grid and without motor vehicles. They did in fact make a "living" via subsistence farming and they were grindingly poor. Let me know when you have persuaded all the occupants of NYC to move to the country and start such a subsistence farming lifestyle.

You absolutely are in complete denial of the implications of "stopping climate change" if you believe that the cost of this is not the deaths of 6+ billions of people.

At least, see the world as it is, not how you wish it to be. Reality - what a concept.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3960
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby Satori » Thu 12 Jan 2017, 15:16:38

sometimes ya gots to kill the village to "save" it ? :?
User avatar
Satori
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007, 02:00:00

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 12 Jan 2017, 16:24:30

Damn Kiwi, I had a good link to a site that spelled out the six degrees change pretty concisely, but I can't find it again. But it reminded me that the "end game" or terminal rise was not 6 but "5 to 6".

I posted that link and some contents here somewhere.

In the meantime here is a bit from Kevin Anderson. A different voice but similar song.

http://www.ecoshock.org/2015/07/kevin-a ... l-you.html

I doubt KJ will follow up. You can lead a horse to water etc.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9068
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 12 Jan 2017, 16:25:23

Satori wrote:sometimes ya gots to kill the village to "save" it ? :?


About right. Amputate all the cancer and all you have left is the head, maybe.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9068
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Abrupt Climate Change

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 12 Jan 2017, 16:36:21

Wrong. We don't have to do anything except keep up the R&D budgets for new energy sources that are not fossil fuels.

We can survive a warmer world with no icecaps and rising sea levels. We can move North and grow temperate food crops in former Arctic areas. We can hide underground in places too hot for comfort. We can get water with solar stills, and eat almost anything.

Just don't rock the boat before then, don't cause a panic, or start a war. The human race will adapt to new conditions. If during this adaption, our numbers decline to a more sustainable population level, then that was needed.

You CAN not do anything, correct? There is nobody in charge of the planet, and there never has been. Don't get arrogant and think you have to act.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3960
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

PreviousNext

Return to Environment

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dohboi and 18 guests

cron