Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Azothius wrote:

dissident wrote:

If this disintegration continues, “the whole shelf could potentially fall apart in the next few years, which is greatly faster than what we expected,” said Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Laboratory

Now where have I heard that before, that's right the "unexpected" melting rate of the Greenland ice sheet.

It was faster than expected.

this will probably be humanity's epitaph.

NASA: Earth is trapping 'unprecedented' amount of heat, warming 'faster than expected'
https://www.yahoo.com/news/nasa-earth-t ... 35519.html

After a while you just start expecting things to happen "faster then expected."

For instance: new-study-warns-that-sea-levels-will-rise-faster-than-expected/

If ice sheet disintegration and sea level rise and global warming are all happening "faster then expected," then most likely Civilization is going to collapse "faster then expected"too.


That was faster then you expected, wasn't it?

Cheers!

"Faster-than-Expected" = "Feedbacks" + "Exponential"

jedrider wrote:"Faster-than-Expected" = "Feedbacks" + "Exponential"

Thats part of it.

But the Global Climate Models running on supercomputers have known feedbacks and exponential response included in the computer models.

A bigger problem is that scientists didn't totally understand the geophysical, chemical, oceanic, and atmospheric processes involved.

For instance, the climatic range of forests is quite large, and so scientists thought forests would be stable at higher temperatures because forests exist in a wide range of temperature conditions. However, there wasn't a very good understanding of the importance of soil moisture. Global warming in the west has been accompanied by year after year of drought, reducing soil moisture to the point that trees are stressed and dying over huge areas of the west. These are naturally very susceptible to forest fire.

Glaciologists didn't understand the importance of higher temperatures to ice flow velocities, and the nature of grounding lines at tidewater glaciers in Antarctica and Greenalnd had't been well mapped.

Atmospheric scientists didn't have a good understanding of how warming would affect clouds, and how those clouds would contribute to feedbacks.

And climate scientists who were doing climate modeling had no intrinsic way of knowing which models were most accurate, so they based future climate predictions on an AVERAGE of all the climate models, when actual rates of climate change are at the high end of predictions from all the global climate models.

And, as luck would have it, in just about every case as we learn more about how the planet works we were underestimating how quickly things would change, i.e., we find that climate change is happening "faster then expected," i.e. faster then global climate models (GCMs) were predicting.


climate change is happening "faster then expected," i.e. faster then global climate models (GCMs) were predicting

Cheers!

Plant -As you point out models are difficult. Especially since there is no such thing as an UNBIASED model. Every complex model requires many dozens (if not hundreds) of assumptions built into the model. And those assumptions always run in a range. And often a very wide range. So the modeler has to chose those values. And all to often the modeler has an objective. Human nature being what it is assumptions are chosen leading to the goal. Which isn't to say they are incorrect. But also not to say they are correct. And typically those assumptions rarely have any absolute measure of validity.

Thus one is really saying they agree with the assumptions made when they agree with the model. Which is often just agreeing with the modeler's OPINIONS.

ROCKMAN wrote:Plant -As you point out models are difficult. Especially since there is no such thing as an UNBIASED model. Every complex model requires many dozens (if not hundreds) of assumptions built into the model.

Exactly right. And modeling something as huge and complex as the earth and all its systems is very very difficult. Thats why the modelers are continually upgrading the size and scope of their global climate models. They are just bringing on line truly huge models that run on supercomputers and incorporates as much real world data as possible. Just a new supercomputer can cost well over a billion dollars, and then a new building and new staff and research funding can add another billion to the cost. Its a huge scientific effort right now to improve these models.

new supercomputer to study climate change will cost over 1.5 billion dollars...

ROCKMAN wrote:And those assumptions always run in a range. And often a very wide range. So the modeler has to chose those values. And all to often the modeler has an objective. Human nature being what it is assumptions are chosen leading to the goal. Which isn't to say they are incorrect. But also not to say they are correct. And typically those assumptions rarely have any absolute measure of validity.

Thus one is really saying they agree with the assumptions made when they agree with the model. Which is often just agreeing with the modeler's OPINIONS.

The whole point of building bigger models on supercomputers is to drive out all those assumptions. HUGE amounts of money are being spent to compile more complete data sets and to understand exactly how every physical, atmospheric and geochemical process actually works, and then to program in as much REAL WORLD data as possible, and to write code that will simulate as much REAL WORLD physical processes as possible.

Of course it isn't perfect, but a good faith effort is being made to make the models as good as possible, and to reduce the number of assumptions and to make those assumptions as realistic as possible. AND, there are multiple models being created in the US, Europe, Japan, etc. that are at least semi-independent, so another check is to have all these independent modelers making their own analyses.

When you read the IPCC report, they are pretty transparent about which models they are using and what the variability is in the models runs and between different computers. The biggest flaw in the IPCC model predictions, IMHO, is that in the past they have AVERAGED all the models when making predictions of future climate. But we know now that more modern models tend to predict MORE warming and MORE sea level rise......and chances are these newer, better computer models are actually also making better predictions of future climate.


Bigger and better global climate models are now coming on line.....

Cheers!

realclimate.org is back! Trump is not here to fire the truthtellers any longer.

Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/#more-23600

jedrider wrote:realclimate.org is back! Trump is not here to fire the truthtellers any longer.

Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/#more-23600

And Obama isn't here to make phony promises about stopping the sea from rising.

Nope....what we've got now is a senile old man named Biden who, just like Trump and Obama, isn't going to do diddly squat about climate change and sea level rise.


Sea level gonna rise
So Beach gonna die
Joe Biden is a senile old fart
I'm telling you he won't do diddly squat

Cheers!

"Coastal Cities to Flood More Frequently As Moon’s Orbit Changes"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/watch/co ... d=msedgdhp

Great news! This is a short Weather Channel video.

"Coastal communities saw record-setting high-tide flooding in past year: NOAA"
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-envir ... ng-in-2020

More great news! When my wife and I shop for cars in Miami, we don't even consider options that are not built on a higher platform. We had a Honda Civic float in South Beach in the early 90s, and only consider 4WD SUVs now. I wish I could buy a subcompact like the Suzuki Swifts we owned after the Civic, but it would be a stupid choice here today, unfortunately.

JuanP wrote:"Coastal communities saw record-setting high-tide flooding in past year: NOAA"
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-envir ... ng-in-2020

More great news! When my wife and I shop for cars in Miami, we don't even consider options that are not built on a higher platform. We had a Honda Civic float in South Beach in the early 90s, and only consider 4WD SUVs now. I wish I could buy a subcompact like the Suzuki Swifts we owned after the Civic, but it would be a stupid choice here today, unfortunately.

Given the realities of SLR and FL geography, including so much sand, it amazes me that so many are willing to risk living in FL, given realities (over time) like property insurance and AGW getting steadily worse (as a trend), and even accelerating.

The more time passes, the more I don't get it.

At least in Miami, they're trying to do something about the flooding, but given all the costs over time though, I can only imagine what the taxes will be like in a decade or two. Plus what things will be like when a big storm causes the mitigation measures to fail -- even for just a couple/few days.

More and more, I like the fact that boring old central KY is almost immune from blizzards, major flooding, big earthquakes, hurricanes, all but very rare tornadoes, etc. Sometimes, boring is GOOD.

Plantagenet wrote:

jedrider wrote:realclimate.org is back! Trump is not here to fire the truthtellers any longer.

Why is future sea level rise still so uncertain?
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/05/why-is-future-sea-level-rise-still-so-uncertain/#more-23600

And Obama isn't here to make phony promises about stopping the sea from rising.

Nope....what we've got now is a senile old man named Biden who, just like Trump and Obama, isn't going to do diddly squat about climate change and sea level rise.


Sea level gonna rise
So Beach gonna die
Joe Biden is a senile old fart
I'm telling you he won't do diddly squat

Cheers!

There are 5 kg of co2 per square meter. That's about a inch. It is claimed a 1% increase of co2 raises temperature 1 degree or more, at 1 kw per square meter. Delta T between earth and space is 300K. That means we need a R value of .3 to insulate the earth. "Normal" insulation is around 1.

From [here](https://pmags.com/sleepings-pads-a-grounded-view) a R value of 1 insulates approximately a five degree difference. So we would need a 400% increase in co2 to raise temperature five degrees K.

Yet, climate models like IPCC require a ~5% rise in co2 for this. Converted to an R value this would mean co2 is 30 or more.

Why is co2 10-100x more effective as a insulator than in real life?

mustang19 wrote: we would need a 400% increase in co2 to raise temperature five degrees K.

My gosh....you really are a doomer, aren't you.

CO2 has more then doubled since the 18th century, and temperature has gone up ca. 1.5 to 1.8 degrees C. We've already got sea level increasing, forest fires exploding across the west, huge flooding events in China and Europe, the most powerful hurricanes ever seen and we've just gone through the hottest June on record.......and you are thinking about a "five degree K" temperature increase?

WOW.....I'm not sure things are going to hold together if we just get up to the 2 degree C increase that the Paris Accords are going to bring about.


We're going to see what kind of climate disasters a 2 degree C increase in global T bring about in the next 10-20 years or so, IMHO.....thats should be bad enough for anyone I would think

Cheers!

Plantagenet wrote:

mustang19 wrote: we would need a 400% increase in co2 to raise temperature five degrees K.

My gosh....you really are a doomer, aren't you.

CO2 has more then doubled since the 18th century, and temperature has gone up ca. 1.5 to 1.8 degrees C. We've already got sea level increasing, forest fires exploding across the west, huge flooding events in China and Europe, the most powerful hurricanes ever seen and we've just gone through the hottest June on record.......and you are thinking about a "five degree K" temperature increase?

WOW.....I'm not sure things are going to hold together if we just get up to the 2 degree C increase that the Paris Accords are going to bring about.


We're going to see what kind of climate disasters a 2 degree C increase in global T bring about in the next 10-20 years or so, IMHO.....thats should be bad enough for anyone I would think

Cheers!

Your own actions prove you don't believe what you're saying. You claim co2 is a 100x better insulator than fiberglass. Words are meaningless to you.

Now of course if you mean only climate change - that happens, libs will die too. A thousand years ago Siberia was a rainforest.

But the global warming issue is entirely irrelevant due to society collapsing anyway.

mustang19 wrote: You claim co2 is a 100x better insulator than fiberglass.

No I don't. I've never said that.

mustang19 wrote: Words are meaningless to you.

No they aren't.

mustang19 wrote: . A thousand years ago Siberia was a rainforest.

No it wasn't.

mustang19 wrote: the global warming issue is entirely irrelevant due to society collapsing .....

Right-O.

Keep telling yourself that.....but given how many clearly delusional things you post I don't see how you can trust your own opinion on anything.

Cheers!

Plantagenet wrote:

mustang19 wrote: You claim co2 is a 100x better insulator than fiberglass.

No I don't. I've never said that.

mustang19 wrote: Words are meaningless to you.

No they aren't.

mustang19 wrote: . A thousand years ago Siberia was a rainforest.

No it wasn't.

mustang19 wrote: the global warming issue is entirely irrelevant due to society collapsing .....

Right-O.

Keep telling yourself that.....but given how many clearly delusional things you post I don't see how you can trust your own opinion on anything.

Cheers!

Then you've refuted global warming and accept co2 is feeble. Anyway whatever mr troll

mustang19 wrote:... you've refuted global warming....

Yes....you said that once before and other posters said you were an idiot.

Clearly your reading comprehension skills are extremely limited and/or you are delusional.

Given your clear inability to carry on an intelligent conversation I think I'm going to close here by doing a victory dance.


good luck to you!

Cheers!

Plantagenet wrote:

mustang19 wrote:... you've refuted global warming....

Yes....you said that once before and other posters said you were an idiot.

Clearly your reading comprehension skills are extremely limited and/or you are delusional.

Given your clear inability to carry on an intelligent conversation I think I'm going to close here by doing a victory dance.


good luck to you!

Cheers!

If you deny the mentally retarded claim that co2 is a 100x better insulator than real insulation then global warming collapses.

Plant,
Nice victory dance. Well deserved.

Newfie wrote:Plant,
Nice victory dance. Well deserved.

It's obvious you don't believe what you're saying. Go overturn physics with your insulation claim.

Guys, gay marriage is now a THING!

Just sayin'.