Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Climate change another name for Weather

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
2020hindsight said:
Rob
I'll only concede (at this stage) that snowfalls over the landmass of Antarctica are possibly increasing - to marginally offset the trend with sea ice... krill is reducing fast etc ... emperor penguins are severely reduced
Click to expand...
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200901/programs/ZY8591A001D11012009T193000.htm

"Emperor penguins ... not even their survival skills may save them ... As more ice melts, their colonies are literally disappearing into the sea" :eek:

PS throw in the major factor of greater intensity of storms at sea :2twocents
 
rederob said:
Smurf, this doesn't answer that question, but adds a variable that most forget about:
Click to expand...
What I'm thinking of is:

These things all add to the amount of water in the ocean:

*Unlocking water via mining etc

*Loss of water "locked up" in forests when land is cleared

*Fossil fuel combustion

*Draining of aquifers

*Dumping of literally anything at sea, including land reclamation, isn't adding water but it's adding mass and having the same effect of pushing up the sea level. Rubbish, land reclamation, mine tailings, silt... I'd say the total volume here is not insignificant.

*All the boats, pipelines, cables, bridge piers and so on that we've put in the water. They may individually be trivial (which they are) but there's rather a lot of them worldwide so the total impact may not be so trivial.

On the other hand, the construction of impoundments (dams) does the opposite and takes water OUT of the sea thus dropping its level. I don't have figures, but once you've seen a few decent size man-made "inland seas" you do start to realise that there's rather a lot of water locked up this way. And that's water that would otherwise be in the oceans.

A theory I'll put forward here is that we'll see a reduction in sea level rise (compared to whatever the trend is) over the next couple of years. My reasoning being nothing to do with the science of the isssue but rather, simple economics. With the economy seemingly falling off a cliff, we ought to see a slowdown in us adding things to the ocean and at the same time a likely rise in the total volume of stored water as energy and agricultural demands drop.

As I've noted previously, there's an inverse correlation between ecomomic cycles and dam storage levles. Right now we seem to be just over the economic peak and just over the water storage bottom - the cycle is holding up thus far. Obviously not in every place on earth, but it's happened enough times now to be worth thinking about. :2twocents
 
wayneL said:
It's a great depiction of a chaotic system, but as an analogy for climate, a joke.
Click to expand...

Another "joke" for ya Wayno... :)

Albury/Wodonga 7 Day Forecast Issued at 5:30 am EDT on Monday 12 January 2009 for the period until midnight EDT Sunday 18 January 2009.

Forecast for the rest of Monday
Sunny. Winds southeasterly averaging 10 to 15 km/h, reaching 20 km/h at times.
Precis:
Sunny.
Max=34C
Maximum Fire Danger: Very High
UV Alert from 8:50 am to 5:50 pm, UV Index predicted to reach 15 [Extreme]

Forecast for Tuesday
Sunny. Winds northeasterly averaging up to 20 km/h.
Precis:
Sunny.
Min=18C
Max=38C

Forecast for Wednesday
Sunny day. Winds north to northwesterly averaging 15 to 25 km/h.
Precis:
Sunny day.
Min=22C
Max=41C

Forecast for Thursday
Partly cloudy. Winds northwest to southwesterly averaging up to 25 km/h tending south to southwesterly up to 20 km/h later in the evening.
Precis:
Partly cloudy.
Min=23C
Max=39C

Forecast for Friday
Sunny. Winds south to southeasterly averaging 10 to 20 km/h.
Precis:
Sunny.
Min=18C
Max=35C

Forecast for Saturday
Sunny. Winds northeast to southeasterly averaging 15 to 20 km/h becoming light during the afternoon.
Precis:
Sunny.
Min=16C
Max=36C

Forecast for Sunday
Morning cloud. Light winds.
Precis:
Morning cloud.
Min=18C
Max=41C

The next routine forecast will be issued at 4:30 pm EDT Monday.
Click to expand...

Enjoy the coolroom.... :cool:

aj
 
GumbyLearner said:
Just thought I would add this to the discussion

Greenland melting may be a temporary phenomenon say Scientists
from AFP Jan 12 2009

The recent acceleration of glacier melt-off in Greenland, which some scientists fear could dramatically raise sea levels, may only be a temporary phenomenon, according to a study published Sunday.

http://news.theage.com.au/world/mas...not-so-fast-say-scientists-20090112-7egz.html
Click to expand...
It's an interesting headline.
The storyline reveals a more balanced position.
A less dramatic read on the Greenland position is at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417142507.htm
 
Smurf1976 said:
What I'm thinking of is:
<SNIP>
A theory I'll put forward here is that we'll see a reduction in sea level rise (compared to whatever the trend is) over the next couple of years. My reasoning being nothing to do with the science of the isssue but rather, simple economics. With the economy seemingly falling off a cliff, we ought to see a slowdown in us adding things to the ocean and at the same time a likely rise in the total volume of stored water as energy and agricultural demands drop.

As I've noted previously, there's an inverse correlation between ecomomic cycles and dam storage levles. Right now we seem to be just over the economic peak and just over the water storage bottom - the cycle is holding up thus far. Obviously not in every place on earth, but it's happened enough times now to be worth thinking about. :2twocents
Click to expand...
Hi Smurf,

The attached table is from the 2007 IPCC summary for policymakers. I can't say that its meaning is instantly obvious to me, but two things seem clear. One is that the greatest contributor to sea level rise to date is thermal expansion - warmer water takes up more space. The other is that the contribution of melting ice has increased in recent years.

The report FAQ comments that:
The reasonable agreement in recent years between the observed rate of sea level rise and the sum of thermal expansion and loss of land ice suggests an upper limit for the magnitude of change in land-based water storage, which is relatively poorly known. Model results suggest no net trend in the storage of water over land due to climate-driven changes but there are large interannual and decadal fluctuations. However, for the recent period 1993 to 2003, the small discrepancy between observed sea level rise and the sum of known contributions might be due to unquantified human-induced processes (e.g., groundwater extraction, impoundment in reservoirs, wetland drainage and deforestation).
Click to expand...
I haven't looked for more recent work on the effect of unlocking land-based water storage.

Interesting.
 

Attachments

  • SeaLevelFactors.pdf
    30.8 KB · Views: 59
GumbyLearner said:
Just thought I would add this to the discussion

Greenland melting may be a temporary phenomenon say Scientists
from AFP Jan 12 2009

The recent acceleration of glacier melt-off in Greenland, which some scientists fear could dramatically raise sea levels, may only be a temporary phenomenon, according to a study published Sunday.
Click to expand...
gumby , howdy

On the one hand, the spokesman for this theory says this ...

Whatever happens at the terminus provokes a strong and rapid reaction in the rest of the glacier. The result has been a significant loss of mass" as huge chunks of ice drop into the ocean, a process known as calving, Vieli explained.

These changes are also set in motion by global warming, but are not likely to last, he said.
Click to expand...

But he goes on to say this ...

Vieli cautioned that his findings, published in Nature Geoscience, are narrowly focused on one glacier, and that sea levels could still rise higher than the IPCC's original projections. [18 to 59 centimetres by 2100 due to thermal expansion].

Other Greenland glaciers behave differently, and the dynamics of the Antarctic ice sheet are still poorly understood, he noted.

Nor should the new study "be taken out of context to suggest that climate change is not a serious threat -- it is," he added.
Click to expand...
 
A post here is equivalent to three internet links is it not? – one to find ASF home, one to find the thread, and one to post. :2twocents
 
2020hindsight post #1126 said:
WWF (apart from having diametrically different opinions to many around here :rolleyes:) also has this calculator ...
[ of carbon footprint]
Click to expand...
you have to be a bit suspicious of some of these carbon footprint calculations ...

If you take that test for instance, and take it to the least possible footprint (obviously hypothetical) ...
Q "how much meat do you eat?" A "none, I'm a vegan"
- none, or the bare minimum of which, is processed or packaged or tranported more than 325km
- much less rubbish than average
- live in a free-standing house without running water
- no electricity
- share a house of 50sq m or less :)eek: about the size of a bendy-bus)
- with 7 or more (depends if you include weekends)
- always walk or ride a pushbike, never drive or take public transport
- never fly
Click to expand...

Conclusion (according to that WWF calculator)..
"If everyone lived like you, you'd need 1.7 Planet Earths to provide enough resources." !! :confused:

So my conclusion from that is that we need a cleaner source of power.
- and stop worrying whether we leave the bathroom light on at nights. :2twocents

PS and you'd make 4.6T of carbon / yr. (and more than 50% of that due to "food"). (??)
So if vegan's aren't good enough for this new world, we're in serious trouble :2twocents.
 
2020hindsight said:
you have to be a bit suspicious of some of these carbon footprint calculations ...

If you take that test for instance, and take it to the least possible footprint (obviously hypothetical) ...


Conclusion (according to that WWF calculator)..
"If everyone lived like you, you'd need 1.7 Planet Earths to provide enough resources." !! :confused:

So my conclusion from that is that we need a cleaner source of power.
- and stop worrying whether we leave the bathroom light on at nights. :2twocents
Click to expand...

Jeez, 2020,

If you are coming clean on your footprint, imagine what a confession Al Gore
would have to make.

Which brings us all the way back to the first entry I posted on this thread.

So can we now end it where we began?

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
Jeez, 2020,

If you are coming clean on your footprint, imagine what a confession Al Gore
would have to make.

Which brings us all the way back to the first entry I posted on this thread.

So can we now end it where we began?

gg
Click to expand...
In the real world I am suspicious of people who talk to themselves.
In cyberspace I share that with people who respond to their own posts.
 
Originally Posted by Smurf1976 showthread.php?p=384155 - post384155showthread.php?p=384155 - post384155
What I'm thinking of is:
<SNIP>
A theory I'll put forward here is that we'll see a reduction in sea level rise (compared to whatever the trend is) over the next couple of years. My reasoning being nothing to do with the science of the isssue but rather, simple economics. With the economy seemingly falling off a cliff, we ought to see a slowdown in us adding things to the ocean and at the same time a likely rise in the total volume of stored water as energy and agricultural demands drop.
Click to expand...

Quite interesting, we could try to store water as much as possible and dredge the seabed to reduce sea level.

Task almost as big as to reduce the CO2 emission, but if every person just stored 1 litre bottle per day we could store 6 billion litres a day 42 billion per week .. and so on.

Instead of recycling plastic bottles we could just fill them up with water and store.
But in the end almost as impossible as replace electricity base load with alternative energy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top