This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

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"

PS throw in the major factor of greater intensity of storms at sea
 
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.
 
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...


Enjoy the coolroom....

aj
 
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
 
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:
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: 60
gumby , howdy

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


But he goes on to say this ...

 
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.
 
2020hindsight post #1126 said:
WWF (apart from having diametrically different opinions to many around here ) 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) ...

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

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.

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 .
 

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.
 

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.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...