Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: "Stupid" Questions :o  (Read 427196 times)

Klondike Kat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 479
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1950 on: June 14, 2019, 02:27:16 PM »
2. Yes, ice has been declining since the end of the last ice age. The rate of decline is now many times that of the historical average.

Sorry to disagree but this is not correct - the ice has been increasing for the last 8000 years, something that only turned around some decades ago and is now going rapidly in the other direction.

The ice declined rapidly between 11.000 and 8.000 years ago, but then started to increase again. This is a very important point to make, the current changes are not "the same but bigger", but do in fact go against the recent trend, and against all the exptected changes caused by changes in  all the natural causes.
Since the climatic maximum, some 8000 years ago, glaciers have advanced and receded several times.  Exactly how many times this has occurred varies among scientists, as global glacial advance has not been in sync.  Most recently, glaciers were receded until the start of the 14th century, when European and Asian glaciers began advancing.  North American glaciers did not start their advance until about a century later.  The Himalayan glaciers were the first to stem their advance sometime in the 17th century.  The Canadian Rockies and Alaska appear to be the last, holding out until the end of the 19th century.  Individual glaciers can buck this trend, due to factors other than temperature.  Hubbard glacier in Alaska receded during the entire Little Ice Age, but has been advancing for the last century.

Not sure where you have your information from but you seem to be talking about short term fluctuations. In Iceland it is well established that over the last 8000 years, glaciers have grown from practically non-existent to covering some 10.000 km2. Absolute maximum extent was reached around 1930.

And this of course fits in with a world that is generally getting colder - by a massive 0.5C over 8000 years up to the middle of the 19th century. Since then, of course, the world has warmed by at least 1 degree.

Yes, they are short term in geologic time, lasting less than a millennium.  It has been an even shorter time since 1930 (although many glaciologists state 1850 as the maximum glacial extent during the LIA).

binntho

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 354
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1951 on: June 14, 2019, 03:06:15 PM »
2. Yes, ice has been declining since the end of the last ice age. The rate of decline is now many times that of the historical average.

Sorry to disagree but this is not correct - the ice has been increasing for the last 8000 years, something that only turned around some decades ago and is now going rapidly in the other direction.

The ice declined rapidly between 11.000 and 8.000 years ago, but then started to increase again. This is a very important point to make, the current changes are not "the same but bigger", but do in fact go against the recent trend, and against all the exptected changes caused by changes in  all the natural causes.
Since the climatic maximum, some 8000 years ago, glaciers have advanced and receded several times.  Exactly how many times this has occurred varies among scientists, as global glacial advance has not been in sync.  Most recently, glaciers were receded until the start of the 14th century, when European and Asian glaciers began advancing.  North American glaciers did not start their advance until about a century later.  The Himalayan glaciers were the first to stem their advance sometime in the 17th century.  The Canadian Rockies and Alaska appear to be the last, holding out until the end of the 19th century.  Individual glaciers can buck this trend, due to factors other than temperature.  Hubbard glacier in Alaska receded during the entire Little Ice Age, but has been advancing for the last century.

Not sure where you have your information from but you seem to be talking about short term fluctuations. In Iceland it is well established that over the last 8000 years, glaciers have grown from practically non-existent to covering some 10.000 km2. Absolute maximum extent was reached around 1930.

And this of course fits in with a world that is generally getting colder - by a massive 0.5C over 8000 years up to the middle of the 19th century. Since then, of course, the world has warmed by at least 1 degree.

Yes, they are short term in geologic time, lasting less than a millennium.  It has been an even shorter time since 1930 (although many glaciologists state 1850 as the maximum glacial extent during the LIA).

The whole discussion was about whether there had been a steady decrease in the amount of ice since the end of the last Ice age, or not. Some people seem to think that this is/has been the case, i.e. that once the last glacial ended, the world has been getting progressively warmer.

Many people, both deniers and not, seem to think that the world would be warming anyway, and that AGW is just adding increasing the speed of warming.

This is obviously not the case - the maximum was reached 8000 years ago and since then it has been getting progressively colder, with a fairly constant (although fluctuating) growth in ice, both as glaciation and as sea ice.



As for whether the last maximum glaciation was reached in 1850 or 1930 is not really important.

When Iceland was settled in the middle ages, a large valley in the south of Iceland was given the name "the big forest". In the 1300s and 1400s the inland glacier slowly advanced over farmland and by the end of the middle ages, the area was no longer habitable. By the early 1900s the glacier tongue had almost reached the sea, lacking only a few tens of meters. Since then, that glacier tongue has retreated some 10 kilometers inland.

So the constant and relentless growth of glaciers was a stark reality until the beginning of the 20th century. Today the glaciers are shrinking extremely fast, and may be all but disappeared in 200 years or so.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 5008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 737
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1952 on: June 14, 2019, 05:00:16 PM »
This is a good thread. I write something that turns out wrong, and I find out loads of stuff I never knew before, like about the Icelandic and other glaciers relentless advance until n years ago, where n is not so big.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1450
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 307
  • Likes Given: 1432
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1953 on: June 14, 2019, 05:27:02 PM »
Isn't this why we are here, learning new stuff? :)

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 5008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 737
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1954 on: June 14, 2019, 06:16:09 PM »
Isn't this why we are here, learning new stuff? :)
No, I am learning how to pontificate about things of which I know very little or nothing (trainee politician).
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

LeftyLarry

  • NewMembers
  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1955 on: June 14, 2019, 06:17:36 PM »
<snip, I'm not interested in discussions from 20 years ago, as the days of hard climate risk denial are well behind us. I'm willing to allow some 'skepticism' on this forum, but let it at least be about the ice, containing as little debunked misinformation as possible (and zero links to climate risk denier material); N.>
« Last Edit: June 14, 2019, 07:19:45 PM by Neven »

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1450
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 307
  • Likes Given: 1432
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1956 on: June 14, 2019, 06:38:02 PM »
Close enough! ;)

Tor Bejnar

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2580
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 214
  • Likes Given: 82
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1957 on: June 14, 2019, 06:48:58 PM »
B_'s melt pond code in Sentinel-hub Playground has an interesting 'feature'.  The edge of melt ponds have a darker pink rim.  I suspect the blue-green is 'melt pond' and the darker pink is 'saturated snow'.  What do you think of my suspicion? (Note scale in lower right corner - this is blown up big!)
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1450
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 307
  • Likes Given: 1432
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1958 on: June 14, 2019, 06:57:06 PM »
Quote
I suspect the blue-green is 'melt pond' and the darker pink is 'saturated snow'.

I had the same thought, Tor.

The darker pink rim i suspect ice that's seen through thin water layers. When it's going deeper, it's getting bluer.

Glen Koehler

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 27
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1959 on: June 14, 2019, 07:23:27 PM »
RE:  LeftyLarry
1.   .... "ice comes and goes naturally and man adjusts"
2.  ..."ice been slowly declining since the end of the ice age"   
3.  ...."could a volcanic eruption, bring enough cooling to regrow the lost ice and stop the long term patterns of continued loss"
4. "If all the ice melted and the oceans rose , wouldn’t there still be a huge net gain of habitable land overall?"

    Whether trolling or not, these are questions/assumption many people have, including the U.S. Secretary of State, who recently suggested that people will just move to accomodate a change climate, that climate has always changed, etc.
    What is missing in those perspectives is a sense of scale for time and impacts, along with some basic misunderstandings.

My take on 1-4.
    1.  As others here have noted here and elswhere, it's one thing for a nomadic society of let's say 7,000 humans to move their tents inland in response to millenial rates of change.  Quite another for 7 billion humans with massive infrastructure investments and needs to react to rates of change 10x to 100x faster, thus decadal changes as large as what happend across a 1,000 years in the past. 

     2.  Others here have commented here in more detail.  I'll just add that the "natural" trend has been a gradual cooling since the Holocene peak a few thousand years ago.  Gradual because that cooling was due primarily to natural, = very slow, shift in orbital cycle.  What humans are doing to atmosphere, starting with use of coal as energy source starting ca. 1750, and esp. since 1970 with global increase in fossil fuels, is orders of magnitude more intense and faster than even the most radical climate shifts that led to mass extinctions (90+% of species) in the geologic record.

    3.  Even another Tambora eruption (which caused the "Year without a summer" in New England in 1816) won't protect us from our radical heating of the Earth.  While some climate scientists say the temperature effect is discernible longer than the usually cited 'couple of years', it is temporary nonetheless.  A cooling caused by volcanic emissions into the stratosphere, or a synthetic version through geoengineering, also does nothing to reduce ocean acidification.  Geoengineering to reduce solar energy also introduces major risk of disrupting monsoon and other weather patterns.  "Let's try this, what could go wrong?"  Lots.

    4.  Moving from recently inundated coastlines to newly exposed land formerly under ice caps would bring with it economic and humanitarian destruction of unprecedented scale in the history of human civilization since 4000 B.C.E..  But in addition, just moving the crop belts north isn't going to work.  The temperature bands will move north, but the amount of solar radiation for photosynthesis isn't changing, and the glaciated soil types in central Canada, for example, are not the same as Iowa which used to have 10 feet of top soil in places.  It's going to be tough enough to feed 10 billion people in 2050.  Doing that with degraded ag productivity, which is the consensus projection for global average temperature beyond +1.5-2C (mixed results for lower temp. change) could be impossible. 
      And don't let anybody fool you with the "CO2 fertilization" smoke screen. Increasing CO2 can indeed increase plant growth under controlled conditions where everything else is supplied at optimum (water, fertility, temperature).  Raise CO2 to 450-500ppm in the real world and you won't get any plant growth benefit because those other inputs are not optimized.  Major world food crops are near their thermal maximum now.  Increased temperatures would/will take them over the top of the curve and onto the declining production side even if water supply wasn't an issue.  Moreover, studies find that for the plants that we eat, aka "crops", while they can be grown bigger under higher CO2 with those perfect conditions I talked about above, the density for key nutrients goes down, so a person would have to consume more to get the same amount of nutritional benefit.

    Bottom line - climate disruption is going to kill people.  Lots of them.  The brown and poor people will get hit first, but nobody will escape the consequences of altering the basic life support system of planet Earth.  And by the way, we can't go to Mars.  Think about how many people on Earth it would take to support a colony of a dozen people living inside canisters on Mars.

    So if you love your grandkids (and how could you not) then do everything you can to raise awareness and alarm because this really is a crisis.  It is an unnecessary and avoidable crisis, because we already have the technical capability to produce the energy we need without suicidal continuation of fossil fuel addiction.  The real issue is one of character, long-term wisdom vs. short sighted fear, political will, and mobilization.  Start by refusing to vote for anyone who puts the lives of you, your children, and your grandchildren in mortal danger.

   Sorry for long post.  But you asked and this is the most important issue of human existence.  We have to get this right.  Failure is not an option.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2019, 12:03:59 AM by Glen Koehler »

oren

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3695
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 492
  • Likes Given: 1009
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1960 on: June 14, 2019, 07:27:36 PM »
Well said Glen.

Dharma Rupa

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 487
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1961 on: June 14, 2019, 11:18:50 PM »
In my experience, the people who now say that we can't do anything about it are the same who 15 years ago said that the world wasn't warming and 10 years ago that is wasn't caused my humans.

30 years ago I made sure I bought a house on a hill overlooking town (Boston) saying it was my future valuable oceanfront property.  I said then, and I say now, we sealed our fate before we even knew it was an issue some 150 years ago.

LeftyLarry

  • NewMembers
  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1962 on: June 15, 2019, 04:25:03 AM »
Thanks for the answers gentleman.
I still don’t know if I am a denier or not.
I believe in Anthropomorphic global warming but I still am not sure that the dire results described here by some are close to happening or will ever happen and if I’m wrong about that and the worst case scenario is the correct one, I’m still not sure we can stop it.  I  do know for certain that treaties designed to hurt the US economy while allowing the rest of the world , especially our economic competitors to continue polluting , certainly isn’t the answer.
I will keep lurking and keep asking questions.
I’m on the Board of two charities and active Politically , supporting various different politicians and causes and this often comes up.
I want to know more.

binntho

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 354
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1963 on: June 15, 2019, 07:21:50 AM »
Isn't this why we are here, learning new stuff? :)
No, I am learning how to pontificate about things of which I know very little or nothing (trainee politician).
Aren't we all!

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1450
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 307
  • Likes Given: 1432
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1964 on: June 15, 2019, 10:03:34 AM »
I still am not sure that the dire results described here by some are close to happening or will ever happen

It's simple math. We have n people dying from extreme weather. Year by year, since forever.

If the extremes are going more extreme, you'll have more people dying. Also, you have new problems on hand.

You are not supposed to do the math. Experts are doing it. And they are all pretty sure about the
consequences described above.

Quote
I’m still not sure we can stop it

Again, the things described above will happen. How severe they will affect us is a direct function of us emitting more or less CO2. Less CO2 will mitigate the severity!

Quote
I  do know for certain that treaties designed to hurt the US economy while allowing the rest of the world , especially our economic competitors to continue polluting , certainly isn’t the answer.

This sentence has nothing to do with reality what so ever and makes me very angry.

Per capita, the US is one of the top polluters in the world. Period! You get your shit fixed before telling others how unfair they allegedly are.

And you casually sprinkling in this supremacy BS makes me really doubt your username.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 5008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 737
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1965 on: June 15, 2019, 12:26:24 PM »
I  do know for certain that treaties designed to hurt the US economy while allowing the rest of the world , especially our economic competitors to continue polluting , certainly isn’t the answer.

This sentence has nothing to do with reality what so ever and makes me very angry.

Per capita, the US is one of the top polluters in the world. Period! You get your shit fixed before telling others how unfair they allegedly are.

And you casually sprinkling in this supremacy BS makes me really doubt your username.
makes me really doubt your username No longer any doubts for me.

LeftyLarry is quoting straight out of the Trumponomics / Heartland Institute / American Enterprise Institute et al playbook.

End
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 6748
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 430
  • Likes Given: 284
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1966 on: June 15, 2019, 02:57:09 PM »
I agree that the 'Lefty' spoils it all a bit.  ;D
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1227
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1967 on: June 15, 2019, 03:25:29 PM »
  I  do know for certain that treaties designed to hurt the US economy while allowing the rest of the world , especially our economic competitors to continue polluting , certainly isn’t the answer.

Gerontocrat addressed this abominable assertion, and I have to concur.  The Paris agreement is absolutely not "designed" to hurt the US economy.  It is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the globe.  It's almost certainly insufficient, but a step in the right direction.

While Trump has reneged on this commitment, many jurisdictions have reaffirmed their commitment to it.  Here we see that reducing emissions is not harmful to economic wellbeing.  California is embracing the Paris commitment, and is simultaneously an economic powerhouse.

I suspect that avoiding 2 degrees C of warming by 2100 is no longer attainable.  But doing nothing versus doing our collective best may mean the difference between 4 and 6 degrees of warming.  Which, in turn, may be the difference between some continuance of human civilization and a mass extinction which takes homo sapiens with it.

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2220
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1968 on: June 15, 2019, 03:46:30 PM »
I agree that the 'Lefty' spoils it all a bit.  ;D

I wondered if it was a case of deliberate plausible deniability: If questioned, he could say he was left handed rather than it referring to political beliefs.  ;)

Archimid

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1908
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1969 on: June 15, 2019, 04:23:42 PM »
But doing nothing versus doing our collective best may mean the difference between 4 and 6 degrees of warming.  Which, in turn, may be the difference between some continuance of human civilization and a mass extinction which takes homo sapiens with it.

4 degrees by 2100 is almost equally bad as 6. Holding warming to 4C by 2100 is not a solution to the problem.

I wish there was a good source on what is "safe warming". Such paper should examine what is a safe speed of warming and what is a safe total warming.

Only then ECS becomes useful and correct targets can be set. 4C is an entirely different world.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1450
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 307
  • Likes Given: 1432
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1970 on: June 15, 2019, 04:38:00 PM »
Radar experts.

This i don't understand. The open sea area in Lincoln at Nares shows up as black&white. Why is it that open sea ice area showing a brightness difference?

Could it be caused by waves?

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3500
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1971 on: June 15, 2019, 08:47:31 PM »
In my experience, the people who now say that we can't do anything about it are the same who 15 years ago said that the world wasn't warming and 10 years ago that is wasn't caused my humans.

If you are going to be wrong, you might as well be consistently wrong.

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3500
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1972 on: June 15, 2019, 08:52:53 PM »
Isn't this why we are here, learning new stuff? :)
No, I am learning how to pontificate about things of which I know very little or nothing (trainee politician).

You're not doing a very good job. You should stick to something you're good at like delivering hard facts and observations that we can digest and discuss.

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3500
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 22
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1973 on: June 15, 2019, 08:55:41 PM »
You have to give LL credit. He is at least self aware enough to post his comments on this thread.

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1450
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 307
  • Likes Given: 1432
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1974 on: June 15, 2019, 09:01:00 PM »
 ;D

Rod

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 136
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1975 on: June 16, 2019, 03:25:01 AM »
I will keep lurking and keep asking questions.
I’m on the Board of two charities and active Politically , supporting various different politicians and causes and this often comes up.
I want to know more.

Granpaw Larry, when you done messin with them folks on the ice forems will you help me find my MAGA hat? 

Trumps Holdn a rally tonight and I want him to know we are active politically.

Dharma Rupa

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 487
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1976 on: June 16, 2019, 04:46:09 PM »
Again, the things described above will happen. How severe they will affect us is a direct function of us emitting more or less CO2. Less CO2 will mitigate the severity!

150 years too late.  Less CO2 might reduce the duration, but we've already screwed up.

johnm33

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1200
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1977 on: June 16, 2019, 05:05:50 PM »
"Could it be caused by waves?"
Sometimes when the sea's turbulent wave patterns show but whether they're actual waves in the ocean or concentrations of evaporation? That is I think there are waves but that's not the aspect that shows.

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1450
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 307
  • Likes Given: 1432
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1978 on: June 16, 2019, 06:03:39 PM »
Thanks, John, i tend to think the same.

It matches well with the wind pattern shown on Windy.

RoxTheGeologist

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 354
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1979 on: June 16, 2019, 07:29:00 PM »
Thanks for the answers gentleman.
I still don’t know if I am a denier or not.
I believe in Anthropomorphic global warming but I still am not sure that the dire results described here by some are close to happening or will ever happen and if I’m wrong about that and the worst case scenario is the correct one, I’m still not sure we can stop it.  I  do know for certain that treaties designed to hurt the US economy while allowing the rest of the world , especially our economic competitors to continue polluting , certainly isn’t the answer.
I will keep lurking and keep asking questions.
I’m on the Board of two charities and active Politically , supporting various different politicians and causes and this often comes up.
I want to know more.

Perhaps geologists are the most worried about climate change. We are well aware that there is enough water trapped in the ice caps to change sea-level by 100's of meters. A small 6m increase similar to the last time the earth was this hot is no big shakes to a geologist, but would be devastating to the 53% of the earths population that live close to coasts. We are pushing the world very quickly towards that state.

The US has perhaps the least to gain from climate change. Much of the Mississippi valley will flood, coastlines will be inundated. 40% of the US population lives in coastal counties. Southern states will be come too hot, farming output will decline. Northern countries stand the most to gain from climate change; Russia will gain the most. If you want to know where Trump's climate policy is coming from I suspect you have to look to Moscow.



SteveMDFP

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1227
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 103
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1980 on: June 16, 2019, 08:16:38 PM »
Perhaps geologists are the most worried about climate change. 

Yes, except for the significant fraction employed by the fossil fuel industry.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

Upton Sinclair

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 5008
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 737
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1981 on: June 16, 2019, 08:32:05 PM »
Every day the USA has a few more climate refugees - not immigrants,  citizens of the USA.

A street in Charleston? is zoned  for demolition and to be returned to wetland. The houseowners are being paid off and leaving.

In New Jersey the government is still trying to get houseowners to move as where they live cannot be protected from the next surge.

Some farmers and residents along the USA's great rivers have been flooded out once too often and for too long. They are abandoning the land - i.e. they are climate refugees.

This is the here and now, not some Armageddon in the future.

It will get worse before it gets better. It will only get better if people get off the fence and DO something about it.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

b_lumenkraft

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1450
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 307
  • Likes Given: 1432
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1982 on: June 16, 2019, 08:39:23 PM »

nanning

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1983 on: Today at 07:03:37 AM »
By burning hydrocarbons we got a lot of chemical energy. I don't know much about chemistry but am thinking you have to put the same chemical energy back in (actually more) to rebind the CO2 (on the same scale). Is my simplistic thinking correct?

binntho

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 354
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1984 on: Today at 07:17:26 AM »
By burning hydrocarbons we got a lot of chemical energy. I don't know much about chemistry but am thinking you have to put the same chemical energy back in (actually more) to rebind the CO2 (on the same scale). Is my simplistic thinking correct?
"Splitting" C and O from CO2 does indeed take a lot of energy. However, certain metals and metallic compounds will actually "burn" CO2, binding the O and releasing the C as soot. Magnesium is apparently one, and compounds of Lithium another.

This process creates energy and releases C, but oxidizes the metals used, so making them more or less worthless.

Pumping CO2 down boreholes into layers of basaltic rock will bind the CO2 permanently through mineral carbonization, apparently large scale experiments have been conducted in Iceland.

nanning

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1985 on: Today at 07:41:00 AM »
Thank you binntho.
Regarding the Iceland experiment, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-43789527:

  "Reactions were a lot faster than anticipated partly because of the large amounts of water used to dissolve the CO2.
This however points to one of the project's Achilles heels - it is very water intensive.

"It needs over 25 tonnes of water per tonne of CO2," says Prof Gislason. "In Iceland we are blessed with lots of rain, but if you are doing this on the basaltic areas in India... their water is very precious".

nanning

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1986 on: Today at 07:41:51 AM »
Regarding ClimateReanalyzer.org 2m temps,
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2

Does anyone know wether 'Avg' is the mean or the median?
And is the '2m Temperature Anomaly' calculated using 'Avg'?