Page 42 of 46 FirstFirst ... 17323334353637383940414243444546 LastLast
Results 821 to 840 of 920

Thread: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

  1. #821
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    833

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Let's see what is on their webpage:
    https://greens.org.au/bushfires

    Have Greens policies made it harder for Firies to backburn?

    No.

    “Problem is it’s drier and hotter. Around here we’ve been trying to do hazard reductions all year.” Blaming "greenies" for stopping these important measures is a familiar, populist, but basically untrue claim.”
    – Greg Mullins, fmr Fire & Rescue Commissioner. From: https://www.smh.com.au/national/this...10-p5395e.html

    “It’s very (insulting) to say they haven’t done enough of these burns, but the conditions have to be right to do hazard reductions. It comes down to cuts.”
    – Nathan Bradshaw, Public Service Association. From: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...5caaf44ef73ac1

    Has there been less backburning?

    No. NSW Rural Fire Service deputy commissioner Rob Rogers denied there had been less hazard-*reduction burning than in previous years. “Hazard reductions have gone on each and every year”. He added hazard reduction on its own was not enough to prevent bushfires.
    From: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...3622201c5b3be9

    Have the Greens recently changed their policy on this?

    No. The Greens have supported hazard reduction burns for a long time. For example, here’s a Facebook post from 2013.



    If there is regulation and a bit of bureaucracy to execute before doing prescribed fires by landowners, it is to protect the landscape, the air quality and the biodiversity. In the 1960s and the 1970s, prescribed burns were massive, often executed from aerial engines by the government in addition of the ones done by privates. There were massive damage to the landscape and to the biodiversity, important air pollution resulting in the prescribed burns. The area burned was far greater than the massive fire currently occurring.
    https://theconversation.com/a-surpri...ushfire-127022
    https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/media/...ustralasia.pdf
    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  2. #822
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,731

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Let's see what is on their webpage:
    https://greens.org.au/bushfires

    Have Greens policies made it harder for Firies to backburn?

    No.

    “Problem is it’s drier and hotter. Around here we’ve been trying to do hazard reductions all year.” Blaming "greenies" for stopping these important measures is a familiar, populist, but basically untrue claim.”
    – Greg Mullins, fmr Fire & Rescue Commissioner. From: https://www.smh.com.au/national/this...10-p5395e.html

    “It’s very (insulting) to say they haven’t done enough of these burns, but the conditions have to be right to do hazard reductions. It comes down to cuts.”
    – Nathan Bradshaw, Public Service Association. From: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...5caaf44ef73ac1

    Has there been less backburning?

    No. NSW Rural Fire Service deputy commissioner Rob Rogers denied there had been less hazard-*reduction burning than in previous years. “Hazard reductions have gone on each and every year”. He added hazard reduction on its own was not enough to prevent bushfires.
    From: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...3622201c5b3be9

    Have the Greens recently changed their policy on this?

    No. The Greens have supported hazard reduction burns for a long time. For example, here’s a Facebook post from 2013.



    If there is regulation and a bit of bureaucracy to execute before doing prescribed fires by landowners, it is to protect the landscape, the air quality and the biodiversity. In the 1960s and the 1970s, prescribed burns were massive, often executed from aerial engines by the government in addition of the ones done by privates. There were massive damage to the landscape and to the biodiversity, important air pollution resulting in the prescribed burns. The area burned was far greater than the massive fire currently occurring.
    https://theconversation.com/a-surpri...ushfire-127022
    https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/media/...ustralasia.pdf
    Looks like the greenies are in full defense mode with those spin articles. Here's the jist of what they are saying:

    "Those hazard burns can get out of control too. Look see, a couple of them got out of control and two homes were lost".

    That's a pretty weak defense considering that whole towns have been destroyed by not doing the winter burns thoroughly. They did the same thing in California with the exact same result.

    Not burning underbrush in fire prone areas is just stupid and a recipe for disaster. They need to accept responsibility.

  3. #823
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    833

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    "He wonders whether the forests and species will be able to recover. He was particularly concerned that rainforests and so-called "wet forests" had burned in northern parts of the state."
    https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/s...ational-parks/

    Bushfires devastate rare and enchanting wildlife as 'permanently wet' forests burn for first time
    "We are seeing fire going into these areas where fire is simply not meant to go," says Mr Graham, a fire specialist with the Nature Conservation Council.
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-...56?pfmredir=sm

    Why are our rainforests burning?
    Many of us may think the wet, humid conditions in a rainforest makes them unburnable, but bushfires in Australia and the Amazon are proving otherwise
    https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/artic...orests-burning

    Quote Originally Posted by B.W.
    That's a pretty weak defense considering that whole towns have been destroyed by not doing the winter burns thoroughly. They did the same thing in California with the exact same result.
    Do you have been bullied by a green when you were young or what?

    "The idea isn’t new. For countless generations, Indigenous people have worked with fire to maintain healthy landscapes that are less prone to massive wildfires. While allowing natural fires to burn, Native Americans in California and elsewhere started some intentionally to clear dry brush, maintain species balance, and create prairies and meadows where animals graze. In the early days of Western settlement, some ranchers also adopted this practice to maintain pastureland for cattle.

    But in the 1880’s, the US Army began to administer Yellowstone, the first national park, and developed the idea of “fighting” fire. In 1910, wildfires in Idaho and Montana burned millions of acres, destroying communities and killing 86 people. The US Forest Service subsequently adopted a policy of putting out all blazes, which state and federal land management agencies mimicked in an effort to protect timber supplies and human lives. Under these policies, Indigenous people and ranchers alike could be fined for burning their own lands.

    In 1968, the National Park Service lifted its fire ban after noticing a decline in giant sequoia trees, which depend on fire to grow. Over the next fifteen years, the Forest Service and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) gradually re-introduced fire to their landscapes. The Forest Service now admits that suppression backfired; excluding fire created an unnatural build-up of dry brush and overcrowding of trees that’s partly fueling today’s mega-fires. Scientists and policy makers increasingly agree that under the right conditions, intentionally burning away flammable vegetation is one of the most effective tools for reducing wildfire risk. And research shows that when wildfires do reach lands thinned by prescribed fire, far fewer trees die “even under extreme fire weather,” an effect that can last for up to 15-20 years.

    Yet we still have a long way to go. A recent analysis of government data titled “We’re Not Doing Enough Prescribed Fire in the Western United States to Mitigate Wildfire Risk,” written by University of Idaho fire scientist Crystal Kolden, found that between 1998 and 2018, the amount of prescribed burning in the Western US remained stable and even decreased in some areas. According to the Sacramento Bee, fewer than 90,000 acres of California were intentionally burned in 2018. Kolden roughly estimates that the state should be burning at least five times that amount.

    Yet not everyone is convinced that controlled burns are scaleable. Terry Warlick, a fire battalion chief with the US Forest Service who works in the Mendocino National Forest and attended the Karuk training, was enthusiastic about the “historical fire regime” modeled by tribes. But, he says not all communities will be.

    “They don’t like the smoke, they don’t want to see it—until they have to experience a wildfire,” he told me, as volunteers followed the shin-high flames creeping across the hillside. “It kind of seems like we got to go through, you know, an event to change our thought process.”

    “People are scared of any fire application,” says Hannan, the Cal Fire chief. “All they’ve known is these huge fires that burn down houses and sometimes kill people.”

    He was referring to recent infernos like the Camp and Carr Fires, but prescribed fires occasionally wreak havoc, too. A controlled burn’s “escape” started the 2000 Cerro Grande Fire in New Mexico, which scorched 47,000 acres and left 400 families homeless. Such incidents can be almost completely prevented, says Preston, by fire crews that have intimate knowledge of the lands they are burning, and follow specific techniques.

    Preston and other Karuk tribal members, in line with scientific consensus, believe there should be more prescribed fire throughout the year. The tribe’s plans for this year’s training burns were limited by a “burn ban” imposed all summer and reinstated this fall due to high winds and low humidity across most of California, the same conditions that prompted the utility company Pacific Gas & Electric to shut off power lines across the state, leaving millions without electricity. Yet Preston and others say the conditions in the mountainous region of Orleans were ideal for burning."

    A long time ago, the practice of prescribed burns have been removed from US common routine.
    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  4. #824
    Stario's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Oh - ooooh! totus floreo
    Posts
    1,646

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Geneava
    Let's see what is on their webpage:
    https://greens.org.au/bushfires9
    EH! You didn't find anything about what morons the Australian greens are on their own website...how surprising?!@#$!

    Try the link below as a start:

    Greens party combined with the Coalition to vote down the emissions trading scheme.
    https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fede...30-p53fmw.html


    Quote Originally Posted by B.W.
    That's a pretty weak defense considering that whole towns have been destroyed by not doing the winter burns thoroughly. They did the same thing in California with the exact same result.

    Not burning underbrush in fire prone areas is just stupid and a recipe for disaster. They need to accept responsibility.
    Well luckily the general public has caught on & don't buy the BS spouted by the Greens & their destructive ideologies -they are left with only one seat in the senate -one more election & hopefully they will be gone.
    Last edited by Stario; January 05, 2020 at 08:45 AM.

  5. #825
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,731

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    "He wonders whether the forests and species will be able to recover. He was particularly concerned that rainforests and so-called "wet forests" had burned in northern parts of the state."
    https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/s...ational-parks/

    Bushfires devastate rare and enchanting wildlife as 'permanently wet' forests burn for first time
    "We are seeing fire going into these areas where fire is simply not meant to go," says Mr Graham, a fire specialist with the Nature Conservation Council.
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-...56?pfmredir=sm

    Why are our rainforests burning?
    Many of us may think the wet, humid conditions in a rainforest makes them unburnable, but bushfires in Australia and the Amazon are proving otherwise
    https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/artic...orests-burning



    Do you have been bullied by a green when you were young or what?

    "The idea isn’t new. For countless generations, Indigenous people have worked with fire to maintain healthy landscapes that are less prone to massive wildfires. While allowing natural fires to burn, Native Americans in California and elsewhere started some intentionally to clear dry brush, maintain species balance, and create prairies and meadows where animals graze. In the early days of Western settlement, some ranchers also adopted this practice to maintain pastureland for cattle.

    But in the 1880’s, the US Army began to administer Yellowstone, the first national park, and developed the idea of “fighting” fire. In 1910, wildfires in Idaho and Montana burned millions of acres, destroying communities and killing 86 people. The US Forest Service subsequently adopted a policy of putting out all blazes, which state and federal land management agencies mimicked in an effort to protect timber supplies and human lives. Under these policies, Indigenous people and ranchers alike could be fined for burning their own lands.

    In 1968, the National Park Service lifted its fire ban after noticing a decline in giant sequoia trees, which depend on fire to grow. Over the next fifteen years, the Forest Service and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire) gradually re-introduced fire to their landscapes. The Forest Service now admits that suppression backfired; excluding fire created an unnatural build-up of dry brush and overcrowding of trees that’s partly fueling today’s mega-fires. Scientists and policy makers increasingly agree that under the right conditions, intentionally burning away flammable vegetation is one of the most effective tools for reducing wildfire risk. And research shows that when wildfires do reach lands thinned by prescribed fire, far fewer trees die “even under extreme fire weather,” an effect that can last for up to 15-20 years.

    Yet we still have a long way to go. A recent analysis of government data titled “We’re Not Doing Enough Prescribed Fire in the Western United States to Mitigate Wildfire Risk,” written by University of Idaho fire scientist Crystal Kolden, found that between 1998 and 2018, the amount of prescribed burning in the Western US remained stable and even decreased in some areas. According to the Sacramento Bee, fewer than 90,000 acres of California were intentionally burned in 2018. Kolden roughly estimates that the state should be burning at least five times that amount.

    Yet not everyone is convinced that controlled burns are scaleable. Terry Warlick, a fire battalion chief with the US Forest Service who works in the Mendocino National Forest and attended the Karuk training, was enthusiastic about the “historical fire regime” modeled by tribes. But, he says not all communities will be.

    “They don’t like the smoke, they don’t want to see it—until they have to experience a wildfire,” he told me, as volunteers followed the shin-high flames creeping across the hillside. “It kind of seems like we got to go through, you know, an event to change our thought process.”

    “People are scared of any fire application,” says Hannan, the Cal Fire chief. “All they’ve known is these huge fires that burn down houses and sometimes kill people.”

    He was referring to recent infernos like the Camp and Carr Fires, but prescribed fires occasionally wreak havoc, too. A controlled burn’s “escape” started the 2000 Cerro Grande Fire in New Mexico, which scorched 47,000 acres and left 400 families homeless. Such incidents can be almost completely prevented, says Preston, by fire crews that have intimate knowledge of the lands they are burning, and follow specific techniques.

    Preston and other Karuk tribal members, in line with scientific consensus, believe there should be more prescribed fire throughout the year. The tribe’s plans for this year’s training burns were limited by a “burn ban” imposed all summer and reinstated this fall due to high winds and low humidity across most of California, the same conditions that prompted the utility company Pacific Gas & Electric to shut off power lines across the state, leaving millions without electricity. Yet Preston and others say the conditions in the mountainous region of Orleans were ideal for burning."

    A long time ago, the practice of prescribed burns have been removed from US common routine.
    The pertinent language from your essay:

    According to the Sacramento Bee, fewer than 90,000 acres of California were intentionally burned in 2018. Kolden roughly estimates that the state should be burning at least five times that amount.

    I was a firefighter for five years in my younger days and I can tell you it requires a lot of fuel for fires to burn as hot as those we are seeing in California and Australia. That should be enough to show anyone that the underbrush burn-offs were insufficient. In each instance "treehuggers" were responsible and should be held accountable.

  6. #826
    JP226's Avatar Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,965

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    Let's see what is on their webpage:
    https://greens.org.au/bushfires

    Have Greens policies made it harder for Firies to backburn?

    No.

    “Problem is it’s drier and hotter. Around here we’ve been trying to do hazard reductions all year.” Blaming "greenies" for stopping these important measures is a familiar, populist, but basically untrue claim.”
    – Greg Mullins, fmr Fire & Rescue Commissioner. From: https://www.smh.com.au/national/this...10-p5395e.html

    “It’s very (insulting) to say they haven’t done enough of these burns, but the conditions have to be right to do hazard reductions. It comes down to cuts.”
    – Nathan Bradshaw, Public Service Association. From: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...5caaf44ef73ac1

    Has there been less backburning?

    No. NSW Rural Fire Service deputy commissioner Rob Rogers denied there had been less hazard-*reduction burning than in previous years. “Hazard reductions have gone on each and every year”. He added hazard reduction on its own was not enough to prevent bushfires.
    From: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...3622201c5b3be9

    Have the Greens recently changed their policy on this?

    No. The Greens have supported hazard reduction burns for a long time. For example, here’s a Facebook post from 2013.



    If there is regulation and a bit of bureaucracy to execute before doing prescribed fires by landowners, it is to protect the landscape, the air quality and the biodiversity. In the 1960s and the 1970s, prescribed burns were massive, often executed from aerial engines by the government in addition of the ones done by privates. There were massive damage to the landscape and to the biodiversity, important air pollution resulting in the prescribed burns. The area burned was far greater than the massive fire currently occurring.
    https://theconversation.com/a-surpri...ushfire-127022
    https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/media/...ustralasia.pdf


    Seriously hope you aren't old enough to vote.

  7. #827
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    833

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Hey the trolling guy with a rock fetish is back! We missed your provocative messages empty of any argument so much.
    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  8. #828
    Daruwind's Avatar Moderator
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,328

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Let´s leave rock fetish behind and let´s go under water...

    https://link.springer.com/content/pd...020-9283-7.pdf
    Record-Setting Ocean Warmth Continued in 2019

    These data reveal that the world’s oceans (especially at upper 2000 m) in 2019 were the warmest in recorded human history. Specifically, the ocean heat anomaly (0−2000 m) in 2019 was 228 Zetta Joules (ZJ, 1 ZJ=1021 Joules) above the 1981−2010 average and 25ZJ above 2018 (Table 1).The OHC values (for the upper 2000 m) were obtained from the Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IAP) ocean analysis(see “Data and methods” section, below), which uses a relatively new method to treat data sparseness and updates in the instruments that have been used to measure ocean temperature (Cheng et al., 2017). The evolution of OHC (Fig. 1) shows that the upper 2000 m OHC in 2019 was 228 ± 9 ZJ above the 1981–2010 average. The record-setting ocean warm this also found in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Center for Environmental Information(NOAA/NCEI) data, showing 217± 4 ZJ in 2019 above 1981−2010 average (21 ZJ above 2018) (Table 1) (updated fromLevitus et al. 2012). With these newly available IAP data, a ranking of the warmest years since 1950s is now possible (Ta-ble 1). The past five years are the top five warmest years in the ocean historically with modern instruments, and the past ten years are also the top ten years on record. The same ranking also applies to NOAA/NCEI data (Table 1)

    The ocean heating is irrefutable, and a key measure of the Earth’s energy imbalance: the excess GHGs in the air trapmore heat inside the climate system and drives global warming. More than 90% of the heat accumulates in the ocean because of its large heat capacity, and the remaining heating manifests as atmospheric warming, a drying and warming land-mass, and melting of land and sea ice. There are no reasonable alternatives aside from anthropogenic emissions of heat-trapping gases (IPCC, 2001, 2007, 2013, 2019; USGCRP, 2017). Increased ocean temperatures lead to rising sea levels(thermal expansion of the ocean and added mass from melting land ice) (Oppenheimer et al., 2019). According to the altimetry satellite record, the past 10 years are also the highest in global mean sea level since 1900 (IPCC, 2019).Increases in ocean temperature reduce dissolved oxygen in the ocean and significantly affect sea life, particularly cor-als and other temperature- and chemistry-sensitive organisms (Abram et al., 2019; Bindoff et al., 2019). The increasing heat increases evaporation, and the extra moisture in the warmer atmosphere nourishes heavy rains and promotes flooding(Trenberth et al., 2003; Held and Soden, 2006; Trenberth, 2011; Collins et al., 2019), leading to a more extreme hydrologic-al cycle and more extreme weather (in particular hurricanes and typhoons) (Trenberth et al., 2018). It is one of the key reasons why the Earth has experienced increasing catastrophic fires in the Amazon, California, and Australia in 2019 (extend-ing into 2020 for Australia).It is important to note that ocean warming will continue even if the global mean surface air temperature can be stabilized at or below 2°C (the key policy target of the Paris Agreement) in the 21st century (Cheng et al., 2019a; IPCC, 2019),due to the long-term commitment of ocean changes driven by GHGs. Here, the term “commitment” means that the ocean(and some other components in the Earth system, such as the large ice sheets) are slow to respond and equilibrate, and willcontinue to change even after radiative forcing stabilizes (Abram et al., 2019). However, the rates and magnitudes of oceanwarming and the associated risks will be smaller with lower GHG emissions (Cheng et al., 2019a; IPCC, 2019). Hence, therate of increase can be reduced by appropriate human actions that lead to rapid reductions in GHG emissions (Cheng et al.,2019a; IPCC, 2019), thereby reducing the risks to humans and other life on Earth.D
    What I find most astonishing is the rate. Especially given that people are always talking about long term mechanisms, effects....

    *Especially for B.W. and Stario, try something new as an argument. Not just that the data is faked, global conspiracy etc. With ease how you usually write it, show us on data. They are public. So show us some counter analysis, some logical error in those reports...else don´t even bother to comment

  9. #829
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Civitate

    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    6,681
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    What is the motivation for people to deny manmade climate change? Like, the average person doesn’t have much to gain, they don’t even have the allure of political victory that some politicians have.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  10. #830
    Daruwind's Avatar Moderator
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,328

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Because there is difference betweens scientific debate and political one.

    I and Geneva, we are scientists. If there are new facts and theories with better explanation and description of what is going on, we have no issue to change our stand. It si natural to move to new theory when the old one cannot explain stuff. Because it is not about politics but knowledge. Because for us the debate should produce closure and results (with possible future changes in case of new discoveries :-) )

    ....

    I will probably greatly simplify things and ommit various nuances....

    If you aknowledge global warming, you also basically say states should do something against it, so basically you are for stronger state and more laws, taxes and rules that will limit citizens..gun control, sugar tax, regullate smoking, drugs, speed limits.... see where Am I going?

    Plus historically green people were kinda leftist almost anarchists except now they are pushing more for state control aka social whatever instead of "burn the state". So their natural opponents were kinda on the right right? Nevermind basically despite things changing during time and despite important topics for (splitting) society moving too, if you can pinpoint ecology/enviroment on one part of political spectrum, other parts will oppose that. Because politics. Its no loger game of facts.

    So what about politics? You can have tho parties battling 100 years over and over and changing goverment. Eternal battle left vs right, republicats vs democrats, labours vs conservatives.....every battle little different yet in current era where headlines and vocal screaming just to beat your opponents are metrics..how do you expect rational debate about facts? One side accepting defeat and publicy saying it? It is more about rhetoric how to beat your opponent, not about actual truth..

    ....

    Because I miss one important aspect in all political debates. If scientist are really wrong, what will happen? We will change economies, use a lot monies to develop green technologies, more efficient engines...but in the end, humanity will not crack because more wind turbines... But what if we are right? The earth is the most suitable planet to support humanity. Think about terraforming any other planet. We cannot even lower C02 or alter temperature on Earth by a small %...lol. And such catastrofic future can lead to many consequences...wars, billions of people on the run...So from simple question we are moving into interconnected problem(s) touching geopolitical, economical, historical, just political topics.

    And back to this thread...I think some just treat is like yet another political topic for neverending battle in rhetorics. ;-)

  11. #831
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,731

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    Let´s leave rock fetish behind and let´s go under water...

    https://link.springer.com/content/pd...020-9283-7.pdf


    What I find most astonishing is the rate. Especially given that people are always talking about long term mechanisms, effects....

    *Especially for B.W. and Stario, try something new as an argument. Not just that the data is faked, global conspiracy etc. With ease how you usually write it, show us on data. They are public. So show us some counter analysis, some logical error in those reports...else don´t even bother to comment
    Wow! You're a scientist! I didn't see anything in that bit of climate hysteria that mentioned undersea geothermal faults contributing to ocean warming.

  12. #832
    Daruwind's Avatar Moderator
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,328

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    Wow! You're a scientist! I didn't see anything in that bit of climate hysteria that mentioned undersea geothermal faults contributing to ocean warming.
    So your hypothesis is that there is unusual goethermal activity around basically whole world which is explaining why oceans are warming up as of lately? Care to provide any data, publications? :-)

    Just question, oceans are quite a lot of water, are you sure that some small faults have enough output to heat it up? Plus if it was true, shouldn´t we see warming from bottom layers of oceans up? Not from surface down?

    EDIT:
    http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/deep-...arming-reprint

    B.W. why not read some serious books about science? Anyway I got another point...if there are so many underwater active vulcanos/faults etc, so much increasing water temperature, should not we get even way higher increase of temps in air? Even if there is less active surface vulcanos, consider how much more energy it takes to heat up water vs air. Except...temp increasing due to volcanic activity is no issue at all...
    Last edited by Daruwind; January 14, 2020 at 02:27 PM.

  13. #833

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    I've never really looked at ocean warming issue before...

    But it's troubling. The warming could easily cause disruption in oceanic temperature gradients and with them, Gulf stream, ironically causing Europe and east US/Canada to freeze their balls off.

    And I was just annoyed about lack of snow this year.

  14. #834
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,731

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    So your hypothesis is that there is unusual goethermal activity around basically whole world which is explaining why oceans are warming up as of lately? Care to provide any data, publications? :-)

    Just question, oceans are quite a lot of water, are you sure that some small faults have enough output to heat it up? Plus if it was true, shouldn´t we see warming from bottom layers of oceans up? Not from surface down?

    EDIT:
    http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/deep-...arming-reprint

    B.W. why not read some serious books about science? Anyway I got another point...if there are so many underwater active vulcanos/faults etc, so much increasing water temperature, should not we get even way higher increase of temps in air? Even if there is less active surface vulcanos, consider how much more energy it takes to heat up water vs air. Except...temp increasing due to volcanic activity is no issue at all...
    See post #748.

  15. #835
    Daruwind's Avatar Moderator
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,328

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    See post #748.
    Using
    About OHC
    Can you explain me two points?
    1) why on earth has El Nino so quickly oscillating activity comparing to any other volcanic activity? One year strong, then weak then no....it seems to be way seasonal.
    2) this last gif, comparing rest of earth sea floor. Oscillating activity is all over place. Like whole floor is lava with random yes/no activity If there are major goethermal activities, we would easily see almost constant activity around hotspots like pacific ring of fire and others...

  16. #836
    Genava's Avatar Centenarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    833

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal 2019 Second Warmest Year on Record

    According to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Earth's average global surface temperature in 2019 was the second warmest since modern record-keeping began in 1880.

    Globally, 2019's average temperature was second only to those of 2016 and continued the planet's long-term warming trend: the past five years have been the warmest of the last 140 years.

    This past year, they were 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (0.98 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.



    “The decade that just ended is clearly the warmest decade on record,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. “Every decade since the 1960s clearly has been warmer than the one before.”

    The average global surface temperature has risen since the 1880s and is now more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit (a bit more than 1 degree Celsius) above that of the late 19th century. For reference, the last Ice Age was about 10 degrees Fahrenheit colder than pre-industrial temperatures.

    Using climate models and statistical analysis of global temperature data, scientists have concluded that this increase has been driven mostly by increased emissions into the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases produced by human activities.



    This plot shows yearly temperature anomalies from 1880 to 2019, with respect to the 1951-1980 mean, as recorded by NASA, NOAA, the Berkeley Earth research group, the Met Office Hadley Centre (UK), and the Cowtan and Way analysis. Though there are minor variations from year to year, all five temperature records show peaks and valleys in sync with each other. All show rapid warming in the past few decades, and all show the past decade has been the warmest. Credit: NASA GISS/Gavin Schmidt

    “We crossed over into more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit warming territory in 2015 and we are unlikely to go back. This shows that what’s happening is persistent, not a fluke due to some weather phenomenon: we know that the long-term trends are being driven by the increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” Schmidt said.

    Because weather station locations and measurement practices change over time, the interpretation of specific year-to-year global mean temperature differences has some uncertainties. Taking this into account, NASA estimates that 2019’s global mean change is accurate to within 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit, with a 95 percent certainty level.

    Weather dynamics often affect regional temperatures, so not every region on Earth experienced similar amounts of warming. NOAA found the 2019 annual mean temperature for the contiguous 48 United States was the 34th warmest on record, giving it a “warmer than average” classification. The Arctic region has warmed slightly more than three times faster than the rest of the world since 1970.

    Rising temperatures in the atmosphere and ocean are contributing to the continued mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica and to increases in some extreme events, such as heat waves, wildfires and intense precipitation.

    NASA’s temperature analyses incorporate surface temperature measurements from more than 20,000 weather stations, ship- and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperatures, and temperature measurements from Antarctic research stations.

    These in-situ measurements are analyzed using an algorithm that considers the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and urban heat island effects that could skew the conclusions. These calculations produce the global average temperature deviations from the baseline period of 1951 to 1980.

    NOAA scientists used much of the same raw temperature data, but with a different interpolation into the Earth’s poles and other data-poor regions. NOAA’s analysis found 2019's average global temperature was 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit (0.95 degrees Celsius) above the 20th century average.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2945/n...ear-on-record/
    Open Access Defenders Step Up to Save ‘Pirate Bay of Science’
    https://nerdist.com/article/open-acc...brary-genesis/

  17. #837
    Daruwind's Avatar Moderator
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,328

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Em looks like those underwater geothermal faults are influencing even atmostphere What a conspiracy!

  18. #838
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,731

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    Using

    About OHC

    Can you explain me two points?
    1) why on earth has El Nino so quickly oscillating activity comparing to any other volcanic activity? One year strong, then weak then no....it seems to be way seasonal.
    2) this last gif, comparing rest of earth sea floor. Oscillating activity is all over place. Like whole floor is lava with random yes/no activity If there are major goethermal activities, we would easily see almost constant activity around hotspots like pacific ring of fire and others...
    I take it you didn't read the link in the post. Too bad. You're the one that has the explaining to do. You used specific data without considering other data that might not agree with your hypothesis. The geothermal fault is specifically located in the pacific where El Ninos are generated and according to the report could be the principal factor in El Nino's intensity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    NASA, NOAA Analyses Reveal 2019 Second Warmest Year on Record

    According to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Earth's average global surface temperature in 2019 was the second warmest since modern record-keeping began in 1880.

    Globally, 2019's average temperature was second only to those of 2016 and continued the planet's long-term warming trend: the past five years have been the warmest of the last 140 years.

    This past year, they were 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (0.98 degrees Celsius) warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, according to scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York.



    “The decade that just ended is clearly the warmest decade on record,” said GISS Director Gavin Schmidt. “Every decade since the 1960s clearly has been warmer than the one before.”

    The average global surface temperature has risen since the 1880s and is now more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit (a bit more than 1 degree Celsius) above that of the late 19th century. For reference, the last Ice Age was about 10 degrees Fahrenheit colder than pre-industrial temperatures.

    Using climate models and statistical analysis of global temperature data, scientists have concluded that this increase has been driven mostly by increased emissions into the atmosphere of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases produced by human activities.



    This plot shows yearly temperature anomalies from 1880 to 2019, with respect to the 1951-1980 mean, as recorded by NASA, NOAA, the Berkeley Earth research group, the Met Office Hadley Centre (UK), and the Cowtan and Way analysis. Though there are minor variations from year to year, all five temperature records show peaks and valleys in sync with each other. All show rapid warming in the past few decades, and all show the past decade has been the warmest. Credit: NASA GISS/Gavin Schmidt

    “We crossed over into more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit warming territory in 2015 and we are unlikely to go back. This shows that what’s happening is persistent, not a fluke due to some weather phenomenon: we know that the long-term trends are being driven by the increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” Schmidt said.

    Because weather station locations and measurement practices change over time, the interpretation of specific year-to-year global mean temperature differences has some uncertainties. Taking this into account, NASA estimates that 2019’s global mean change is accurate to within 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit, with a 95 percent certainty level.

    Weather dynamics often affect regional temperatures, so not every region on Earth experienced similar amounts of warming. NOAA found the 2019 annual mean temperature for the contiguous 48 United States was the 34th warmest on record, giving it a “warmer than average” classification. The Arctic region has warmed slightly more than three times faster than the rest of the world since 1970.

    Rising temperatures in the atmosphere and ocean are contributing to the continued mass loss from Greenland and Antarctica and to increases in some extreme events, such as heat waves, wildfires and intense precipitation.

    NASA’s temperature analyses incorporate surface temperature measurements from more than 20,000 weather stations, ship- and buoy-based observations of sea surface temperatures, and temperature measurements from Antarctic research stations.

    These in-situ measurements are analyzed using an algorithm that considers the varied spacing of temperature stations around the globe and urban heat island effects that could skew the conclusions. These calculations produce the global average temperature deviations from the baseline period of 1951 to 1980.

    NOAA scientists used much of the same raw temperature data, but with a different interpolation into the Earth’s poles and other data-poor regions. NOAA’s analysis found 2019's average global temperature was 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit (0.95 degrees Celsius) above the 20th century average.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2945/n...ear-on-record/
    OMG! There's pools of water on the Greenland ice sheet! The US Army crossed the Greenland ice sheet in the early 1950s. They had to use amphibious vehicles because there was a lake on top of it...and why cut the data off at 1880. Is there something earlier that might mess with your data conclusion?

  19. #839
    Daruwind's Avatar Moderator
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,328

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    I take it you didn't read the link in the post. Too bad. You're the one that has the explaining to do. You used specific data without considering other data that might not agree with your hypothesis. The geothermal fault is specifically located in the pacific where El Ninos are generated and according to the report could be the principal factor in El Nino's intensity.
    No, you are missing my point ;-) (and i looked at your link ) If the El Nino was solely responsible for heating up oceans, we would see great almost constant flow of warm water from that area. But we are not seeing it, look once again on this gif

    red is all over the place. At random. I don´t deny there could be influence of geothermal activity to El Nino (nor saying it is only cause or major one ), because even that would not explain global OHC at all. All water, all surface water is getting warmer, not just areas around El Nino. And what´s more, you are missing explanation why bottom layers are still cold. If you look at all the red areas, popping all over the globe, not all those areas has any geothermal acitivty at all. That´s the problem....

    For example wiki about GUlf Stream :
    The Gulf Stream is typically 100 kilometres (62 mi) wide and 800 metres (2,600 ft) to 1,200 metres (3,900 ft) deep.
    Not all warm water must be up...so there is a lot missing in your explanation.

  20. #840
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,731

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    No, you are missing my point ;-) (and i looked at your link ) If the El Nino was solely responsible for heating up oceans, we would see great almost constant flow of warm water from that area. But we are not seeing it, look once again on this gif

    red is all over the place. At random. I don´t deny there could be influence of geothermal activity to El Nino (nor saying it is only cause or major one ), because even that would not explain global OHC at all. All water, all surface water is getting warmer, not just areas around El Nino. And what´s more, you are missing explanation why bottom layers are still cold. If you look at all the red areas, popping all over the globe, not all those areas has any geothermal acitivty at all. That´s the problem....

    For example wiki about GUlf Stream :
    Not all warm water must be up...so there is a lot missing in your explanation.
    Uh, you're the one missing the point. You said in an earlier post that ocean warming starts at the surface and goes down. This clearly isn't the only means of ocean warming. If you slow down the animation you will see the warming band starting in the western pacific and working it's way round the globe. It stands to reason then, that the warming effect of ocean to air is carried right over to the gulf and back into the ocean, as you claimed it should be doing.

    Like volcanoes, geothermal vents are not constantly spewing heat into the ocean bottom, but doing it intermittently at varying intensity. Your initial claim that ocean warming is caused exclusively by man made CO2 emissions won't hold water.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •