... What happened in Indonesia recently, shows the rising trend. Whether it was an earthquake, the temperature of the dry season, increased rainfall.

A long summer with increasing temperature (maximum increase more than 1 degree Celsius in 10 years). While the rainy season decreases, but the intensity of the falling water increased and flooding everywhere. And now the rainy season followed by a hurricane too.

I'll agree that follows the predictions for the effects of global warming.

Aside: Note that the predictions for hurricanes/typhoons are that they may well remain at the same number/frequency as at present. However, those that form will tend to become ever more intense/violent due to the greater energy available due to the effects of global warming.

And for the earthquake, since the events of 2004, Indonesia earthquakes often occur on 5 SR above, as a result many volcanoes are still active eruption, including Anak Krakatau.

I would only expect earthquakes and volcanic action to be affected by global warming only if there was some influence from such as changes in the water table level in whichever affected area, or if there were other large movements of water and/or ice.

You could suffer greatly differing effects from the aftermath of an earthquake or volcanic eruption that depends on how the weather and climate has been changed by global warming.

Change is so felt here. So we assume that climate change has occurred, at least in Indonesia.

Various great civilisations in the past have felt the effects of climate change for very much less than what we are already seeing now. Those civilisations then quickly collapsed after suffering even a minor problem that then tipped them over into destruction.


Best wishes for a fast recovery from the present disasters.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Best wishes for a fast recovery from the present disasters.

Regards,
Martin

Thank you Martin...

---

N = R x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L

here is the fun thing with climate change.

the hotter it gets the more the polar ice melts.
the more the ice melts the cooler the ocean waters get.
cooler water absorbs more gas(CO2)killing corals and fish alike.
cooler water disrupts ocean currents.
cooling northern climes and heating southern climes even more.
Cooler water forms fewer clouds.
fewer clouds means more heat.
Eventually over thousands of years the Oceans will heat causing more clouds. THis will cool the planet and eventually cause global cooling which leads us into an Ice age thousands of years later.

Nothing good comes out of this. THerefore we need to ease off fossil fuel and get the alternatives going NOW

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Phew! Quite a scenario.

A few comments from what I know...

here is the fun thing with climate change.

the hotter it gets the more the polar ice melts.

Yep. In this instance, thankfully converting ice <--> water requires transfering a very large amount of latent heat. That acts to greatly slow any temperature changes moving across 0 deg C.

the more the ice melts the cooler the ocean waters get.

I don't follow this, unless you are thinking of 0 deg C freshwater runoff from glaciers and land-based ice as a consequence of atmospheric heating.

cooler water absorbs more gas(CO2) killing corals and fish alike.

Quite so although there are other effects in this context.

cooler water disrupts ocean currents.

More of a concern is the change induced due to increased ice melt releasing vast quantities of fresh water into the ocean changing the water density that then disrupts the ocean circulation currents.

cooling northern climes and heating southern climes even more.
Cooler water forms fewer clouds.
fewer clouds means more heat.

I don't know about that sequence.

Eventually over thousands of years the Oceans will heat causing more clouds. THis will cool the planet and eventually cause global cooling which leads us into an Ice age thousands of years later.

Quite possibly, depending on various scenarios. The Man-made changes being forced really are that great! That may well happen in less than a thousand years if the trends continue to accelerate...

Note that some of the CPDN models simulated such snowball earths. Also note that earth started out as a complete snowball until natural weathering processes and volcanism released enough CO2 to eventually warm the planet enough for liquid water to melt from the global ice sheet. Life as we know it arose some time after.

Nothing good comes out of this. THerefore we need to ease off fossil fuel and get the alternatives going NOW

Agreed.


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Two recent interesting articles:

Publicize or perish

The scientific community is failing miserably in communicating the potential catastrophe of climate change. Joseph Romm urges scientists to start engaging with the public – now

[...]

"Recent observations confirm that, given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized."


Wrong but useful

Unsurprisingly, on climate contrarian sites, such models are described in all sorts of unflattering terms and dismissed out of hand as fundamentally useless. However, in more rational forums, and sometimes even among scientists themselves, one occasionally comes across a basic ignorance of whether climate models are any good, and, even more importantly, what they are good for. By the time one gets to policymakers, climate models are seen at best as black boxes, and at worst as simply irrelevant to their detailed concerns. However, climate models – appropriately used – might have a vitally important part to play in breaking through some of the log jams now hampering policymakers.

[...]

Models of any stripe are simply quantitative or numerical expressions of the theories we have for how the real world works.

[...]

This gives us a hint: models are useful for tying together causes and effects...

The other use is in helping chart the course of the future. ...


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

here is the fun thing with climate change.

the hotter it gets the more the polar ice melts.
the more the ice melts the cooler the ocean waters get.
cooler water absorbs more gas(CO2)killing corals and fish alike.
cooler water disrupts ocean currents.
cooling northern climes and heating southern climes even more.
Cooler water forms fewer clouds.
fewer clouds means more heat.
Eventually over thousands of years the Oceans will heat causing more clouds. THis will cool the planet and eventually cause global cooling which leads us into an Ice age thousands of years later.

Gosh, that sounds like a natural cycle of ice ages and warm periods, something this planet has done thousands of times. Could it be the sky isn't falling? Or did we have intelligent life spring up and use carbon every cycle? That would make for something interesting to put in the Drake equation.

---

Gosh, that sounds like a natural cycle of ice ages and warm periods, something this planet has done thousands of times. Could it be the sky isn't falling?

If you'd care to look at the charts, the earth has never seen any 'cycle' head towards an ending like our present 'cycle' if you want to call it that.

Or did we have intelligent life spring up and use carbon every cycle? That would make for something interesting to put in the Drake equation.

If we are coming to the end of such a 'cycle', an important part of that 'cycle' is that we won't be around on what will be the next 'new earth'.

... Then again... If we could entice a few billion lost souls into a new breed of doomsday cults and lead them off somewhere inconspicuous to meet their wished for 'fate', now that could ease a lot of global warming problems!

Oooeerr... Unfortunately that does appear to be what we're doing, but for everyone regardless.


Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Adding more to the understanding of how 90% of the Earth's store of fresh water is changing:

NASA Ice Campaign Takes Flight in Antarctica

"A remarkable change is happening on the Earth, truly one of the biggest changes in environmental conditions on Earth since the end of the ice age," Wagner said.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Transferred from the DARK SHADOWS thread in Science SETI

[quote]... Quote from the references above (which are all based on the same NOAA study)

"Since 1800, ice core measures show the ocean's average pH level has dropped from 8.2 to 8.1, making it 30% more corrosive, Feely says. Expected emissions will likely drop it to a pH of 7.9 this century, a 150% increase in acidity since 1800"

What a load of codswallop !!!!
Simple High School chemistry will tell you...

[...]

Do you honestly think that humans can have more effect on the earth's climate than that big ball of fusing hydrogen located only nine light minutes away ?

"Is that the sort of language you can follow?" :-)

Regards,
Brodo

To come back to part of the discussion that started this thread, time and politics and pollution have moved on a little further and now the scientific language used is perhaps now nearer to what non-scientists might start to appreciate:

Arctic seas turn to acid, putting vital food chain at risk

With the world's oceans absorbing six million tonnes of carbon a day, a leading oceanographer warns of eco disaster

...many regions around the north pole seawater [are] likely to reach corrosive levels within 10 years. The water will then start to dissolve the shells of mussels and other shellfish and cause major disruption to the food chain. By the end of the century, the entire Arctic Ocean will be corrosively acidic.

"This is extremely worrying," Professor Jean-Pierre Gattuso, of France's Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, told an international oceanography conference last week. "We knew that the seas were getting more acidic and this would disrupt the ability of shellfish – like mussels – to grow their shells. But now we realise the situation is much worse. The water will become so acidic it will actually dissolve the shells of living shellfish."


Very serious stuff indeed.

Note the "less than ten years".

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left-hand side of the plot, and it appears that much of the last 550 million years has experienced carbon dioxide concentrations significantly higher than the present day.

Note: This data does not tell us that we should continue to emit large amounts of carbon dioxide. The earth and the life that inhabits it has a hard time adapting to severe changes. We should use all available information to our advantage but watch out for those who simply want to profit from climate change (Al Gore and others like him).

We are all in this together.

I saw Bill Clinton giving a speech on this some time ago. I can't remember his exact words but it was something like this, paraphrasing;

"Protecting the environment needs to be an international effort. Otherwise, emerging economies like India, Turkey, and China are perfectly capable of burning up the world without any help from us".

We should still do our part here, of course. But real change is only going to happen with international cooperation, and there is little guarantee that we can ever achieve that.

Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left-hand side of the plot, and it appears that much of the last 550 million years has experienced carbon dioxide concentrations significantly higher than the present day.

Note: This data does not tell us that we should continue to emit large amounts of carbon dioxide. The earth and the life that inhabits it has a hard time adapting to severe changes.

Just for context, you should also highlight that humans have only been around perhaps for no more 2.5 million years. That is right up against the left hand edge of your chart, less than 1% of the history. The timespan for the industrial revolution is a mere fraction of the very last line of pixels on the left of the chart.


For another view, see the wikipedia image:



The coloured bar for humans is only just thinly visible on the higher resolution version. Hence the greater interest in the millions of years of recent history where the earth and climate have stabilised into the comparative stability that us humans know and thrive in.

We should use all available information to our advantage but watch out for those who simply want to profit from climate change (Al Gore and others like him).

If he saves the world from itself also, then he is due his credit.

We are all in this together.

I saw Bill Clinton giving a speech on this some time ago. I can't remember his exact words but it was something like this, paraphrasing;

"Protecting the environment needs to be an international effort. Otherwise, emerging economies like India, Turkey, and China are perfectly capable of burning up the world without any help from us".

We should still do our part here, of course. But real change is only going to happen with international cooperation, and there is little guarantee that we can ever achieve that.

Indeed so.

Take a look at the "Stupid" thread?

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Gosh, that sounds like a natural cycle of ice ages and warm periods, something this planet has done thousands of times. Could it be the sky isn't falling?

If you'd care to look at the charts, the earth has never seen any 'cycle' head towards an ending like our present 'cycle' if you want to call it that.

You need to look at some long term graphs. Say a few billion year long ones. Much wilder swings in the past. You can't tell me, if it has happened before man, that it won't happen no matter what man does in the future. That doesn't mean that man can't do a whopper on himself or change the timing.

Or did we have intelligent life spring up and use carbon every cycle? That would make for something interesting to put in the Drake equation.

If we are coming to the end of such a 'cycle', an important part of that 'cycle' is that we won't be around on what will be the next 'new earth'.

Yes, nature rules. Survival of the fit. And we may not be fit.

... Then again... If we could entice a few billion lost souls into a new breed of doomsday cults and lead them off somewhere inconspicuous to meet their wished for 'fate', now that could ease a lot of global warming problems!

Oooeerr... Unfortunately that does appear to be what we're doing, but for everyone regardless.

We have the doomsday cults. They just aren't going to drink koolaid, they are going force feed nukes.

Will nuclear winter cancel out global warming? <sarcasm>Perhaps we have the answer.</sarcasm>

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

350

---

N = R x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L

350

- ppm

Good find and a good one for the (Not) Stupid thread.

The race continues...

Who will win? Politics, physics, or noone?

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Two recent physics articles:

Distant stars shed light on the solar cycle

Sustained drops in the energy output of the Sun could be more common than modern experience suggests, according to an international team of astronomers that has studied the activity of a number of Sun-like stars. The results could mean that past changes in global temperatures are more likely to be related to variations in solar activity than previously thought, and could allow us to predict similar changes in future.

Our Sun has a well documented cycle of magnetic activity with a period of about 11 years. This cycle can be observed as a rise and a fall in the number of sunspots and a variation of about 0.15% in the power output of the Sun. Direct observations of sunspot numbers stretch back about 400 years...

Note the numbers... A variation of 0.15% is very small compared to the total effects being seen here on Earth. As explained by:


APS rejects plea to alter stance on climate change

The American Physical Society (APS) has "overwhelmingly rejected" a proposal from a group of 160 physicists to alter its official position on climate change. ...

The official APS position on climate change says that "emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate" and adds that there is "incontrovertible" evidence that global warming is occurring. The APS also wants reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions to start immediately. "If no mitigating actions are taken," it says, "significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur."

[...]

Kleppner also points out that the call for change came from a small minority of the APS's 47,000 members. "This is certainly not a majority opinion," he says. "Most other physicists have come to a different conclusion looking at the same evidence."


Note that it is the nature of open science that there are always alternate views. What is remarkable about the above story is that for such a significant subject, there are so very very few scientists that hold an alternate view.

I think that's as near as you can ever possibly come to gain a majority view in the ultra-thoroughness of science!


Meanwhile, there is ever continuing hot air in the world of politics towards actually doing something.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Is it ethical for a politition to funnel public money into companies that he or she invests in? Aren't they taking advantage of the fact that they have a complete majority in congress? Perhaps they simply want to get rich?

/While the media vilifies those on Wall Street for getting rich at the expense of the rest of us, Gore and his buddies on Capitol Hill are getting kudos for doing worse. In a recent and appallingly obsequious article in The New York Times entitled "Gore's Dual Role: Advocate and Investor," the Times notes that Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are also investing heavily in green ventures. Imagine the public outcry if these were Republicans.

Other public figures, like Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who have vocally supported government financing of energy-saving technologies, have investments in alternative energy ventures. Some scientists and policy advocates also promote energy policies that personally enrich them.

I don't see up and coming green energy companies a problem. Its the energy Giants that wish to keep the status quo. Them on top everyone else paying them. Heck I'd bet that given the opportunity they'd buy the green tech companies and shut them down. keeping the patents so that nothing could be made.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

General Electric, a strong supporter of Obama and of so called green energy is an up and coming company? You learn something new every day!

---

I believe they were talking about or congressmen/women putting their own money in startups and up and coming green companies. This had nothing to do with GE or their donations to a campaign.

And Honestly Corporate money is always being placed on the percieved winner of an election. Look back and you'll see that GE put money on but obama and mccain. THey just spent more on OBama. Heck they did the same thing during W's regime. They spent money on both parties. Regardless of the outcome they can always show they supported the winner. Its like the French and any war in the 3rd world. They sell arms to both sides and declare how they always supported the winner when the war is over.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

The latest forecast with the present 'business as usual'...

Earth 'heading for 6C' of warming


... Now... What was the Age of Stupid film all about?...

Copenhagen anyone?

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)