Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[niky]

It is curious that the arctic was a warm open ocean when much of North America was locked in ice - during the Ice Age.

Not warm. But there were parts of it that were not covered in ice.

Source?

 

[Novalee]

All i could find was that sea levels were way lower than today during glacial maxims .

https://www.sfu.ca/archaeology/muse...orth-america/glaciation-of-north-america.html

I dont think of top my head that glaciers and sea ice are connected as they have differing process to start with .

I could be wrong as i am not a geologist in the study of past glacial maxims and retreats .

 

[Dotini]

Not warm. But there were parts of it that were not covered in ice.

Source?

According to anthropologists, not only were at least shorelines of the Arctic Ocean open during the last Ice Age, it was ringed by humanity fishing and hunting along its shores.
https://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/3/
https://cage.uit.no/news/ice-free-corridor-sustained-arctic-marine-life-last-ice-age/

An international team of scientists, including Martin Jakobsson from the Department of Geological Sciences and Johan Nilsson from the Meteorological Department at Stockholm University, has published a new study in Nature Geoscience entitled "Deep Arctic Ocean warming during the last glacial cycle”. The researchers have reconstructed the temperature history of the intermediate and deep Arctic Ocean during the past 50,000 years, using novel geochemical techniques on microfossils in sediment cores from across the central Arctic Ocean. Remarkably, the results show that in the last ice age, from about 50,000 to 11,000 years ago, the central Arctic Basin between 1,000 and 2,500 m water depth was occupied by water that was generally 1–2 °C warmer than in the modern Arctic. This extraordinary finding, indicating that the glacial Arctic Ocean operated in a different dynamical regime, challenges the view of a general glacial cooling of the ocean

http://www.swerus-c3.geo.su.se/index.php/press/77-a-warmer-arctic-ocean-during-ice-age-times

 

[niky]

According to anthropologists, not only were at least shorelines of the Arctic Ocean open during the last Ice Age, it was ringed by humanity fishing and hunting along its shores.
https://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/3/
https://cage.uit.no/news/ice-free-corridor-sustained-arctic-marine-life-last-ice-age/



http://www.swerus-c3.geo.su.se/index.php/press/77-a-warmer-arctic-ocean-during-ice-age-times

Slightly warmer than current, but not warm.

Overall, the northern hemisphere was colder than today. The coldness spread out more evenly than now, well, than it was in the previous century.

Right now we're seeing the effects of that Polar Vortex and low temperatures spreading down to lower latitudes.

 

[Dotini]

Slightly warmer than current, but not warm.

Overall, the northern hemisphere was colder than today. The coldness spread out more evenly than now, well, than it was in the previous century.

Right now we're seeing the effects of that Polar Vortex and low temperatures spreading down to lower latitudes.

So, from 50,000 BC to 11,000 BC, the Arctic (Polar) Ocean was warm enough to be open, navigated and populated around its rim by hunters and fishers, and connected to the Atlantic by an open corridor. Certainly not warm like the Caribbean, but warm enough to be a functional ocean. What should we dub these folks who made a civilization there, Hyperboreans?

Yes, right now we are experiencing the polar vortex and low temperatures drop down to lower latitudes. Should this be persistent and negatively affect harvests and crop yields, it would indeed be a cause for grave concern. Once upon a time, food was considered a strategic commodity, and efforts were made to store and preserve large quantities of grain for substantial periods, not just months but years in the case of Dynastic Egypt. The US established a strategic grain reserve in the '30's to buffer against price volatility. Today, the US strategic grain reserve is zero. China and India are thought to have some strategic grain reserves, but apparently the Chinese have reduced theirs, and figures are secret. Today, the global grain reserve is thought to amount to less than two months. We should keep an eye on market prices for grains.

 

[Tired Tyres]

So, from 50,000 BC to 11,000 BC, the Arctic (Polar) Ocean was warm enough to be open, navigated and populated around its rim by hunters and fishers, and connected to the Atlantic by an open corridor. Certainly not warm like the Caribbean, but warm enough to be a functional ocean. What should we dub these folks who made a civilization there, Hyperboreans?

Yes, right now we are experiencing the polar vortex and low temperatures drop down to lower latitudes. Should this be persistent and negatively affect harvests and crop yields, it would indeed be a cause for grave concern. Once upon a time, food was considered a strategic commodity, and efforts were made to store and preserve large quantities of grain for substantial periods, not just months but years in the case of Dynastic Egypt. The US established a strategic grain reserve in the '30's to buffer against price volatility. Today, the US strategic grain reserve is zero. China and India are thought to have some strategic grain reserves, but apparently the Chinese have reduced theirs, and figures are secret. Today, the global grain reserve is thought to amount to less than two months. We should keep an eye on market prices for grains.

The US dumps huge amounts of grain in the ocean annually to prevent the price dropping to uneconomical levels. The EU pays farmers not to grow crops for the same reason. A shortage is highly unlikely. Profiteering, on the other hand, is a certainty.

 

[Dotini]

The US dumps huge amounts of grain in the ocean annually to prevent the price dropping to uneconomical levels.

Source?

 

[Tired Tyres]

Source?

Television news. During the summer. Don't you get to hear about it over there?

 

[PocketZeven]

Television news. During the summer. Don't you get to hear about it over there?

That is kind of hearsay. Which channel and which news program? I never heard of this claim as well. Could it be you saw the claim on some random facebook post? I highly doubt that anyone is dumping grain in any oceans.

 

[Tired Tyres]

That is kind of hearsay. Which channel and which news program? I never heard of this claim as well. Could it be you saw the claim on some random facebook post? I highly doubt that anyone is dumping grain in any oceans.

Google it.

 

[Northstar]

Google it.

The burden of proof is on the person who made the initial claim (so, you).

 

[Tired Tyres]

The burden of proof is on the person who made the initial claim (so, you).

Which I did...by suggesting Googling it.... Or aren't "About 3,750,000 results (0.48 seconds)" enough?

 

[Northstar]

Which I did...by suggesting Googling it.... Or aren't "About 3,750,000 results (0.48 seconds)" enough?

Making a claim, than telling someone else to do the research for you isn't how this forum works. You can't expect someone to search through 3,750,000 results to figure out whether or not you've pulled your claim out of thin air.

You made the claim, you back it up with actual sources. Telling someone to "google it" isn't a source and considering you've been here 11 years I'm surprised to see you pull that card.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Making a claim, than telling someone else to do the research for you isn't how this forum works. You can't expect someone to search through 3,750,000 results to figure out whether or not you've pulled your claim out of thin air.

You made the claim, you back it up with actual sources. Telling someone to "google it" isn't a source and considering you've been here 11 years I'm surprised to see you pull that card.

It was a joke mate. I know that. I've seen it on TV a few years ago. Several times. Usually when there's some news about grain stocks is being talked about. Searching onlne is not really applicable for that. If YOUR country's media doesn't want to talk about it then why? They trying to keep something from you? or is it a case of not caring about it?

 

[Northstar]

It was a joke mate. I know that. I've seen it on TV a few years ago. Several times. Usually when there's some news about grain stocks is being talked about. Searching onlne is not really applicable for that. If YOUR country's media doesn't want to talk about it then why? They trying to keep something from you? or is it a case of not caring about it?

You couldn't find any sources, could you?

 

[homeforsummer]

I had a look online. I can't find any evidence of systematic dumping, but I found a thread referencing it happening with different commodities on occasion, and a reference to what you might call "economic dumping" where produce is sold at a price under the cost of production.

I'd add that if it really was a regular thing then it might have been more apparent in a search given the number of environmental groups that would jump all over a story like that.

The claim about the EU paying farmers to set aside land for basically nothing (i.e. not growing crops on it) seems more valid, but it's also unclear whether this is to artificially inflate prices, or whether it's to simply reduce waste from overproduction. Farming is already fairly uneconomical (for the farmers at least) because retail competition means that, in the UK at least, they often lose money on the produce they sell (hence also claims that farmers make more from subsidies than they do from farming).

So @Tired Tyres is potentially right that a grain shortage is unlikely, but not necessarily for the reasons given, and almost certainly not because large quantities are dumped in the ocean.

All that said, nor is the farming industry impervious to changes in climate. In some areas of the world it may become easier to produce certain foods, but if current grain-producing nations suffer through changes in climate, meeting global demand may still be an issue.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The claim about the EU paying farmers to set aside land for basically nothing (i.e. not growing crops on it) seems more valid, but it's also unclear whether this is to artificially inflate prices, or whether it's to simply reduce waste from overproduction. Farming is already fairly uneconomical (for the farmers at least) because retail competition means that, in the UK at least, they often lose money on the produce they sell (hence also claims that farmers make more from subsidies than they do from farming).

There are valid reasons for the "set-aside" policy - without it every spare bit of owned land would have crops on which would mean the loss of the hedgerows and naturally-overgrown areas which are a vital part of the ecosystem.

 

[Dotini]

Reality: The world increases the use of fossil fuels.

The World Energy Outlook 2018 report on energy use data complements the Global Carbon Project 2018 emissions data which shows that both cumulative and incremental global CO2 emissions estimates are driven by significantly increased use of fossil fuels..

 

[Johnnypenso]

As carbon tax protests spread across Europe, similar clashes may be in prospect in the US.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckd...te-change-taxes-is-america-next/#57a93975632e

One wonders if there would be much more general unrest in the U.S. had Hillary won and the Democrats had won both Houses, and they imposed a radical change to

Reality: The world increases the use of fossil fuels.

The World Energy Outlook 2018 report on energy use data complements the Global Carbon Project 2018 emissions data which shows that both cumulative and incremental global CO2 emissions estimates are driven by significantly increased use of fossil fuels..

Do you know of any link that would estimate the carbon emission savings resulting from the world going entirely to nuclear power and hydro-electric where feasible and perhaps natural gas in places where it's not feasible, and phasing out all coal fired plants?

 

[Dotini]

Do you know of any link that would estimate the carbon emission savings resulting from the world going entirely to nuclear power and hydro-electric where feasible and perhaps natural gas in places where it's not feasible, and phasing out all coal fired plants?

The overall question is too complex for me to answer briefly, and certainly not without specifying some important assumptions. Instead, I would like to begin to answer the first part ("estimate the carbon emission savings resulting from the world going entirely to nuclear power") only. Assume (1) reducing CO2 is important enough to disruptively reorder or suboptimize the national economy and (2) The entire issues of nuclear proliferation and waste disposal can be ignored, then see below.

Each generation method produces climate-warming greenhouse gases in varying quantities through construction, operation, fuel supply and decommissioning. Some generation methods such as coal fired power plants release the majority of emission when their carbon-containing fossil fuels are burnt, producing carbon dioxide. Others, such as wind power and nuclear power, give rise to much less emissions, these being during construction and decommissioning, or mining and fuel preparation in the case of nuclear.

Accounting for emissions from all phases of the project (construction, operation, and decommissioning) is called a lifecycle approach. Comparing the lifecycle emissions of electrical generation allows for a fair comparison of the different generation methods on a per kilowatt-hour basis. The lower the value, the fewer emissions are released.

The World Nuclear Association carried out a review of over twenty studies assessing the greenhouse gas emissions produced by different forms of electricity generation. The results summarised in the chart below show that generating electricity from fossil fuels results in greenhouse gas emissions far higher than when using nuclear or renewable generation.

In 2011 the world's nuclear power plants supplied 2518 TWh (billion kWh) of electricity. The following table shows...
http://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/greenhouse-gas-emissions-avoided.aspx

Here's a pro-nuclear baseline that prefers coal for peaking load:

Responsible and balanced policy would strive for a mix of low-greenhouse energy sources: CO2-free nuclear for baseload power in countries with high ambient power demand; low-CO2 coal, because coal is abundant; natural gas for peaking loads; hydro, wind, tidal, solar where suitable and appropriate. Achieving better energy efficiency in product design and use and reducing excessive consumption in the developed world through better electricity pricing are also important strategies. There is no single panacea, but no likely remedy should be arbitrarily rejected. Windmills and reactors each have parts to play.1

... I am a Green and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy. Even if they were right about its dangers, and they are not, its worldwide use as our main source of energy would pose an insignificant threat compared with the dangers of intolerable and lethal heat waves and sea levels rising to drown every costal city in the world. ... civilisation is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear — the one safe, available, energy source — now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet.2
http___www.aphref.aph.gov.au_house_committee_isr_uranium_report_chapter4.pdf

Bonus link: hemp biomass pyrolysis, a source of that most valuable fuel of all - liquid.

http://www.electricitypolicy.org.uk/hemp-the-biomass-power-plant/

 

[Dotini]

Nevermind far right wing populist demagogues in the Philippines, South America and Eastern Europe. Liberal democracies are also feeling pushback against climate change policies.

2018 SAW A GLOBAL REVOLT AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE POLICIES
12:01 PM 12/31/2018 | ENERGY
Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor

• 2018 saw a global revolt against policies aimed at fighting global warming
• Australia, Canada, France and the U.S. have all seen push back against global warming policies
• That included weeks of riots in France against planned carbon tax increases

Despite increasingly apocalyptic warnings from U.N. officials, 2018 has seen a number of high-profile defeats for policies aimed at fighting global warming. Politicians and voters pushed back at attempts to raise energy prices as part of the climate crusade.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/31/climate-change-policy-protests/

 

[opelgt1969]

We the stupid people that we are wonder why ice is melting up north. At the same time we use ice breakers to break up the ice in winter so we can use the Northern passage which should be frozen and keep asking why the ice is melting?

 

[Dotini]

When the polar vortex acts funny and splits, it causes warm in the arctic and cold in the continents. It seems supremely ironic that global warming could cause people to freeze and crops to fail.

+2
The Eastern US could be in for a blast of frigid weather. Activity in an Arctic climate pattern could send the polar vortex barreling towards more southern latitudes to envelop parts of North America, Europe, and Asia. The illustration shows how a polar vortex reaches the US

The stratospheric polar vortex, which normally in winter is one cold vortex spinning around the pole has split in two. The light blue color shows areas of intense heating caused by atmospheric wave energy that spun up from the lower atmosphere. The map shows Northern Hemispheric circulation at 10mb in the high stratosphere for 12Feb18 10amEST. Powerful heating is driven by planetary wave number 2.

From our community:

The most powerful episode of poleward heat transport into the stratosphere on record has split the stratospheric polar vortex in two. The polar vortex forms in the winter in the stratosphere when there is no UV energy to heat the ozone in the upper stratosphere. A zone of high winds, called the polar night jet, normally spins high above the Arctic. Normally there is one cyclonic vortex centered near the pole. Right now, there is a weak, warm anticyclone above the pole and there are two cold cyclonic vortices spinning over north America and Eurasia. There is intense compressional heating above the Labrador sea and central Eurasia caused by this planetary wave number 2 of unprecedented power. The image above shows what northern hemisphere planetary wave no. 2 looks like — warm over the Arctic and oceans — cold over the continents. This wave pattern is intensified by the presence of warm water and the loss of sea ice on the Atlantic side of the Arctic.

 

[Dotini]

The magnetic field is changing faster than the military and transport industry can routinely rely upon as in the past. Pole shifts, excursions and reversals have been associated with extinctions in the past, although the association is not understood and not particularly consistent. The question is, is weather and climate related to the magnetic field? Does global climate change rise to the level of a presidentialy declared national emergency?

Earth’s magnetic pole is on the move, fast. And we don’t know why
Earth’s magnetic field is what allows us to exist. It deflects harmful radiation. It keeps our water and atmosphere in place. But now it’s acting up — and nobody knows why.

https://www.sciencealert.com/shifts...mportant-global-navigation-model-a-year-early

 

[Rallywagon]

When the Polar Vortex is disrupted and colder air dips down south instead of staying up at the pole making more ice cover, then yes, that is an effect of Climate Change.

Dont get me wrong. I am not a climate change denier, but, the unusual thing to me is the lack of snow. As a kid/early teen, I can remember being excited about snow for Thanksgiving. Now I am excited for snow at Sno*Drift, at the end of January... it's near mid December and we have had only one significant snow fall in mid Michigan. That is unusual. And the past few years total accumulation has been weak.

The magnetic field is changing faster than the military and transport industry can routinely rely upon as in the past. Pole shifts, excursions and reversals have been associated with extinctions in the past, although the association is not understood and not particularly consistent. The question is, is weather and climate related to the magnetic field? Does global climate change rise to the level of a presidentialy declared national emergency?

It's my understanding, feel free to correct me, but the nature of a pole shift is that it shows slow signs at first but then progresses really rather quickly once it gets going.
I also believe it has quite the effect on the ionosphere which could have dramatic effects on whether. If you subscribe to the hypothesis of ther less of Graham Hancock and Randall Carlson, I believe they take about such an event, where quite a bit of the world was being blasted by and immense amount of intense lightning.

 

[Joey D]

It's my understanding, feel free to correct me, but the nature of a pole shift is that it shows slow signs at first but then progresses really rather quickly once it gets going.

I think it's only quick on a geological time scale. Things I've read in the past suggest it takes somewhere between 5,000-7,000 years to complete the flip.

I know some people (not saying you do) think they'll just wake up one morning and the north and south poles will be reversed. It doesn't look like that's the case, but if it was, it'd probably be completely disastrous.

 

[Dotini]

I think it's only quick on a geological time scale. Things I've read in the past suggest it takes somewhere between 5,000-7,000 years to complete the flip.

I know some people (not saying you do) think they'll just wake up one morning and the north and south poles will be reversed. It doesn't look like that's the case, but if it was, it'd probably be completely disastrous.

We are protected by three magnetic fields, the Earth's, the Sun's and that of the local bubble in interstellar space. The protection from all of them is weakening. The weakening is accelerating, and IMO over the next 40 years we will experience adverse effects in weather, climate, and in human physical and mental health.

 

[Standard_FV]

New to this thread!

Thought experiment:
Concerning global warming(overall consumption, energy usage, etc) what would be the best courses of action minimizing effort(cost, input), but still achieving significant improvement(maximizing output)?

Would things like standarized packaging matter? Having say 10 different types of container in the whole grocery store?
Would(as we have just implemented in Sweden where I'm from) carbon taxing work(ex. bonus/malus system benefitting "clean" products punishing "dirty")?
Would increased gender equality decrease C02 emissions?(Women causes less emissions than men)
Would finding alien lifeforms(ex. microorganisms on Europa) cause a radical societal change thereby igniting a will to do actual changes?


The biggest issue as far as I'm aware (my opinion) is the fact that there is little to no incentive going green even here in Sweden and we're actually lowering our emissions locally(buying clothes from China increases their emissions but doesn't affect Sweden's emissions(on paper) even if a swede is the recipient, making our statistics look good). Why should Poland(for example) switch from coal to nuclear power? They have an abundance of coal and the capital cost for nuclear energy is much higher than building new coal powerplants, they would lose very much money switching to nuclear energy(initially, since nuclear powerplant have lower running costs). What would have to change to make the opposite true?
The EU is also divided between north(Scandinavia + Germany) and south(France, Spain, Italy, mainly) making coordinated and actual beneficial changes difficult to implement since they often don't agree(on anything) making it very hard to achieve anything.

Links to information can be provided if needed.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Would things like standarized packaging matter? Having say 10 different types of container in the whole grocery store?

Yes, but the manufacturers would push back. There's a recent case involving Unilever and the recycling of clear plastic that I'll have to look up for the details.

Would(as we have just implemented in Sweden where I'm from) carbon taxing work(ex. bonus/malus system benefitting "clean" products punishing "dirty")?

Yes, but "essential" enterprises and manufacturers would push back.

Would increased gender equality decrease C02 emissions?(Women causes less emissions than men)

I thought that was a false correlation caused by inequality of working hours/types?

Would finding alien lifeforms(ex. microorganisms on Europa) cause a radical societal change thereby igniting a will to do actual changes?

No. In an age of moon-landing deniers, flat-earthers and anti-vaxxers the news would be roundly disbelieved. Those who believed would fail to see any day-to-day impact for them.

The biggest issue as far as I'm aware (my opinion) is the fact that there is little to no incentive going green even here in Sweden

That's pretty much the same in Britain too.

in Sweden where I'm from

Get your country to bring Saga Noren back for another series and then we can talk

 

[Danoff]

Thought experiment:
Concerning global warming(overall consumption, energy usage, etc) what would be the best courses of action minimizing effort(cost, input), but still achieving significant improvement(maximizing output)?

All of the stuff you mentioned assumes the answer too much. You need to approach the problem from the perspective of someone who does not know what the answer is, and wants other people to be incentivized to find it, rather than from the perspective of someone who thinks they know the answer, and wants to demand that people comply (hoping that it turns out to be better for the environment).

If we got serious, like really serious, we'd tax emissions. The problem has been making a case that we know what's happening, making a case that we know where to apply pressure (for example, limiting CO2), and making a case that the application of that pressure would actually have the intended outcome (to keep individuals from causing damage).

If you can make the case, then a tax on emissions is the more direct way to accomplish change without presuming to know the answer.

Edit:

For example, a gasoline tax would be far more effective and direct for helping the environment than a requirement that automakers meet fleet-wide MPG limits.