The Climate Change Thread

[coleslaw]

Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

Colelaw -- if I was you -- I would be seriously worried about a globally cooler place at least for the next few decades

The planet has not warmed in 18 years -- the models are broken and can not be reliaed upon for prediction -- our recourse is to look at the past -- and what we see both near term and long-term is cooling is coming

see for example
" Global Cooling is Here

Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades

By Prof. Don J. Easterbrook
Global Research, June 28, 2014
Department of Geology, Western Washington University and Global Research
originally published November 2008

INTRODUCTION

Despite no global warming in 10 years [[[ now 18 and counting] and recording setting cold in 2007-2008, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century. IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100 (Fig. 1), which would cause global catastrophe with ramifications for human life, natural habitat, energy and water resources, and food production. All of this is predicated on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 and that CO2 will continue to rise rapidly.

Figure 1. A. IPCC prediction of global warming early in the 21st century. B. IPCC prediction of global warming to 2100. (Sources: IPCC website) [not shown]

However, records of past climate changes suggest an altogether different scenario for the 21st century. Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5 ° C (1° F) per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090 (Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008a, b); Easterbrook and Kovanen, 2000, 2001). Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the Little Ice Age "

and

and

Indeed if you want to put it in context -- "Hide the Decline" -- aka aka the Climategate e-mails are akin to "Americans are stupid" -- aka the Grubergate videos -- they both expose the mendacity and arrogance of the Government - Academic Complex -- mediated and exacerbated by a math and scientifically ignorant media unable to challenge the statements of the players

Ultimately guided by Holmes -- we should follow the money and see who is feeding at the public trough

Quoting Easterbrook on climate change is like quoting Glen Beck on the economy (neither has any idea what they are talking about). 99% of scientists disagree with him. He is funded by institutions that have a vested interest in perpetuating mistruth about climate change.

 

[SeamusMcFly]

Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

You are actually very wrong thats why I respond to you with sardonicism.

The link you gave me back me up as being right. With the highest credible gain of .8 meters in 100 years. The scientists have thrown out most of the ridiculously high numbers. So I'm back up by your link and not expected to be wrong. We won't know until its here of course, so you calling me wrong for disagreeing with you on a hypothesis is absolutely ridiculous.

Edit. You didn't post the link, but agreed with it. And, it seems to agree with me. The low end puts sea level rise at about 6 inches by 2100, so lower than my guess. So again, it'll probably be somewhere in between those numbers.

 

[coleslaw]

Re: Seaport Square (Formerly McCourt Seaport Parcels)

The link you gave me back me up as being right. With the highest credible gain of .8 meters in 100 years. The scientists have thrown out most of the ridiculously high numbers. So I'm back up by your link and not expected to be wrong. We won't know until its here of course, so you calling me wrong for disagreeing with you on a hypothesis is absolutely ridiculous.

Edit. You didn't post the link, but agreed with it. And, it seems to agree with me. The low end puts sea level rise at about 6 inches by 2100, so lower than my guess. So again, it'll probably be somewhere in between those numbers.

Last time there was this much carbon dioxide in the air the sea level was 100 feet higher. Sea level is a lagging indicator however the rise is speeding up rapidly as permafrost melts in North America and Siberia (methane is being released from this and that speeds up the warming and melting). Soot is landing on the ice speeding up melting as it absorbs more heat than the white snow this makes holes in the ice that go down to the surface breaking up sheets of ice and those holes expose more ice to water and air speeding up melting. The more water exposed the more sunlight is absorbed (because water is darker than ice) and the hotter the oceans get. Although sea ice wont contribute to sea level rise the faster the oceans warm the faster the general climate warms speeding up melting. Plus we are putting more and more green house gasses into the air ever year, and the last few months were all the hottest of those months in recorded history.

We are actually living up to if not over many of the worst case scenarios so no it will not be somewhere in between. It will probably be worse than the worst case.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-ipcc-underestimated-climate-change/

 

[Arlington]

So the question on Massachusetts' mind is: are snowier New England winters the "new normal". If you'd asked the EPA, the answer is "yes". Basically, we're getting the snowpack that California's Sierra Nevadas are losing.

Based on our 70-inch "snowiest ever" month, we have to raise our estimation that the models are right. Below is the EPA's projection from 2007

It shows New England at the extreme (blue) of precipitation gain in winter (i.e. being blue in the upper "DJF" picture means we're getting more snow in December, January, February, but being white in JJA (June, July, August) we're not expecting a change in summer precipitation.

It also correctly shows that California (esp LA) is in for much drier winters (historically the rainy season) and drier summers too.

We can't say they nailed it, but since 2007 New England has had 3 top-snowiest intervals, and California has been very dry. That means we should raise our estimate that they're likely right.

Here's another, 2009 model, which is also looking right. More precip in Winter Spring, and about the same in Summer Autumn:

 

[datadyne007]

The sheer fact that the ocean is warmer than normal right now is proof that these massive storms are the result of warming. Warm water = moisture in the air. Front forms. Collides with arctic air from Canada and boom. You have a massive snowstorm. Rinse and repeat.

I've seen so many comments on articles recently saying that because we got 73" in 18 days, global warming can't exist. It's absurd and entirely opposite.

 

[Arlington]

I've seen so many comments on articles recently saying that because we got 73" in 18 days, global warming can't exist. It's absurd and entirely opposite.

Politically, though, it'd be a huge victory if everyone would stop using the term "global warming"...because the worst alarmists are likely wrong (but popularized the term) and because the reality is that not all places will get warmer, so it gives deniers a chance to blow away a straw man (boogeyman?) they should never have been presented with, and feel smug/justified.

Calling it "Climate Change" is both more accurate and more consonant with people's everyday experience. 5 record breaking snows in the last 10 years is obviously climate change...let's drive that home and never use "global warming" again.

 

[datadyne007]

Politically, though, it'd be a huge victory if everyone would stop using the term "global warming"...because the worst alarmists are likely wrong (but popularized the term) and because the reality is that not all places will get warmer, so it gives deniers a chance to blow away a straw man (boogeyman?) they should never have been presented with, and feel smug/justified.

Calling it "Climate Change" is both more accurate and more consonant with people's everyday experience. 5 record breaking snows in the last 10 years is obviously climate change...let's drive that home and never use "global warming" again.

Fair point! I'll make an effort to switch terminology.

 

[Arlington]

Speaking of better politics, The Economist notes that folks who want to change climate/environmental policy should speak the language of economic growth, Instead of the old "rich(er) people are too dirty" message, they suggest we focus on messages like "congestion robs people of time & productivity"

Policies to slow down warming may be more attractive if framed as ways of speeding up growth...Sprawl wastes money. It ends up subsidised through the provision of more extensive systems of roads, sewers and the like; it reduces the gains in productivity that agglomeration provides. The report reckons that sprawl costs America $400 billion a year and quotes research from China that says labour productivity would rise 9% if its cities were denser.

 

[alexander]

The recent (and ongoing) Living With Water competition tip-toes into the waters of climate change and sea level rise within the Boston context. Most proposed solutions/visions-of-the future begin a dialogue with the public about solutions, some pragmatic and some whimsical.

http://www.bostonlivingwithwater.org/

"The competition seeks leading planners, designers, and thinkers to help the City of Boston and area businesses and residents develop and apply new concepts and strategies, including Living with Water design principles, to increase the City’s sustainability and climate change resiliency. The Boston Living with Water Jury brings together local and international experts with a range of perspectives to review proposals, select finalists and winners, and to provide commentary on responses and competition. Selected Finalists will further advance location-specific solutions to coastal flood dangers and rising sea levels that are beautiful and replicable."

 

[Arlington]

^ Where's just a plain old sea barrier, maybe with tidal generation?

 

[Arlington]

(cross posted from MBTA thread) One more picture you need to see. How far beyond normal February has been (and article at FiveThirtyEight). Note, I think that that's the "Blizzard of 78" there in the late 70s with "its month" at 36 inches. And you see 2005 was busy, and in general there is an undeniable climate change toward snowier months. Pretty much "the hockey stick" in the sudden appearance of months in the 35" to 40" range. And then our current 58.5"

 

[Matthew]

We're living with water right now.

Can't wait to see how the space saver wars play out with boats.

 

[datadyne007]

How the warming Arctic might be behind Boston's deep freeze
PRI
Peter Thomson, PRI's The World
8 hrs ago

A strange thing happened here in Boston over the weekend: The temperature got above freezing.

The massive dumps of snow here this winter have been bad enough, but it's the cold that's really done us in, an unbroken stretch of frigid weather that’s made Massachusetts feel more like Montreal — or Anchorage.

And Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis has a counterintuitive explanation for all the cold: It's the warming Arctic.

More specifically, Francis thinks the warming Arctic is causing the jet stream to slow down, get a lot more loopy, which lets big masses of frigid air slip south.

The jet stream is that powerful, high-altitude circulation system that carries weather around the Northern Hemisphere. The main fuel behind it is the difference in temperature between the Arctic and the warmer regions to the south.

“When the Arctic is warming so fast, that means there's less fuel driving the jet stream,” Francis says. “When the jet stream has less fuel it flows more slowly, and it tends to take these big north-south dips.”

The northeastern US just happens to be in the path of one of those big dips this year, she says, “and that’s when we get our cold winters." The United Kingdom has also seen extremely strong and persistent storms the past two winters. But she also thinks there’s a lot more going on than just a lot of cold and snow in New — or old — England.

© NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

“You have to step back and look at what the jet stream is doing all around the northern hemisphere,” Francis says. It's also taken a huge northward swing over the western US, causing drought and heat waves in California.

Farther east, Francis says, “think back to the Olympics last winter, and how much trouble they were having keeping snow on the ski slopes. And you can go all the way around to Alaska, [where] they been having two very warm winters in a row.”

Francis cautions that the climate system is extremely complicated, and that a lot of other big changes are in play at the same time as the disrupted jet stream.

“We can't draw a straight line between what's happening in the Arctic and what's happening to us in the east” and elsewhere around the world, she says. But, she adds, “what we do think is happening is the Arctic warming so fast is making it more likely that these kinds of patterns will happen more often.”

That may give Bostonians pause. Everyone here is talking about how nasty the winter has been, but the mostly-unspoken assumption is that since it’s almost never happened before, it probably won’t happen again in our lifetimes.

But Francis says that’s “not a safe assumption at all” given the recent changes in the jet stream. She also points out that the Atlantic Ocean off the east coast has been warming, creating more evaporation. “[That] puts more moisture in the air, [and] that moisture is also fuel for storms," she says.

Or things could go the other way: A shift in those big dips could push the cold part of the loop elsewhere and bring more winters like 2012 when, among other things, there were already crocuses and mosquitos in Boston by early March.

So get ready — and keep your long underwear and your shorts handy.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...ight-be-behind-bostons-deep-freeze/ar-BBhTRFZ

 

[George_Apley]

Just for posterity, posting this wonderfully dissonant missive by Westie from the Public Food Market thread:

Slaw -- that is absurd in all dimensions and levels of discussion

Let's put it in very concrete terms -- the probability of many more winters like the most recent one [snow / sleet this AM] is much greater than having to worry about heat waves in this part of the planet -- in other words there is no such thing as catastrophic anthropogenic climate change -- NONE!

Anyone who wants to believe in the Tooth Fairy is entitled to -- just don't build your retirement plans on the coins left under your pillow

It amazes me that you can highlight the severe winters we've been having and then deny anthropogenic climate change in the same breath.

Climate change will and is effecting different locales in dramatically different ways. Cold winters in the eastern US =/= proof climate change isn't real. You should be smart enough to realize this...

You're so excited about this new ice age we're going to encounter in New England. You know what? In the short to mid term, we just might end up with some dramatically cold winters, with heavy snow pack and shifting seasonal patterns that create a very icy regional landscape. But that does not mean the underlying warming trends in global temperatures are false.

No, we don't know exactly how global warming will effect the climate in different areas over long periods of time. But to say it's a fantasy is just utter foolishness.

 

[statler]

 

[tobyjug]

Anthropogenic climate change sucks

 

[whighlander]

Re: MIT.nano

More on the remarkable future promised by Nano

from recent MIT release
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/graphene-coating-more-efficient-power-plants-0529

Thin coating on condensers could make power plants more efficient
Graphene layer one atom thick could quadruple rate of condensation heat transfer in generating plants.
David L. Chandler | MIT News Office
May 29, 2015

Most of the world’s electricity-producing power plants — whether powered by coal, natural gas, or nuclear fission — make electricity by generating steam that turns a turbine. That steam then is condensed back to water, and the cycle begins again.
But the condensers that collect the steam are quite inefficient, and improving them could make a big difference in overall power plant efficiency.

An uncoated copper condenser tube (top left) is shown next to a similar tube coated with graphene (top right). When exposed to water vapor at 100 degrees Celsius, the uncoated tube produces an inefficient water film (bottom left), while the coated shows the more desirable dropwise condensation (bottom right).

Courtesy of the researchers

Note a couple of percent improvement in efficiency of traditional steam cycle plants and you need far fewer bird homogenizers -- aka windmills

 

[whighlander]

Re: MIT.nano

More MIT.nano progress update -- coming soon

 

[coleslaw]

Re: MIT.nano

Except that the idea isn't to use fewer fossil fuels it is to use no fossil fuels. We cannot just pollute less, we need to stop polluting and use organic farming and other techniques that suck up pollution.

 

[statler]

Re: MIT.nano

Noooooooo!