More Bad News for Caribbean Coral Reefs

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

No amount of banning fossil fuels and spray cans is going to change that in the long term.

Agreed.

What we might achieve is slowing the rate of change to something matching the rate at which humans can adapt.

We're in the process of redefining what "long term" means.

A sealevel change of 15m in 2500 years would not be a dealbreaker for entire cultures and economies, but in 250 years that's a different matter altogether.

And I think we're risking pushing the rate by more than that single order of magnitude.

Particularly if we "solve" the impending fossil fuel shortage by shale oil, fracking, etc etc.

Which brings to mind a scenario illustrating the rate of adaptation from a different angle (less emotive and controversial, perhaps):

Imagine oil ran out, completely, all gone, in ten years time, with no alternatives on stream. That would be catastrophic (for us, although arguably not for the planet as a whole).
ALL our systems would collapse, not just agriculture and transportation.

But if we ran out in 1000 years, we would barely notice the adaptation that would require. And that's more akin to the sort of timescale typically associated with natural change.

As opposed to changes arising from human activity:

Like drilling for ile, or emitting CO2.

[hellosailor]

"What we might achieve is slowing the rate of change to something matching the rate at which humans can adapt."
Rate? Adapt? No problem there. Some economic disruption, but the current rate is nothing we can't adapt to. Might be some starvation, war, inconvenience, but the specis can survive quite nicely.]

"Particularly if we "solve" the impending fossil fuel shortage by shale oil, fracking, etc etc....Imagine oil ran out, completely,...ALL our systems would collapse, not just agriculture and transportation."
Nope. Just ain't so. Hitler produced gasoline from coal, we've got the same technology and a 400-year supply. There's plenty of alternative energy, and trying to grab the cheapest alternatives, like fracking, is dangerous. At $5/gallon we can synthesize gasoline from food waste and other biosources including coal. Fracking is cheap, but there's good reason to suspect it will contaminate major ground water sources for thousands of years. And water is harder to replace than fuel.

Oil? That's mainly a Saudi game, and they're quite good at it. Hold the prices to painful but not unbearable, milk the market for all it is worth. Keep it below $5 to make sure no one sets up a synfuel plant. And then, when they do? Whatever the price is, drop oil stocks just enough to bankrupt the new plants, buy 'em at a penny on the dollar, and push the price back up. The Rockefellers and their ilk would be proud.

What do you call it when ten million coastal city dwellers are flooded out? A disaster? Or a real estate opportunity, if you own property inland that you can sell to them?

Gas and oil are terribly familiar and convenient, but they're also substantially (not totally, but substantially) artificial markets in a zero-sum game.

[delmarrey]

Then there is this............. Solar Max 2012-2013 and there is NOTHING man can do to affect this!

As far back as 2006, solar scientists began predicting that our next solar maximum would be one of the strongest yet. "This week researchers announced that a storm is coming--the most intense solar maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a team led by Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). 'The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one,' she says. If correct, the years ahead could produce a burst of solar activity
second only to the historic Solar Max of 1958." (From Science @ NASA.) Our last solar
minimum, however, was longer and deeper than usual. Could this mean a quieter solar max period?
So far, solar activity seems to be much lower than expected. Recent projections by
NASA scientists say that maximum solar activity will peak in 2013.

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

"What we might achieve is slowing the rate of change to something matching the rate at which humans can adapt."
Rate? Adapt? No problem there. Some economic disruption, but the current rate is nothing we can't adapt to. Might be some starvation, war, inconvenience, but the specis can survive quite nicely.]

"Particularly if we "solve" the impending fossil fuel shortage by shale oil, fracking, etc etc....Imagine oil ran out, completely,...ALL our systems would collapse, not just agriculture and transportation."
Nope. Just ain't so. Hitler produced gasoline from coal, we've got the same technology and a 400-year supply. There's plenty of alternative energy, and trying to grab the cheapest alternatives, like fracking, is dangerous. At $5/gallon we can synthesize gasoline from food waste and other biosources including coal. Fracking is cheap, but there's good reason to suspect it will contaminate major ground water sources for thousands of years. And water is harder to replace than fuel.

Oil? That's mainly a Saudi game, and they're quite good at it. Hold the prices to painful but not unbearable, milk the market for all it is worth. Keep it below $5 to make sure no one sets up a synfuel plant. And then, when they do? Whatever the price is, drop oil stocks just enough to bankrupt the new plants, buy 'em at a penny on the dollar, and push the price back up. The Rockefellers and their ilk would be proud.

What do you call it when ten million coastal city dwellers are flooded out? A disaster? Or a real estate opportunity, if you own property inland that you can sell to them?

Gas and oil are terribly familiar and convenient, but they're also substantially (not totally, but substantially) artificial markets in a zero-sum game.

I could refute the key propositions one by one, but first I'd have to reinstate the crucial parts of my propositions which are edited out in the quotes.

Sad experience tells me that when I have to do this it's because the writer is in the habit of cherrypicking incoming data - not just from me, but from all sources - which makes it pointless engaging.

Most of the propositions I'm thinking of are effectively self-refuting, to any reader who was prepared and able to follow a careful written refutation.

So from that angle, too, the post I quote above doesn't seem worth engaging with.

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by Therapy

I have never, ever seen nor heard of anything like that.

Untill verified I call Photo Shop.

I saw footage like this on CNN a few yrs back,I think it happens..

[tropicalescape]

Originally Posted by noelex 77

Great photo.
I have seen similar phenomena.
When a farmer lights even a small fire on a day when the atmosphere is unstable it can set up an enormous twisting updraft, raising dust and smoke.

In my gliding days we would look out for these and sometimes divert considerable distances to get to them.
They produced fantastically strong, narrow, rough thermals. I can still hear the screech of the variometer and smell the smoke now.

Burning Dust Devils.now thats one hell of a thermal,elevator to heaven!Did you core one of these?...

[Lagoon4us]

So is it double the rainy days and/or double the rainfall?

100 Years ago there were a minimum of rain gauges compared to the amount now.

Weather changes in cycles, my comment is/was intended to highlight that weather is no worse now as it was when i was a kid, cyclones included.

In the 50's no one built in flood plains in Australia, now developers cut the land up and sell to the punters, we get a rain event and bingo massive damage, some deaths and great loss, NOT because there's more rain it just ends up in the wrong place!!!

Global warming isn't a bad thing (under the new banner of CLIMATE CHANGE) it's far better than Global Cooling....

[Lagoon4us]

Originally Posted by delmarrey

Then there is this............. Solar Max 2012-2013 and there is NOTHING man can do to affect this!

It looks like Cycle 24 is trending down and is way lower than Cycle 23, low cycles mean cooler weather not good times. None of this is influenced by Co2 in the atmosphere as the sun has the greatest influence on us, our weather our life.

Interesting my last name is MAUNDER !

As you rightly say we are observers, powerless observers.

Cheers

[DumnMad]

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us;

As you rightly say we are observers, powerless observers.
Cheers

Not quite powerless. God's first commandment to mankind "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it" (Genesis 1.) I suppose that means after we fill it its gonna need subduing to fix all the problems that ensue.

[Lagoon4us]

Originally Posted by DumnMad

Not quite powerless. God's first commandment to mankind "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it" (Genesis 1.) I suppose that means after we fill it its gonna need subduing to fix all the problems that ensue.

Just keep those zombies at bay lol....

[conachair]

Originally Posted by Lagoon4us

None of this is influenced by Co2 in the atmosphere as the sun has the greatest influence on us, our weather our life.

If that is the case, then no one else has had much luck finding a link between the suns output and the weather.....

RealClimate: A review of cosmic rays and climate: a cluttered story of little success

[delmarrey]

There is still no evidence suggesting that the GCR influence our climate in significant ways.

But still an influence! I do see a correlation in the chart. The temps are not going to cool as fast as the reduction of GCR, any more then opening a door in a hot house.


A comparison between time evolution in the global mean temperature (dark red) and different solar indices (bottom) as well as CO2 forcing (green). All the curves here have been standardised, and the solar curves are shown along the bottom. The GCR are shown in grey, and have been multiplied by -1 to emphasise the correlation with the other solar indices.

Solar flares (GCR) throw out a lot of energy, enough to blow out satellites and cause huge difference in the earth magnetic field.

And this report is mostly about moisture reduction in clouds anyway.
Also, I wish they would talk/write in plan english instead of around corners.

[hellosailor]

Laggonus-
"So is it double the rainy days and/or double the rainfall?" Yup. Pretty much exactly so. I ttoally agree with your point about rain guages but as this was one location, it may actually just be one same rain station. Dunno, and as I said, it was just a fast look to see what kind of records there were.
Actually in parts of the US, NOAA is getting desparate for civilian weather stations, apparently amatuer meteorologists are a dying breed. They even teach classes in how to measure snowfall. (Be careful, those yard sticks are dangerous.)

Del-
I'm not sure it takes a lot of power to knock out a satellite. I knocked out a 1/2 million dollars worth of electronics one day with just the static from my fingertips. Minor design flaw in the equipment at hand, but satellites? Even with "armored" chips, zaps gonna happen. Considering the scale of events on/in the sun...what we get on this end is thankfully next to nothing.

[Lagoon4us]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Laggonus-
"So is it double the rainy days and/or double the rainfall?"

Yup. Pretty much exactly so. I ttoally agree with your point about rain guages but as this was one location, it may actually just be one same rain station. Dunno, and as I said, it was just a fast look to see what kind of records there were.
Actually in parts of the US, NOAA is getting desparate for civilian weather stations, apparently amatuer meteorologists are a dying breed. They even teach classes in how to measure snowfall. (Be careful, those yard sticks are dangerous.)
There was a time when every rail station, police station and school recorded rainfall etc but the results were often fudged due to incompetance. Now the cities roads and cleared areas themselves impact on temps and rainfalls.

Hard to get workable data if the data isn't constant as in the placement of sensors.

[Andrew Troup]

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology must be conspirators in the global cabal: they've added a couple of new colours at the top of the scale for their temperature maps to take it into the 50s, in recognition of our shining new future.

That's fairly hot, for those of you still in Fahrenheit.

And here on the other side of the Tasman, we've been warned it may get above 40 deg C in the next few days on the east coast.

We get our air from across the Tasman, and we re-heat it by drying it out over the Southern Alps, recovering the latent heat lost through trying to evaporate the Tasman, then dropping it back down to sealevel over the baking plains on the way East, so it's considerably hotter than when it arrived.

I remember a day it got to 38 here (I think our next hottest day on record is 34), when I was just old enough to ride a motorbike. That's over forty years ago.

It was my first exposure to the opposite of wind-chill.

On my way home from school, I had to limit my speed,
which no young kid on a big bike wants to have to do,

Because of the blast furnace effect ...

And because the tarmac roads were liquefying ...

And the tyres were chucking molten tar at me.

What was once a 'once in a lifetime' event seems almost certain to become commonplace in the near future.

So good luck with keeping Australia habitable fifty years hence, mates.

We'd love to give you all a bed, but we'll have problems of our own by then.