Quick status update

jasonrohrer · 2020-08-27 20:48:09

Wow, what a discussion!

If you're interested in looking at the actual smoke plume, this free satellite image service allows you to scroll through time.

https://zoom.earth

Morti · 2020-08-28 00:02:10

jasonrohrer wrote:

https://zoom.earth

A flat map?
In 2020?
Disappointed.

'Hey guys, don't worry about global warming, Greenland is nearly the size of North America and COVERED in ice. We're fine.'

...

'Globetarder!'

--

I'll stick with my Orthographic projections, thx.

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/p … ,59.03,515

BlueCramberry64 · 2020-08-28 03:11:58

Dodge wrote:

So you arent going to adress the fact that co2 is only one part and that temperature where higher before although co2 was lower? OK
Anyway i have tons of other example more recent of so called scientist making the same type of claims, if you want to see projected trends vs reality:
Yes science changed so much...

Well, you are not wrong.

mmm still, you seem to have little trust in scientist. Justified, just think it this way. Imagine everyone in this forum trend is a scientist. All with different knowledge and different data they have collected over the years and measured themselves. Like this forum, teams of scientist are just normal people that come different universities, from different countries, with different values and ideas all working together in a huge mess. Things are not always pretty.

All the time you see people getting publishing contradictory results because that is just what they get. Then a recopilatory paper reference both saying something like: "This person found this, but this other person found nothing, se we think that..." So little by little knew knowledge is created. Then that knowledge is teached in the classroom for like 3 years until it gets scraped by some new info just found that changes the idea completly.

Imagine how frustrating it gets when you try to make some rules to explain something complex, try to present it with your collegues but your ideas doesn't fit perfectly. That is when everyone brainstorm.

Something similar with those models you are showing. Models are just a representation of reality, they will never be reality, they will never be perfect. They can only approach reality, and how they do it depends on the prediction system they build with the resources they have in hand, and the quality of the data. You could have the best model ever but if you enter shit data you will get shit results. More importantly, people make predictions but the most important part of their work is not the prediction but THE WAY THEY DID the prediction, the formula, the statistics. That is what will allow the people in the future to improve into their work. The fact that media likes to make those predictions seem like the absolute truth is just to get some reactions for the public. Somethimes even the scientist themselves will sensationalize their findings that way for support and resources so.. yeah.

Yet, more than everything, we are talking about the weather here, to model THE fricking WEATHER! We can barely have a good weather forecast for next week. You are right, they make mistakes and don't really know, that's the idea the entire scientific method is based on. Be sceptical, but keep in mind not everything is false, it is just people like you and me trying to figure things out, with a lot of years of practice. To know what is truth and what might be wrong you need to learn how things work first. The modeling, the methods, why they exist and so on.

Well, thanks for reading my rant. This is just my opinion anyway, don't take it seriously. See ya.

Arcurus · 2020-08-28 10:28:06

DestinyCall wrote:

Dodge wrote:
https://i.ibb.co/348DB1b/415k-year-temp-graph.jpg
Is this graph supposed to prove or disprove global warming?
Or warn us of the impending ice age?

I guess thats the point... the hole thing is a big mess....

The more i look into it, the more the hole thing looks strange to me. Maybe some one can explain to me how the hole global warming
functions, i mean in detail, since heat absorption through co2 alone does not seem enough, so there need to be some other effects if it should get "dramatic"....

Seems like we are still in an ice age, since some bigger parts of the planets are covered in ice...

Dont know if this graph suppose to prove or disprove something....

Last edited by Arcurus (2020-08-28 10:29:37)

Arcurus · 2020-08-28 10:32:55

Some how everything is on fire currently in Amerika....

The_Anabaptist wrote:

I remember a long time ago suggesting that certain items in OHOL be flammable and that wildfires be a possibility as a result. Perhaps you will reconsider implementing such things and let us commiserate virtually with you and your family Jason. Stay safe.
The_Anabaptist

lol, yea let us virtually join you

And please stay save in real world!

Arcurus · 2020-08-28 12:09:11

Rookwood wrote:

Dodge wrote:
I hope you realize that co2 is not everything if we are talking about climate,
I'm not sure why you brought up the ozone layer, but there isn't a better example of anthropogenic global atmospheric disruption that was reversed by action that was taken... It seems a self-defeating point you've made there.

if i remember right, there where some experiments that ozone has a quite big impact on cloud formation. And cloud formation on temperature...

The logic is the following:
Heating through Co2 alone does not seem enough to have a big enough impact if not considering secondary effects like clouds, water and reflection through ice.

Clouds have most likely a quite big impact on our climate (cooling and heating).

The formation of clouds seems to be very much influenced by very small particles in the atmosphere like ozone.

Also other particles like from trees in "cold" areas seem to have an quite big effect on cloud formation (for me it seems, like these trees do some kind of cooling terraforming).

Also cosmic rays seem to have a quite big impact on cloud formation.

What is if one of those effects is much more drastic then the effects of CO2?

If you ask me. The more i look into it the more im surprised.

Currently for my part im much more concerned about all this nonsense in the oceans and of the destruction of natural habitats.

i would be all in for an plastic / poison / pollution tax, but at least with the current data i saw not so much for a CO2 tax.

If you ask me, work and trade (vat) (except protection tarifs) should be free of taxes and instead pollution and monopolies should be taxed...

If I see better data about the harm of CO2 i will change my mind.

The burst of CO2 and the related burst of temaprature seems to be interesting to look into it. Does some one have a link to a nice video or study that digs deeper into that?

Last edited by Arcurus (2020-08-28 12:12:52)

Arcurus · 2020-08-28 12:33:11

jasonrohrer wrote:

Meanwhile, I'm almost done with my vacation project, which is much easier to work on remotely (no paper, no scanner, no native builds on a bunch of different computers):
http://projectdecember.net/

by the way, how on earth one gets the secret words?

Arcurus · 2020-08-28 12:37:07

jasonrohrer wrote:

Wow, what a discussion!

If you're interested in looking at the actual smoke plume, this free satellite image service allows you to scroll through time.
https://zoom.earth

dont see North Amerika, only see clouds...

DestinyCall · 2020-08-28 13:41:34

Arcurus wrote:

jasonrohrer wrote:
Wow, what a discussion!

If you're interested in looking at the actual smoke plume, this free satellite image service allows you to scroll through time.
https://zoom.earth

dont see North Amerika, only see clouds...

*smoke

Rookwood · 2020-08-28 13:56:41

Arcurus wrote:

jasonrohrer wrote:
Wow, what a discussion!

If you're interested in looking at the actual smoke plume, this free satellite image service allows you to scroll through time.
https://zoom.earth

dont see North Amerika, only see clouds...

The smoke plume is very obvious from around August 21st through August 26th. Appears to be thinning out yesterday. It's easier to see during daylight.

Clouds are white. The smoke is grey.

Last edited by Rookwood (2020-08-28 14:00:30)

Morti · 2020-08-28 18:55:17

We can produce an order of magnitude greater of CO2 as long as we have an order of magnitude greater of plants to absorb it.
But over the last 100,000 years or so, human being have been steadily, and ever more rapidly, cutting down trees and removing their ability to reproduce and absorb it. Before human being there was an estimated 1000 gigatons of biomass on the Earth, 850 gigatons of it was in trees, now that number is down to more like 450 gigatons and the total mass of 'alive material' is more like 600 gigatons.

Meanwhile the deserts on this planet have grown stupid fast and people are trying to attribute this to Milankovitch cycles, which, no doubt have played a part, but we have also played a huge part, cutting down trees ever since the invention of stone axes and the discovery of fire. We can, not only reverse this, but help the Earth to see more biomass than it ever has before, simply by giving more trees places to grow. Their cells need, almost exclusively, water and carbon dioxide, and we can, via industrial processes provide the globe with an abundance of carbon dioxide, as we have proven, now, we just have to provide the landmasses where trees CAN grow, with the water for their cells to survive and reproduce.

Here, our mastery of industrial technology, especially in the form of pipe making for vast networks of oil pipelines, comes in. Shit, we could do it with aqueducts Roman style if we really had to, we just need to move more water inland where it can evaporate in shallow inland seas, creep along the ground, get absorbed by lichen and grasses, which then give way to shrubs, and trees.

It is not too late, for us to do these things. We can create shallow seas the size of the Caspian, in deserts, over the course of a hundred years, at the sorts of flow rates that oil pipelines are capable of, if we really want to. Considering how dry, hot and low the air pressure is in those regions, evaporation will occur naturally.

Any other necessary chemical elements can be redistributed similarly, either through industrial technology in the form of networks of trains or trucks, or, with the help of water fowl and livestock.

Complain about money and you deserve to die. Work to alter the land for the sake of your family, your country and all life that will benefit, and you and your cultures will flourish in the abundance of resources that will follow.
Afterwards, if you want to implement systems that have lead to the billions of personal farms that exist where people sell crops on the market, so be it, but for now we need to get plants in those regions that will shed leaves and needles as they grow n die, year after year, building up the soil and detritus the way they have in places that have had them for millions of years, then you get the fungi, the worms and everything else to spread an follow suit, but we must start with the water and the basic ingredients for cells to hold their shape and reproduce.

Start small and work our way up, and by small, I mean on the atomic scale.

Once we are sure all things are in place, we introduce the seeds and spores of life to make up for the deficit of those things that are dispersed naturally.

Point is, we can't sit around waiting for rains to bring water to these regions, we have to pump in the water ourselves and that is going to be the hardest part, once the water is in place, most of these processes will take off on their own; that's what life does.

The most dangerous part of the industrial revolution was not the factories, it was the chainsaw and, these beasts:

Arcurus · 2020-08-28 20:20:57

by the way if you want to help to plant some trees by not googeling, you may try out this:

https://www.ecosia.org/

If all use it instead of google it could reduce 30% of the emissions if i remember right....

Tnat said im more keen on the trees itself and the work they provide for local farmers.

A great project!

karltown_veteran · 2020-08-29 16:40:56

Dodge, we’re going to be affected because the warming is happening much much faster than before, because it’s manmade. The other coolings and warmings were much much slower and animals had a chance to evolve. Nowadays we’ve got fish going extinct from warming waters, ice caps melting, species going extinct, not to mention the water shortage has taken a serious toll on crops. Mexico can no longer grow corn at the rate it did, in the Middle East they can’t grow wheat very well so no food and no water, which has actually caused a war. Maybe you live in Greenland or something but over here in the US we’ve had raging wildfires in California, hurricanes caused by warmer waters and now half of the US is on fire.Warmer waters also means more flooding. Florida is going to sink, not that anyone would miss it. Beautiful Venice will be entirely submerged in the next few hundred years.
And Australia, the place my parents grew up, nearly burnt down earlier this year. And the great coral reef is dying.

I’m fifteen and I’ve learned most of this in Science class over the course of a few years. I can’t believe grown adults still don’t understand that it’s not a drop in the ocean, it’s going to be seriously damaging.

Oh, and viruses survive better in heat so if you’re wondering why we’ve had swine flu and all those little guys, and then coronavirus, just in the past 20 years, when we hadn’t had a single one in 100 or so years - there you go.

Dodge · 2020-08-29 17:20:31

Yeah tell that to the spanish flu from 1918 that killed an estimated 20 million to 50 million.

I bet you also watched that movie at school from al gore that predicted that there wouldn't be any more ice by now, guess he was wrong...

And if you really think that evolution only takes around 10'000 years you are dead wrong, what do you even mean by that "animals had a chance to evolve" you think they had the time to change their genetic makeup to adapt to higher temperatures in only a few thousand years, lol what a joke.

The reality is that some species survived and others didn't and if you think that we are entirely or in majority responsible for the current temperatures going up that's your choice.

The sahara was at one point a tropical jungle with plenty of water, i guess the monkeys farted too much, caused global warming and turned that jungle into a desert.

DestinyCall · 2020-08-29 18:00:23

You do realize that the existence of natural climate change does not disprove the existence of man-made climate change, right?

We are not denying that ice ages were a thing. Or claiming that global temperatures cannot fluctuate without our direct involvement.

You are fighting with a straw man, Dodge.

Dodge · 2020-08-29 21:00:02

DestinyCall wrote:

You are fighting with a straw man, Dodge.

You might be right on that one, head filled with straw, that keep posting the same data about co2 without any proof that it can actually cause a significant change in the long run and that know nothing about how complex climat actually is, that keep focusing on one aspect, one piece of the puzzle and refusing to see a bigger picture.

But hey no more ice in 50 years, wait no 100 years, wait actually maybe it doesn't work like that, maybe it slightly more complex, currents change, winds, clouds, temperatures.

I guess if it's hotter then more water from the sea will evaporate, which means more rain, wait what?, no, hmmm, so will the evaporation from the ocean cool down some parts that are hotter, hmmm, or maybe more rain in arrid regions, wait, no, it's the winds that will change course due the temperature differences and bring more heat in some regions that are too cold to grow more vegetation or maybe balance the temperatures from hot and colder regions, no nvm i give up, we'll see we'll see.

Rookwood · 2020-08-29 21:03:45

Dodge wrote:

snip

Well at least you accept that it is complicated.

Dodge · 2020-08-29 21:14:07

Rookwood wrote:

Dodge wrote:
snip
Well at least you accept that it is complicated.

And you dont

DestinyCall · 2020-08-29 21:40:38

This isn't really relevant to global warming, but some researchers theorize that natural climate change may be responsible for the development of human civilization as we know it.

The idea is that global climate has been generally more stable in the current epoch, compared with earlier times, and this stability may have been critically important for the development of agriculture. The development of farming is a major tipping point in human history, because it facilitates the transition from small groups of nomadic hunter-gatherers to larger farming settlements and eventually much more advanced civilizations.

The Pleistocene geological epoch was characterized
by dramatic glacial advances and retreats. These changes were accompanied by equally dramatic climate variations that spanned millenia. However, the climate was also highly variable on a much smaller time scale with comparatively large jumps in temperature and rainfall.

"The last glacial period was arid and extremely variable compared to the Holocene. Sharp millennial-scale excursions occur in estimated temperatures, atmospheric dust, and greenhouse gases. The intense variability of the last glacial carries right down to the limits of the nearly 10-year resolution of the ice core data. The highest resolution records
in Greenland ice (and lower latitude records) show that millennial-scale warmings and coolings often began and ended very abruptly and were often punctuated by quite large spikes of relative warmth and cold with durations of a decade or two (e.g., Grafenstein et al. 1999). "

By comparison, the more recent 10,000 years (Holocene Era) has experienced significantly smaller climate variation, less arid conditions world-wide, and generally provided more favorable climate for stable crop cultivation.

So the idea is that it might not have been possible for early hominids to develop subsistence farming until the global climate settled down and remained stable long enough to allow it.

Interesting stuff.

Here is the full paper, if you are interested in reading more about it:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals … 296AD72949

karltown_veteran · 2020-08-29 22:16:30

Dodge wrote:

Yeah tell that to the spanish flu from 1918 that killed an estimated 20 million to 50 million.
I bet you also watched that movie at school from al gore that predicted that there wouldn't be any more ice by now, guess he was wrong...
And if you really think that evolution only takes around 10'000 years you are dead wrong, what do you even mean by that "animals had a chance to evolve" you think they had the time to change their genetic makeup to adapt to higher temperatures in only a few thousand years, lol what a joke.
The reality is that some species survived and others didn't and if you think that we are entirely or in majority responsible for the current temperatures going up that's your choice.
The sahara was at one point a tropical jungle with plenty of water, i guess the monkeys farted too much, caused global warming and turned that jungle into a desert.

Again, the Spanish flu was around 100 years ago. After that, nothing. Then as it’s been getting warmer we’ve seen Ebola outbreaks, swine flu, coronavirus.

If you knew half as much as you thought you did you would realize that animals didn’t decide to grow fur for fun, mammoths appeared because it started to get colder. It got colder very gradually, unlike the way it’s getting cold now. You’re right that animals can’t evolve quickly, which is why the rate at which climate change is going is going to cause extinctions. Thanks for proving my point for me!

Hopefully you’re aware that there are both natural and manmade climate change, hence the Sahara. Hopefully I don’t have to explain how we are currently heating up the atmosphere, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you at least know that.

Also just because one politician exaggerated the rate of the melting doesn’t mean it’s not melting quickly. For someone who doesn’t live in the US you have a bit of a crush on Al Gore

The only monkey farting around here is you dodge

Arcurus · 2020-08-29 23:53:59

karltown_veteran wrote:

I’m fifteen and I’ve learned most of this in Science class over the course of a few years. I can’t believe grown adults still don’t understand that it’s not a drop in the ocean, it’s going to be seriously damaging.

yea, i guess the brainwashing of schools have to be abolished at some point...

if you ask me, the current school system with children sitting trapped inside is an atrocity against humankind.

its not that human does not destroy the nature on the planet, its that humans are totally disconnected from nature and therefore destroy it. The school system is a mayor part of it. Its an atrocity that children which should at that age play in the nature are forced to sit inside most of the time disconnected from their loved onces, its an accepted atrocity same like being forced to wear clothes.

So many accepted atrocities, but you dont see them, since they are accepted....

Arcurus · 2020-08-30 00:04:11

by the way, did the school explain how exactly the CO2 heats up the earth in that drastic way, that it becomes dangerous?

As far as i know, both sides agree, that there must be other influences that increase the heating, otherwise the CO2 would not be enough to make any "dangerous" change.

The last years i tried to look into theses "other" influences, but i still dont understand how they work fully, so please enlighten me.

And yes, for sure we should preserve nature, i just at this moment dont think that CO2 is our biggest problem and that we could use the resources to combat CO2 much more efficient in other ways.

What i find interesting is, that if you look at the longer time scale, more and more CO2 got stuck on the ground and vulcanos alone dont seem enough to
balance this in an high enough level for the plants.

Maybe we humans are designed to bring up some of the "lost" CO2 again, since all live here ön this beautiful planet is mainly based on C

Last edited by Arcurus (2020-08-30 00:04:49)

Arcurus · 2020-08-30 00:10:58

And to covid....

Are the schools really blaming the climate for this?

Seems to me more like an artificial virus created by human idiocy....

And for sure it wont help, that we (mostly the elder people) dont get enough sunlight anymore. No sun no vitamin D, no vitamin D no awake immune system, not to mention al lthe other nutritions that are more and more lackign in our food...

Not to mention the pollution in the air... ever wondered why covid looked much more scary in the beginning in China?

Last edited by Arcurus (2020-08-30 00:25:11)

Arcurus · 2020-08-30 00:20:36

karltown_veteran wrote:

Hopefully you’re aware that there are both natural and manmade climate change, hence the Sahara. Hopefully I don’t have to explain how we are currently heating up the atmosphere, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you at least know that.

Honestly, the more i look into it, the more i see that I dont fully understand how we supposed to heat up currently the atmosphere (other then the direct heating though CO2 (which seems not to be enough alone to be alarming without secondary aspects that i want to understand) and cutting of forests (which for sure should be stopped and redone) / building cities.

What is if not the CO2 is the problem, but the ozone (is changing cloud formation) or the cutting of forests (is changing cloud formation trough particles they emit) or other ways we influence the creation of clouds, maybe through airplanes?

This hole thing seems to be little more complex to me then, just CO2 is heating.

Last edited by Arcurus (2020-08-30 00:23:31)

DestinyCall · 2020-08-30 00:33:01

Arcurus wrote:

by the way, did the school explain how exactly the CO2 heats up the earth in that drastic way, that it becomes dangerous?
As far as i know, both sides agree, that there must be other influences that increase the heating, otherwise the CO2 would not be enough to make any "dangerous" change.

Short answer is "it is complicated". The longer answer gets really technical and in places, kind of theoretical. I am not an expert on any of this, but I can at least give a Cliff's notes version.

First, CO2 is a "greenhouse gas" Solar radiation from the sun enters the atmosphere and bounces off of stuff. Some of it bounces right back out into space. But some of it gets absorbed by molecules in the air. Greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, water vapor and methane are better at absorbing solar radiation than gases like nitrogen and oxygen. After absorbing the radiation, these gases will release it again later, heating up the air/earth.

More greenhouse gases = More heat

When talking about global warming, there is a lot of focus on CO2 emissions because burning fossil fuels, like oil and gas and also coal, dump a lot of Co2 into the air. And I am talking literally tons of the stuff. More than enough to change the composition of the Earth's atmosphere and affect amount of heat that gets trapped by the atmosphere.

Other factors are also important - water vapor (clouds) and dust in the air (like from volcanic activity or meteor strikes or dry areas) can also change global atmospheric temperature.

And various other things are related to those things, like average rainfall, the water cycle, pollution, etc.

Some of it is natural, some of it is man-made. A lot of it is connected together by complex systems that we only partially understand.

But we do know that human activity is changing the face of the Earth and that many of those changes are likely contributing to global climate change.

There is strong evidence that rising CO2 levels are causing a rise in global temperatures. And that human activity is directly responsible for the rising CO2 levels. That's global warming.

One Hour One Life Forums

#51 2020-08-27 20:48:09

Re: Quick status update

#52 2020-08-28 00:02:10

Re: Quick status update

#53 2020-08-28 03:11:58

Re: Quick status update

#54 2020-08-28 10:28:06

Re: Quick status update

#55 2020-08-28 10:32:55

Re: Quick status update

#56 2020-08-28 12:09:11

Re: Quick status update

#57 2020-08-28 12:33:11

Re: Quick status update

#58 2020-08-28 12:37:07

Re: Quick status update

#59 2020-08-28 13:41:34

Re: Quick status update

#60 2020-08-28 13:56:41

Re: Quick status update

#61 2020-08-28 18:55:17

Re: Quick status update

#62 2020-08-28 20:20:57

Re: Quick status update

#63 2020-08-29 16:40:56

Re: Quick status update

#64 2020-08-29 17:20:31

Re: Quick status update

#65 2020-08-29 18:00:23

Re: Quick status update

#66 2020-08-29 21:00:02

Re: Quick status update

#67 2020-08-29 21:03:45

Re: Quick status update

#68 2020-08-29 21:14:07

Re: Quick status update

#69 2020-08-29 21:40:38

Re: Quick status update

#70 2020-08-29 22:16:30

Re: Quick status update

#71 2020-08-29 23:53:59

Re: Quick status update

#72 2020-08-30 00:04:11

Re: Quick status update

#73 2020-08-30 00:10:58

Re: Quick status update

#74 2020-08-30 00:20:36

Re: Quick status update

#75 2020-08-30 00:33:01

Re: Quick status update

Board footer