I think the issue there would be what is the cause.Originally Posted by Borderland
I think the issue there would be what is the cause.
I miss Rodney Dangerfield. Funny bastard.
Don’t blame me. I didn’t vote for that dumb bastard.
If you make a time line and consider:
Earth is roughly 4,500,000,000 years old
If each year is represented by an inch
The timeline is 71,022 miles long
The Great Lakes were formed by a glacier over 1/2 miles thick about 15,000 years ago.
Think about it.
15,000 years ago a sheet of ice half a mile thick, dug out the Great Lakes and then melted.
If you mark that on our time line it was less than 1/4th of a mile back along the 71,022 mile timeline
If the Industrial Age started in 1750 and it's 2020 now
The Industrial Age represents the last 22.5 feet of the 71,022 mile timeline
Does anyone really believe that we are responsible for the climate change due to the Industrial Age with so many obvious representations of how the Earth's climate changes naturally? Obama was very active on climate change, rising sea levels etc. Yet he just bought a mansion in Martha's Vineyard with 29 waterfront acres abutting a tidal pond that opens to the sea about three times each year. Do you think he's worried about the rising sea level and just wants to "monitor things?"
-All views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect those of the author's employer-
Drought, more than likely. But CA has had 9 major droughts that were recorded. The latest was pretty severe and climate change probably made it worse. But again, climate change is ongoing.
Last edited by Borderland; 01-24-2020 at 10:53 PM.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
I've rebuilt/tuned quite a few of them. Fuel injection killed them and for this I am glad.The EPA ruined carburetors in the US
-Seconds Count. Misses Don't-
Do you really think 95% of scientists have never considered the possibility that the climate can change naturally? We're not just talking about change, we're talking about what is very likely an unprecedented rate of change.
That is a great image and I thank you for posting it. I'll have to mull it over. The figures I've seen mentioned speculate that with total immediate cessation of the use of fossil fuels, temperature reduction would be in the range of a few 10ths of a degree over the next century. What have you seen mentioned along those lines and do you think that is a viable course of action? What should we do?
I note that you use the term "very likely." What keeps you from using more "absolute" terms regarding the change being unprecedented? Again, thanks for the image and your overall tone of discussion!
Last edited by FNFAN; 01-25-2020 at 06:44 AM.
-All views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect those of the author's employer-
I'm less comfortable with future predictions than with the past because there are so many variables at play. Most past predictions have overestimated the effects largely due to the earth's seeming ability to self-regulate to some extent. For instance, when ocean temperatures rise more water evaporates and creates clouds and clouds do a pretty good job reflecting the sun's rays, cooling off. Likewise as glaciers melt they often leave behind lush land that increases carbon sequestration. And if the polar ice caps melt, the earth's rotation will probably change in ways that affect how much of the sun's energy the earth absorbs.
That said, my best guess is that even if we immediately stopped emitting carbon temperatures will still rise over the next 50-100 years. I imagine it like being on the interstate and taking your foot off the gas -- you coast for a while before coming to a stop.
I think the most rational course of action is to prepare for less hospitable weather in the future. I do not see all of mankind having the will to make the kinds of changes that would otherwise be considered best practice. Part of that is basic fairness: the US and western world benefited from 150 years of cheap hydrocarbons -- we built our societies on it. Is it really fair to cut off India and China's rapid industrial growth before they get a chance to catch up?What should we do?
The largest source of uncertainty is in historic temperature measurement. Mankind has had accurate thermometers for only 300 years and they were widely used only in the last 150 or so years. So scientists have to resort to proxies for temperature: tree rings, coral reef growth, ice cores, etc. These are imperfect: sometimes trees grow quickly even when it is cold (or slowly when it is hot). Each proxy has a range of error. By using multiple proxies, you reduce the errors, but the possible range of temperature is still wide.I note that you use the term "very likely." What keeps you from using more "absolute" terms regarding the change being unprecedented? Again, thanks for the image and your overall tone of discussion!
Here is the famous "hockey stick" graph from the late 1990s with the grey/light blue zone being the extremes possible and the dark blue & green lines being predicted actual temperatures:
You can see that it is technically possible that from ~1125 to ~1175 and from ~1450 to ~1500 the earth may have had as sharp of a temperature change as it has in the last 50 years. It is unlikely - that would mean going from one extreme outlier immediately to the other - but it is within the range of possibilities.
Last edited by 0ddl0t; 01-25-2020 at 07:40 AM.
The first experience I had with fuel injection (rail, not throttle body) was an 85 Toyota pickup. I new then carburetors had seen their final days. Reduced pollution considerably because engines became more efficient.
Last edited by Borderland; 01-25-2020 at 09:43 AM.
In the P-F basket of deplorables.
Apropos the hockey stick, this is a worthwhile 20 minutes.
If you only read the sports section when your team has won, the science will be settled that your team is undefeated.
Reply With Quote
