Scientist Warning About Climate Change

[Mars1]

In the news they are warning that our really cold and long winter is because of climate change. The part I don't understand is how is this winter different from when I was younger some 40 years ago.  This was the kind of winter I remember having where my father would complain that there was too much snow.   It would be up to our windows and it would be so cold you didn't want to play outside.  It is almost like going back to normal winter to me.

[Buffy]

It's the miracle of the statistics of chaotic systems. 

 

Local weather effects are especially misleading when trying to discuss changes in climate, The former being a single data point and the latter being the average over many data points.

 

In fact, the climatic warming was pretty certainly the direct cause for the extremely cold winter we had in the central and eastern US. The rest of the world had much warmer than average temperatures this winter. As shown in this diagram from an article in the Washington Post, warmer temperatures elsewhere caused the much talked about Polar Vortex to form over Canada, which pushed cold Arctic air into the Northern/Eastern US for months:

Source: Washington Post 1/7/2014

 

The winters of 100 years ago in this region were "normally" like this, but increasingly no longer are. But things like the displacement of the polar vortex are becoming more likely to occur, which means although the climate is getting warmer, the main effect of that is that weather gets more variable, and thus we'll still have whopper winters, but they're going to come along with whopper summers to more than balance out the averages.

 

Sometimes. Your Weather May Vary.

 

Bottom line though is that we're well on our way to losing Florida in less than 100 years unless we do more now.

 

 

Fall is my favorite season in Los Angeles, watching the birds change color and fall from the trees, :phones:

Buffy

[Abe40]

If we know so much about the negative effects of global warming on our world climate, why do so many governments for economic reasons refuse to cooperate to lower the carbon monoxide being released to the atmosphere? What affects one part of the world is felt in other parts; if our world survives much longer, it will be through the cooperative efforts of all of us.

[Turtle]

If we know so much about the negative effects of global warming on our world climate, why do so many governments for economic reasons refuse to cooperate to lower the carbon monoxide being released to the atmosphere? What affects one part of the world is felt in other parts; if our world survives much longer, it will be through the cooperative efforts of all of us.

One might reasonably say that if you know so much about cooperative efforts you should be giving answers and not asking questions.

[Buffy]

If we know so much about the negative effects of global warming on our world climate, why do so many governments for economic reasons refuse to cooperate to lower the carbon monoxide being released to the atmosphere? What affects one part of the world is felt in other parts; if our world survives much longer, it will be through the cooperative efforts of all of us.

 

Because it is strongly in their short-term economic interests to do so. These parties deal with it either by deflection---Indian and Chinese response is roughly "you first world countries got all the benefit of growth on cheap oil, we deserve some too, so you owe the world to do all the big cuts"--or outright scientific denial--the US conservatives who point at a few reports produced by bought-and-paid-for "scientists" as "proof."

 

I think both groups are engaging in crimes against humanity, but they have all the money and for now at least they can pay to keep the hoi polloi confused enough not to change things.

 

 

Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth, :phones:

Buffy

[LaurieAG]

I think both groups are engaging in crimes against humanity, but they have all the money and for now at least they can pay to keep the hoi polloi confused enough not to change things.

 

You could probably say that all the people from the tribe who lies are guilty.

 

Around 2 years ago I heard a power expert, an american professor who was attached to Sydney university at the time, on an Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio program state that since Australian politicians introduced the National Electricity Market (NEM) and joined up the state grids in 2000, on average 45 % of our power comes from a different state and on average 67 % of the power is lost before it gets to the other state for distribution. 

 

Now 67 % of 45 % (30 % of national power generation) looks like extremely low hanging environmental warming fruit so what do the political left and the greens do in Australia? 

[Buffy]

Oh my, please realize that electricity is fungible, and when they talk about "45% of your power comes from a different state" that they're only exchanging money and fractionalizing costs and profits. Electricity produced in Perth does not physically get transported to Brisbane to light up the Gold Coast casinos. That's not to say that none does, but the loss really comes simply from an imbalance of geographically distributed power plants. The main reason a large scale grid is good is because delivering electrical power is very sensitive to even small fluctuations in demand or supply, so the larger the grid the easier it is to keep the two in balance. So, a grid is good. 

 

If you've got a huge geographical imbalance--the only way you'd truly get to 45% (and I do think that was probably a bad/misleading calculation)--is if the power companies were actually making money off of the misdistribution. This happens because they pay-off the politicians who set up the rules (like what Enron did with the California Legislature: Enron basically fed legislation to friendly/credulous Legis-critters that let them manipulate the market). This can be done in situations where there's actually a surplus of supply, and it's cheaper for the power company to link the grid and "send" it long distances than building another plant in Queensland. That plant's just sitting there in Perth, so pushing it on the grid (where it actually gets "used" in Adelaide, not Brisbane, but it's pushing up the total supply on the grid) is indeed cheaper for them despite the loss over the grid link along the south coast. Plus they're probably getting a subsidy because of their "good citizenship" in not building a new plant where it's needed and "cooperating" with suppliers to maintain the larger grid.

 

 

Electricity is actually made up of extremely tiny particles called electrons, that you cannot see with the naked eye unless you have been drinking, :phones:

Buffy

[ErlyRisa]

 

Electricity is actually made up of extremely tiny particles called electrons, that you cannot see with the naked eye unless you have been drinking, :phones:

Buffy

 

 

Yeah, I drink alot

[labelwench]

I find it interesting that most people externalize the problem of energy and it's relation to climate change use but very few actually stop and contemplate an energy audit of their own overall impact. If they do, it usually stops after looking at home heating and transportation, maybe the electrical bill.

 

They seldom contemplate the impact of every single buying decision they make in the terms of climate impact. Every single one of us is part of the problem and a potential part of the solution.

 

The question remains, though, of what we are willing to change in our lives and do we have the right to tell developing nations that they cannot aspire to what we have had for all these decades because it is contributing to global warming. That would seem rather hypocritical as even now, we are using their human resources to provide ourselves with consumer goods far cheaper than we could manufacture at home.

 

Climate change cannot be separated from the politics of economics, in my opinion. We are seeing a gradual shift to 'green technologies' as there is now a profit to be realized from them. Sadly, I think it is more the allure of profit than rational concern about the environment that is driving much of this agenda. The petroleum economy has too much invested to walk away until the last dollar has been wrung forth or social chaos ensues.

 

As long as the majority of the population remains complacent or indifferent, it shall be 'business as usual'.

 

Humans are more of a reactive species than a proactive species, in my observation.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Buffy,

 

There are some very large scale brown coal power generation plants down in Victoria that supplies SA, and our east coast states (not WA, too far to be viable) and strangely enough the heat waves that have been occurring for the past 5 years or so all tend to happen in Victoria and SA.

 

The US professor also said that Australia should have done what Israel did 20 years ago, make solar power mandatory in new houses to minimise the dissipation in transit. But, since the introduction of the carbon tax that did not close down a single polluting power plant, the state governments have dropped the rebate for putting excess power from home solar systems into the main system down to zero.

 

The best way to tell how much the politicians next master plan will cost you can be determined by how much of a pay rise they give themselves in the 6 months before or after the implementation. They gave themselves $50k p.a. pay rises across the board just before they introduced the carbon tax. 

[Buffy]

The power companies have been at war over home solar systems for ages. In California they've been roughly successful in refusing to take excess power but that's changing. The technology to deal with this is actually already in place no matter what the companies say, and the real issue they don't want to have to deal with is to process the rebates on customer electric bills for all those hours your electric meter is spinning backwards.

 

I'm not concerned about all hell breaking loose, but that a PART of hell will break loose... it'll be much harder to detect, :phones:

Buffy 

[labelwench]

As the title of this thread deals with climate change, I would like to share the observation that I have been residing at this location since October 25th, 1985, and this is the latest spring that I can recall. We had virtually all of our winter's snow fall in the month of December, a very mild January, typical month of February and March and the snow is just hanging in there with night time lows of -15C to -18C and the mercury barely making it up to 0 by 5:00 p.m. by which time it is already starting to cool again.

 

Today, it is supposed to reach +2 or a bit better and then we should be heading for warmer temps going forward. Flurries in the forecast for Monday (Oh, joy! My first day off....) and the mention of isolated showers by next Saturday.

Okay. Grab a coat and gloves.

This is what my yard looks like on April freaking 12th, 2014. I climbed up on one of my hay-shed roofs to gain a better perspective. I trust you appreciate that this took considerable effort on my part, to clamber up the ladder and then to figure out where the camera application was again, lol.  I'd better brush up on at least a few of it's functions so that I can take photos and load them to my web album while I am visiting the folks in Ontario next month.

 

[sculptor]

hi under the rose

I'm wondering if you belong to 1001 different chat sites using 1001 different names?

 

..............

lucky me, it's been warm here, and now cool and raining--- a long steady rain--not too heavy---------but snow is forecast for tonight with temps well below freezing tomorrow night.

Good luck.

Any day now, spring will smell so sweet.

 

.........................

that being said

ssw events are said to be major movers or destroyers of the polar vortex

 

Thoughts on these?

Edited April 13, 2014 by sculptor

[labelwench]

Hello sculptor.

 

I have three on-line names and I divide my time between 5 science forums depending on the topics of interest. Last night was considerably milder, only a few degrees below freezing, and today we have a forecast high of 6C so I hope to be putting miles on the horses this afternoon. The earlier thawing followed by a week of cold temperatures had made the yard too icy for such activities for a few days. From experience, I know that it is better to be patient where the weather is concerned rather than risk injury to a horse that could take months to heal or even compromise it's future ability for life. They are large, strong animals in many respects but they also have several fragile points, their limbs and digestive systems notably.

 

Our wind are currently from the SE and for the rest of the week will continue from the southerly quarter, sometimes SE, at other times S or SW. Looks like spring is finally headed north and we are looking forward to it. Low lying areas may at risk for flooding if the snow goes too fast but we are in a well drained open area and should have few problems. Sometimes we have to quit using the driveway for a few days but the last couple of years the moisture was sucked up by the winds and the earth with very little surface flow or mud.

[arissa]

The world is in a constant change. Nothing remains the same forever, we are always changing so why can't the weather do the same? I am not sure if we are totally at fault or if we just don't fully understand it all yet.

[Eclogite]

In regard to the difference between weather and climate, mentioned earlier in the thread, It has often been said that Britain has a great climate, it is only the weather that is dreadful.

[Buffy]

The world is in a constant change. Nothing remains the same forever, we are always changing so why can't the weather do the same? I am not sure if we are totally at fault or if we just don't fully understand it all yet.

 

Sure but the issue is the rate of change and the high correlation with human caused factors: We know that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect because at times the CO2 level has been as high as today, and we can see from the geological evidence what it did to temperatures. We also know that humans have pumped that CO2 into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate to get us where we are, so we've seen in 150 years what happened in the past only after millennia of gradual changes. This pushes the confidence level on the theory way up, and it's why between 97% and 99.8% of climate scientists agree that the current change in climate is man-made.

 

Are there other factors? Of course there are, all those that caused the wide swings in atmospheric conditions that changed the climate dramatically in the past: Distance from the sun synchrony with seasons as they precess through our non-circular orbit (well-understood), celestial/geologic events (large meteor strikes, supervolvanose), changes in solar output, etc. That last one is my favorite because while less understood, many astrophysicists who study solar output variation say we should be going into a *cooling* period, and the CO2 in the atmosphere has completely overwhelmed that effect.

 

There has been quite a bit of whinging associated with the complaint that "models by nature are oversimplifications and may be overstating climate change" but the fact is that the models have been *underestimating* the rate of change seen to date.

 

All that's should be enough to give folks pause in their denial of what's going on or whether we need to do anything about it.

 

The worst effects of course are a generation or two away, but I for one don't want to be blamed for putting off doing something about it today to make the world a little more livable for my great grandkids.

 

 

A pound of idleness weighs twenty ounces, :phones:

Buffy