• Forums Software Updates

    The forums will be undergoing updates on Sunday 13th October 2024.
    Little to no downtime is expected.
  • We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Global Warming & Climate Change: The Phenomenon

One of those fires was 340 000 acres. That is unbelievable.
 
kesavaross said:
One of those fires was 340 000 acres. That is unbelievable.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was started by a "controlled burn" that got out of control because of wind. The agency that is in charge of that is under investigation. I know this state does have a lot of summer fires but it seems to get worse every year, as does California, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada and Utah.
 
In years gone by these fires must have also occurred before there was anyone to put them out. Did they just burn and burn?

I know global warming has been blamed for the dryness of vegetation but what actually starts most fires?

I've look on the net but can't find a specific answer to both questions.
 
I remember that 'stubble burning' was a regular thing here all through my childhood and probably well into my 20s.
Farmers would do it and plough the ash back into the ground.
It seems to be a practice that has totally died out.
Probably told that they couldn't because of pollution or some such, despite it being done for hundreds of years.
 
The heat and drought has taken a toll on the northern hemisphere rivers.

China suffering through the heat and drought is seeing the Yangtze River dry up.

China”s city Huber is running out of drinking water.

China has been seeding the clouds with silver iodide.
 
I have no idea if global warming is happening, or if so, what the causes are. Regarding US Southwest drought, wildfires, and floods: I live in Arizona and so follow these topics with interest.

Since WWII, about 75-80% of all water from all sources is used for agriculture. Here is a link to current water usage:

Agriculture | Arizona Department of Water Resources (azwater.gov)

Arizona temperatures are such than crops can be grown all year long. Because of the complicated history of development and water right ownership, the crops and livestock are not sustainable, but will likely continue on until disaster is reached. If agriculture were banned, enough water would be freed up to eventually replenish the aquifers and – gasp! – the Colorado river would once again flow into Mexico and restore the natural low salinity of the Northern Gulf of California. (Well, this would also require long-term strategy and agreement between California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, the US Federal government...)

Why wildfires have increased in number and intensity: the proliferation of a non-native type of grass which grows fast and then dries out, leaving a large amount of biomass which can easily catch fire:

What is buffelgrass? | U.S. Geological Survey (usgs.gov)

This grass was introduced as erosion control. Ah, the law of unintended consequences. There are other varieties of grasses introduced as cattle feed which also contribute to the problem, but the buffelgrass is the main culprit.

The pattern here is that the grass grows and spreads easily, dries out, and then catches fire from lightning, sparks, discarded cigarettes, etc. The heat generated is enough to cause cactus and trees to burn and explode. The native vegetation is then wiped out. When it rains in the annual monsoon season – July and August – the lack of groundcover causes massive flooding. This is so extreme in places that large boulders, roads, bridges, etc. are moved and destroyed.

My favorite drive here in Arizona, Highway 88 through the Superstition and Mazatzal mountains, is now closed for an eight-mile stretch, probably for the rest of my life, because of the very large boulders (upwards of 500-1000 tons) that slid down mountainsides and blocked the road after a wildfire (the Woodbury fire, 124,000 acres) followed by heavy rains. The area is so unstable that I am afraid to hike in. I’m glad I took all those photos when I had the chance. The state highway maintenance department is very clear that they have no budget to repair.
 
Tweet making the rounds today:
climate.png
 
Well, it is a sort of zombie apocalypse.

Zombie ice from the massive Greenland ice sheet will eventually raise the global sea level by at least 10in (27 centimetres) on its own, according to a study.

Zombie or doomed ice is ice that is still attached to thicker areas of ice, but is no longer getting fed by those larger glaciers. That is because the parent glaciers are getting less replenishing snow.

Meanwhile, the doomed ice is melting from climate change, said study co-author William Colgan, a glaciologist at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland.

“It’s dead ice. It’s just going to melt and disappear from the ice sheet,” Mr Colgan said in an interview. “This ice has been consigned to the ocean, regardless of what climate (emissions) scenario we take now.”

Study lead author Jason Box, a glaciologist at the Greenland survey, said it is “more like one foot in the grave”.

The unavoidable 10in in the study is more than twice as much sea level rise as scientists had previously expected from the melting of Greenland’s ice sheet.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-40950416.html
 
Just been reading "The First Kingdom: Britain in the Age of Arthur" by Max Adams.

Talking of carbon dating he states: "For the early Medieval period the accuracy of C14 dating may be limited to the nearest half century because of wildly fluctuating levels of atmospheric carbon during those centuries."

It would be interesting to know why. Volcanism somewhere, slash and burn agriculture?
 
Tunn11 said:
"For the early Medieval period the accuracy of C14 dating may be limited to the nearest half century because of wildly fluctuating levels of atmospheric carbon during those centuries."
Click to expand...

Am l missing something here? Why would the quantity of carbon in the atmosphere be relevant? It’s the decay rate of the small proportion of C14 in a sample that’s the issue, not the absolute amount of carbon present.

maximus otter
 
maximus otter said:
Am l missing something here? Why would the quantity of carbon in the atmosphere be relevant? It’s the decay rate of the small proportion of C14 in a sample that’s the issue, not the absolute amount of carbon present.

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Isn't it to do with the percentage of the isotope that's fixed in the organic material and its rate of decay? So would a higher level alter the "normal" rate of decay? I'm guessing, I'm sure someone on here will know.
 
Tunn11 said:
Just been reading "The First Kingdom: Britain in the Age of Arthur" by Max Adams.

Talking of carbon dating he states: "For the early Medieval period the accuracy of C14 dating may be limited to the nearest half century because of wildly fluctuating levels of atmospheric carbon during those centuries."

It would be interesting to know why. Volcanism somewhere, slash and burn agriculture?
Click to expand...
Iirc it's generally thought that there was at least one large volcanic event that preceded and caused (by ash and dust blocking sunlight) the 'dark ages'.
 
Were boomed doomed I tell ye global cooling.

Not sure I can get my head round 7 gigatons and in one day?
truly nature is mighty, makes us with all our tech look puny.
 
The terrible flooding in Bangladesh has been linked to climate change:

https://www.ifrc.org/press-release/millions-bangladesh-impacted-one-worst-floodings-ever-seen

Someone on the Guardian comments section bravely pointed out that the population of Bangladesh has increased from around 50 million in 1962 to almost 180 million in 2022, with immigration accounting for about 1%

The floods are terrible, but what impact has 130 million extra people had on land and river management? All those extra mouths to feed and houses built to accommodate them, new roads etc.
 
Paul_Exeter said:
The terrible flooding in Bangladesh has been linked to climate change:

https://www.ifrc.org/press-release/millions-bangladesh-impacted-one-worst-floodings-ever-seen

Someone on the Guardian comments section bravely pointed out that the population of Bangladesh has increased from around 50 million in 1962 to almost 180 million in 2022, with immigration accounting for about 1%

The floods are terrible, but what impact has 130 million extra people had on land and river management? All those extra mouths to feed and houses built to accommodate them, new roads etc.
Click to expand...
Maybe they have built houses in flood areas and dammed off natural water courses?
 
Mythopoeika said:
Maybe they have built houses in flood areas and dammed off natural water courses?
Click to expand...
About 8 million people have been impacted, but how many lived in that area in 1960?

it may sound callous but if you nearly triple your population it will impact the environment in a major way and certainly make you less flood resilient. We have seen it in the past in theUK with building on flood plains, so it’s not just those people “over there”
 
Paul_Exeter said:
About 8 million people have been impacted, but how many lived in that area in 1960?

it may sound callous but if you nearly triple your population it will impact the environment in a major way and certainly make you less flood resilient. We have seen it in the past in theUK with building on flood plains, so it’s not just those people “over there”
Click to expand...
Yes, the same issue will keep coming up over here, as we allow the population to keep going up.
 

While Europe, China and some other regions of the world are experiencing a severe drought, Pakistan is facing one of the worst floods in its recent history.​

Thus far in this season, Pakistan has already received 354.3 mm of rain, more than three times the normal of 113.7 mm until this time. Rehman said Pakistan is currently witnessing the eighth spell of rain in this season. Normally, there are about four to five spells in the entire season.

https://indianexpress.com/article/e...stan-under-water-catastrophic-floods-8116181/
 
Paul_Exeter said:
The terrible flooding in Bangladesh has been linked to climate change:

https://www.ifrc.org/press-release/millions-bangladesh-impacted-one-worst-floodings-ever-seen

Someone on the Guardian comments section bravely pointed out that the population of Bangladesh has increased from around 50 million in 1962 to almost 180 million in 2022, with immigration accounting for about 1%

The floods are terrible, but what impact has 130 million extra people had on land and river management? All those extra mouths to feed and houses built to accommodate them, new roads etc.
Click to expand...

“The delta plain of the Ganges (Padma), Brahmaputra (Jamuna), and Meghna Rivers and their tributaries occupy 79 percent of the country.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Bangladesh

“Most of it is less than 12 m (39 ft) above sea level…”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh#Geography

“…it [is] one of the most densely populated countries in the world.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh

Can we say, “Recipe for disaster”?

maximus otter
 
hunck said:
That takes me to a page which says this:

http://polarportal.dk er desværre ikke tilgængelig i øjeblikket.​


Vi arbejder på at bringe den online igen hurtigst muligt.​

Got a better link?
Click to expand...
No, it's Danish.
You need to allow your auto-translate function for the webpage - there should be a drop-down menu in the top corner of your browser.
(I thought this link is an English language version though, which I have just realised is the same as the one I posted above - http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/ )
 
maximus otter said:
“The delta plain of the Ganges (Padma), Brahmaputra (Jamuna), and Meghna Rivers and their tributaries occupy 79 percent of the country.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Bangladesh

“Most of it is less than 12 m (39 ft) above sea level…”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh#Geography

“…it [is] one of the most densely populated countries in the world.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh

Can we say, “Recipe for disaster”?

maximus otter
Click to expand...
Also the world's worst air pollution:

https://news.mongabay.com/2022/06/w...es-7-years-off-life-expectancy-in-bangladesh/

43% of the soil is now degraded:

"About 6.0 million ha, or 43 % of the total geographical area of the country is affected by various forms and degrees of degradation. Low soil fertility, biodiversity depletion, over extraction/arsenic contamination of ground water, water logging, indiscriminate land conversion, destruction of forests, over population and over exploitation of vegetation resources are recognized causes of land degradation leading to desertification in some parts. Like flooding, land degradation due to aridity and reductions in crop production due to drought has caused considerable economic losses and human sufferings in Bangladesh"

https://www.researchgate.net/public...nd_the_role_of_agro_forestry_in_their_control
 
Trevp666 said:
NEW - Greenland ice sheet gained 7 Gigatons of mass in just one day yesterday — the largest daily gain ever recorded during the summer.
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
View attachment 58447
Click to expand...
From that article:

The blue curve shows the current season’s surface mass balance measured in gigatonnes (1 Gt is 1 billion tonnes and corresponds to 1 cubic kilometre of water).
Click to expand...

So a gain of 7 gigatons = 7 cubic kilometres of water, in one day. Is that from heavy rainfall or snow? It doen’t say. If rainfall I’m not sure it’s something to crow about..

If you look elsewhere on the site you will find a chart showing overall mass loss from 2000 to 2020. It shows a steady loss of mass amounting to 5000 Gigatons & corresponding sea level change of 12mm.
 
kesavaross said:
In years gone by these fires must have also occurred before there was anyone to put them out. Did they just burn and burn?

I know global warming has been blamed for the dryness of vegetation but what actually starts most fires?

I've look on the net but can't find a specific answer to both questions.
Click to expand...
I cannot remember where I read this but I remember reading that evidence was found of a prehistoric fire in the USA that may have burned for hundreds of years
 
I like this. It has a simplicity that's hard to argue with. Willis simply looks at the incoming energy of the earth and marries it with the 'efficiency' of the 'earth greenhouse' and surface temperatures - and shows that the surface temperatures are in lockstep with incoming solar energy...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/02/greenhouse-efficiency/

Greenhouse Efficiency​


Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Buoyed by equal parts of derision and praise for my last post, “Surface Radiation: Absorption And Emission“, I once again venture into the arena. I had an odd thought. The temperature has been generally rising over the period 2000-2021. I wondered if there was a way I could measure the efficiency of the greenhouse effect to see if the warming was due to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs). If the GHGs were the cause, then the greenhouse effect would need to be more efficient in terms of warming the surface.
Click to expand...
...
Conclusions: We have observational evidence that the temperature increase from 2000-2021 was not due to an increase in greenhouse gases, or any increase in the efficiency of the greenhouse effect from any cause. The efficiency has been very stable over the period, with a standard deviation of 0.2% and no significant trend.

On the other hand, the change in incoming solar energy is both adequate to explain the increase in warming, and has the same shape as the change in surface radiation (blue LOWESS smooths in both panels in Figure 3). While there are undoubtedly other factors in play, the main cause of the warming is clearly the increase in the amount of solar energy after reflections from the clouds and the surface.

And once again, the clouds rule … go figure …
Click to expand...
 
And now climate change could affect the length of a day.

JUNE 29, 2022, was the shortest day ever on record, at 1.59 milliseconds less than 24 hours. You probably didn’t notice, since 1.59 milliseconds goes by pretty fast, but it raises some interesting theoretical questions, like: Since it fell on a Wednesday, should you subtract those missing 1.59 milliseconds from your workday or from your sleep? And: Could Earth’s days get even shorter?

That may sound like a wild idea, but there’s a reason to think it could happen: climate change. Burning fossil fuels adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, which melts glaciers—and how that affects the Earth’s motion might have some bearing on the length of a day. I’ll take you through it step by step. ...

Because there are many factors that contribute to the angular velocity of the Earth, it's difficult to fully account for all the factors that go into making the “shortest day ever.”

So I’m going to look at the impact of just one thing—the melting of glaciers. Let's start with the Earth rotating once every 86,400 seconds, which is one solar day, and assume that there are glaciers with frozen ice at the top of some mountains. I need to estimate the moment of inertia of the Earth (IE) with glaciers of mass mg at the tops of mountains—a distance of rg1 from the axis of rotation. Then I need to find the moment of inertia when the water from the melted glaciers is at a shorter distance of rg2—the distance of this water from the axis of rotation when it is at sea level.

Notice that this value of r is the distance from the glacier to the axis of rotation (an imaginary line running from the north to the south pole). If a glacier was at the equator, this r value would be the radius of the Earth plus the height of the mountain. However, if you move to higher latitudes, the r value is less than the radius of the Earth. Maybe this diagram will help: ...

https://www.wired.com/story/could-climate-change-alter-the-length-of-a-day/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top