Welcome admin !

It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:43 am
Pathway:  Board index General Discussion Forum and Lounge Current Events & Politics

Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby desert_woodworker on Sun Jul 12, 2015 2:42 pm

Michael,

Leaving aside the expected and measured warming of the earth environment (atmosphere; ocean; etc.) from burning of fossil fuels of all types, it's evident that our burning of fossil fuels is increasing the carbon content of air. What this means of course more generally is that we are changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere.

This is an uncontrolled experiment being carried out on the atmosphere, the thin veil of gas that separates the biosphere from outer space, and life from death. I hope we'll cut it out soon, and switch as rapidly as possible to renewable fuels and power sources.

The oceans are acidifying due to dissolution of some of the CO2 (about a third of it) into the waters. Be glad you are not a coral-reef organism, or a barnacle!

I think the health of the oceans is of more concern than the warming which is underway, and which is reasonably expected to accelerate.

Is there a bright side to any of this? Yes -- the opportunity and strong motivation to develop renewable fuel sources and energy sources on a massive scale worldwide. That means jobs, of many types, and technological advances of all kinds. Let's give it a push forward.

--Joe
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 7236
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby Michaeljc on Sun Jul 12, 2015 9:47 pm

Joe

Stay tuned. The show is not over until the fat lady sings

What the general public have not been told that with all the will in the world we are not going to reduce anthropogenic CO2 concentrations by anything significant within the next 50 years. We will not live long enough to witness the impact of this

I am not denialist. I'm a realist (I hope). Too little attention is being given to the fact that Earth's systems (and sun's) are subject to cyclical pulses - and- the feedback systems that act as long-term regulators. Earth has coped with elevated atmospheric CO2 many times before

The issue of carbonates (shells) dissolving in sea water is rather complex. Do the research yourself. It appears as thought marine PH needs to drop by an awful lot more for catastrophic coral dissolution to occur. In my view this is most unlikely to happen within the next millennium. The problem is that research is done in isolated locations. I bet you that while accelerated dissolution is occurring in some locations coral growth is occurring in others. This is the way the system works - change in all locations. Nothing is static.

What we may live to witness is a rapid cooling. I emphasise the word may

In this case I would enjoy most the antics of those that have politicised this whole affair - those with big mouths and no brains

Cheers

m
User avatar
Michaeljc
 
Posts: 3670
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: Raglan New Zealand

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby desert_woodworker on Sun Jul 12, 2015 10:18 pm

Michael,

Michaeljc wrote:In this case I would enjoy most the antics of those that have politicised this whole affair - those with big mouths and no brains

Now, now. That's what/who bandwagons are for! "Too bad" when it's at our expense, though. :cry:

--Joe

ps Right, if we switched to "all renewables" TODAY, we might not see CO2 concentration reductions in the bulk atmosphere within 50 years (but, wait! We see seasonal reductions every year, due to photosynthesis. Look at the "TEETH" in the Keeling-Curve!). But the longer we delay putting renewables in place, nobody else will ever see reductions in CO2 levels, either. Still another benefit of renewables, besides massive global job-creation and technology-invention, is a great reduction in particulates released. Micron-sized and sub-micron-sized particulates are bad news for climate and for human health (and probably for all air-breathing animals ;) ). So, we should not drag our feet on developments for total replacement of fossil-fuel burning, and a switch to renewables! Yes, it takes political, governmental, and public will. And vision.
Last edited by desert_woodworker on Sun Jul 12, 2015 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 7236
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby Michaeljc on Sun Jul 12, 2015 10:22 pm

those with big mouths and no brains


Joe - If we don't add some spice to our posts who would bother reading them :lol2:
User avatar
Michaeljc
 
Posts: 3670
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: Raglan New Zealand

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby fukasetsu on Sun Jul 12, 2015 10:25 pm

Michaeljc wrote:Joe - If we don't add some spice to our posts who would bother reading them :lol2:


Let me buy you a pint and add some 'sex' to the conversation :heya:
Everyone for President!
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 7259
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby desert_woodworker on Sun Jul 12, 2015 10:40 pm

F.,

fukasetsu wrote:Let me buy you a pint and add some 'sex' to the conversation :heya:

Oops, I think that's CO2 a-bubblin' out of that pint, and being exhaled in all that heavy breathin'.

--Joe
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 7236
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby fukasetsu on Sun Jul 12, 2015 10:47 pm

desert_woodworker wrote:\ heavy breathin'.

--Joe


Not so bad, ran 10 km on the beach today + I walked to the beach from home and back while the rest of the company took a cab.

Cut me some slack and let me have my pint whilst I enjoy the fruits of my natural state.

Been practising stairs lately, that's some heavy breathing for sure.
Everyone for President!
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 7259
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby Michaeljc on Mon Jul 13, 2015 11:29 am

The oceans are acidifying due to dissolution of some of the CO2 (about a third of it) into the waters. Be glad you are not a coral-reef organism, or a barnacle!


Yes Joe, but not only by CO2. Volcanoes emit both CO2 and SO2 that converts to sulphuric acid. Around 80% of active volcanoes are submarine. Add to this active zones of the kind you see in Yellowstone Park (fumaroles) you can start to imagine just how much acid is been constantly added to the water column. Given that Hawaii is an active zone it is clearly not a sensible place to measure water PH:

Volcanic Arc Microbial Habitat (source USGS)

Because the range of chemical composition is even more extreme along volcanic arcs than on the mid-ocean ridge, there are habitat conditions that must be outside the range that mid-ocean ridge microbes can tolerate. To take just one example, hot spring fluids on NW Rota have pH of 2.0 or less, compared to mid-ocean ridge values that are typically 3.5 to 4.5 and rarely as low as 3.0. That means that the concentration of acid is at least a factor of 10 higher at NW Rota than at mid-ocean ridge vents. We have found DNA evidence for microbes living in these extremely acidic fluids. The diversity of microbes is relatively low, and there is some similarity to known heat- and acid-tolerant microbes from other environments.


Note that Hawaii volcanism is neither an arc or a mid-ocean ridge. It is what we term a 'hot spot'. Nevertheless 2000 - 3000 tons/day of SO2 emission has been measured above just one Hawaii eruption. For every eruption that occurs on land there is probably 5 occuring under the sea. Add to this mid-ocean ridges that extend hundreds of thousands of kilometers and are constantly active. There are probably millions of small-scale active vents continually emitting sulphuric and carbonic acid into the sea

Yet the sea remains strongly alkaline with a PH of around 8

Don't get swept up in the hysteria

m
Last edited by Michaeljc on Mon Jul 13, 2015 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Michaeljc
 
Posts: 3670
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: Raglan New Zealand

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby desert_woodworker on Mon Jul 13, 2015 3:45 pm

Michael,

Michaeljc wrote:There are probably millions of small-scale active vents continually emitting solphuric and carbonic acid into the sea

Yet the sea remains strongly alkaline with a PH of around 8

Negatory. I'm talking about increased ocean acidification, from increased carbonic acid, the aqueous product of CO2 dissolving in water.

Volcanic activity has not increased. Atmospheric and oceanic concentrations of CO2 have increased, very rapidly, and are accelerating, as you know.

Shallow waters -- reef areas -- are the ones most vulnerable to the increasing acidity from increasing atmospheric fossil-fuel exhaust effluent CO2. They are different from mid-ocean areas, because shallow waters do not provide much of a "sink", nor buffer-- being shallow! -- and so they can become greatly acidified (concentrated in carbonic acid), compared with the era when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 300 parts per million in the year 1960, versus the present and escalating 405 ppm in 2015.

Granted, the deep-ocean waters are acidifying, too, from pH 8.2 to 8.1 lately, but more slowly because of the great bulk of water available there to dilute the additional acid falling into the sea from acidified rain, and by direct dissolution of air constituents via wave-action agitation. Again, it's the important shallow water reef areas that are taking the great brunt of acidification now, becoming worse as fossil fuels continue to be burned, and burned at increasing rates.

Renewables are the way forward for humans and other forms of life, ...in many ways.

--Joe
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 7236
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby Michaeljc on Mon Jul 13, 2015 9:18 pm

Granted, the deep-ocean waters are acidifying, too, from pH 8.2 to 8.1 lately, but more slowly because of the great bulk of water available there to dilute the additional acid falling into the sea from acidified rain, and by direct dissolution of air constituents via wave-action agitation. Again, it's the important shallow water reef areas that are taking the great brunt of acidification now, becoming worse as fossil fuels continue to be burned, and burned at increasing rates


Joe - I find insufficient data sets to support your conclusion. The data that set off the alarm bells appears to be the following. It pops up everywhere

is.jpg


People see the slope of the PH trend over 10 years and immediately think rapid marine acidification is occurring whereas the change on this chart is less than .02 on the PH scale. Given that this is from just one area that happens to be in a active volcanic zone this is pure alarmism

It is only over the last 3 years that enough testing stations have been installed to start to get a real grip on what is actually happening in terms of ocean acidification . One of the more useful programs can be found at:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/OA+O ... s+and+Data

They write:

Ship-based hydrography is the only method for obtaining high-quality, high spatial and vertical resolution measurements of a suite of physical, chemical, and biological parameters over the full water column, and in areas of the ocean inaccessible to other platforms. Our hydrographic cruises in the North Pacific Ocean, along the U.S. West Coast (2007, 2011) and in the Puget Sound have revealed a trend of ocean acidification over time, led to a better understanding of the spatial and temporal variability of ocean acidification, and provided insights into how ocean acidification will manifest in estuaries and near shore coastal areas


And yet when we look at their full data sets on sea water PH there is no evidence to support their claim. We see that there are gaps in their recordings and that PH varies wildly over time. This is to be expected as the sea is a mosaic of varying temperature and salinity cells that intermix over time. I find no evidence supporting your suggestion that water over shallow platforms is more acidic than elsewhere. It is far more complex than this due to current flow and intermixing

In all the above data it is clear that atmospheric and sea water CO2 levels have increased. This is not in dispute. PH is the correct measurement for acidity, not CO2. There is nowhere enough evidence yet to support the claim that the sea is acidifying. I suspect that it will take another 10 years before we see robust trends. This is dependent on having enough testing stations - not just 21 around the US

I am not arguing the point that renewables are the obvious solution to energy-related environmental degradation - only that robust data over time can give us an accurate picture of trends. The general public are being fed projections with insufficient evidence. I strongly suspect that over time some of these projections will prove to be wrong

Not just getting at you here Joe - only expressing my frustration when science is hijacked in a totally inappropriate manner

Cheers

m

PS: Tectonic activity, which is associated with seismic and volcanic activity, does vary over time. It follows crude cycles along with most other natural processes e.g. solar and Milankovitch (Earth's wobble) cycles. These all effect climate that too is subject to cycles

There has been credible observations that the occurrence of major earthquakes has increased over the last few decades. Should this be the case then an increase in volcanic activity (80% of which occurs on the seabed) can be expected. For the moment this is still arm-waving so lets wait and see :)
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
Michaeljc
 
Posts: 3670
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: Raglan New Zealand

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby partofit22 on Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:05 am

No, the Earth Is Not Heading for a “Mini Ice Age”
By Eric Holthaus



A new study and related press release from the Royal Astronomical Society is making the rounds in recent days, claiming that a new statistical analysis of sunspot cycles shows “solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s” to a level that last occurred during the so-called Little Ice Age, which ended 300 years ago.

Since climate change deniers have a particular fascination with sunspot cycles, this story has predictably been picked up by all manner of conservative news media, with a post in the Telegraph quickly gathering up tens of thousands of shares. The only problem is, it’s a wildly inaccurate reading of the research.

Sunspots have been observed on a regular basis for at least 400 years, and over that period, there’s a weak correlation between the number of sunspots and global temperature—most notably during a drastic downturn in the number of sunspots from about 1645 to 1715. Known as the Maunder minimum, this phenomenon happened about the same time as a decades-long European cold snap known as the Little Ice Age. That connection led to theory that this variability remains the dominant factor in Earth’s climate. Though that idea is still widely circulated, it’s been disproved. In reality, sunspots fluctuate in an 11-year cycle, and the current cycle is the weakest in 100 years—yet 2014 was the planet’s hottest year in recorded history.

If you look closely at the original press release, the study’s author, Valentina Zharkova, never implied a new ice age is imminent—only that we may see a sharp downturn in the number of sunspots. Yes, the sun is a variable star, but its output is remarkably stable. The amount of energy we receive from the sun just doesn’t change fast enough to cause a rapid-onset ice age in just a few decades.

The root of the problem here may be a poorly worded quote in the press release implying an imminent 60 percent decline in solar activity. Yes, numbers of sunspots can vary by that much or even more on an 11-year cycle, but the sun’s output—the total amount of energy we get—is extremely stable and only changes by about 0.1 percent, even in extreme sunspot cycles like the one Zharkova is predicting.

more .. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/07/13/sunspot_cycles_won_t_cause_a_mini_ice_age_by_2030.html
partofit22
 
Posts: 4899
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby Michaeljc on Tue Jul 14, 2015 5:32 am

Well - the exciting thing about this issue is that it will pan itself out within most of our lifetimes :)
User avatar
Michaeljc
 
Posts: 3670
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: Raglan New Zealand

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby Michaeljc on Mon Aug 10, 2015 3:56 am

Oooo - I can spend too much time on this. It is fascinating

Recent research continues to pop up on the internet. One has to ignore the dominant sensationalism and dig deeper. I have some most interesting links but in all honesty I don't feel comfortable about posting them here. It would end up in a ridiculous bun-fight

To get a good grip on the subject one HAS to have a good grasp of the laws of statistics and probability -and- the importance of applying the unadulterated scientific method

The really disturbing thing is that yes: devoted scientists that reveal analysis and research that casts doubt on the AGW model ARE being 'burned at the stake' - i.e. losing jobs and having their data frozen

Nature don't give a damn. She will do her own thing. What will it be? I have my own beliefs

The issue is no being coined the 'Climate War" :blush:
User avatar
Michaeljc
 
Posts: 3670
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: Raglan New Zealand

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby Michaeljc on Sat Sep 12, 2015 10:22 am

I have spent many hours over the last months researching this topic. It's hard work as so much information is slewed to reinforce a rigid stand and prediction. Predictions are dangerous when dealing with something as complex as global climate. The general public have no chance of grasping an accurate understanding of the issue. Language is such a powerful force that the slightest variation in global temperature can be inferred to be catastrophic. One needs a good understanding of statistics to make a balanced judgment.

What does show are fairly stable temperatures throughout the last 15 years. Throughout this period atmospheric CO2 has increased by 10%
When the likes of NOAA and NASA publish statements like:

The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880. The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F), easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.04°C (0.07°F). This also marks the 38th consecutive year (since 1977) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Including 2014, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 135-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. 1998 currently ranks as the fourth warmest year on record.


Let’s take a look: First-off they take the 20th century average. This looks much better than taking the whole record as the last 15 years have pretty much stabilised on a high.

easily breaking the previous records of 2005 and 2010 by 0.04°C (0.07°F).


This is what I mean by the power of language: “easily by 0.04 degree centigrade?? I ask you. It’s simply not possible to measure mean global temperature to a resolution 0.04 degrees. Baring in mind that the range in temperature on Earth covers over 100 degrees C a probable degree of accuracy is in the range 0.2 – 0.3 at the very best. There are just too many variables to be more accurate.

When I see the language coming out of NOAA and NASA I have no doubt that they have become politicised. They are hell bent on selling the anthropogenic global warming paradigm whatever it takes. It would now take another 15 years of stable temperatures or a reduction before they would take a breath. Mind, they may be right. It could start to warm again. WE DONT KNOW YET.

Nevertheless, having made my research, my prediction is that there is an 80% chance that there will be no further warming exceeding 0.3 degrees C throughout the next 50 years. There is a 20% chance climate will start to cool within the next 10 years.

Luckily we have an alternative means to measure temperature i.e. using satellites to sense temperature in the lower troposphere. NASA and NOAA are not using all of this data. They are going to have to be careful. These alternative methods are suggesting that they are always giving warming the benefit of the doubt when the inevitable uncertainties require a degree of inference

Stay tuned, for another 50 years :)
User avatar
Michaeljc
 
Posts: 3670
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: Raglan New Zealand

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby desert_woodworker on Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:48 pm

Michael, if sea-level rise continues to be observed, then it seems we must trust that indeed warming is occurring where there is a source of melt-water (polar areas), and/or in the oceans, where warming leads to expansion of the water and over-topping of all previous high-tide marks.

I'm not much of a one to insist on predictions, especially "global" ones, when sea-level rise is a measurable reality upon us already.

I'm happy to consider and appreciate "warming". Plain and simple.

It's like the "advice" to the survivalist on how to find water, to wit: "Water is where you find it".

Well, WARMING is where it's happening. Sea-level rise seems to be the global result of that zonal-warming. But warming may become globally more pronounced and effective as CO2 levels and methane levels continue to rise monotonically and non-linearly upward.
Yessir, let's continue to watch, for 50 years more, at least! We can both call each other "greybeard" by then, too, eh, Pops?

The small Celsius warming (0.04 deg.?) which you quote and that you're dubious about, Michael, is likely nonethless completely correct, with very small error-bars. It is a number which is obtained by a kind of "running-averaging" method, let's say, by measuring actual temperatures at same-Latitude zones over the entire Earth, subtracting a baseline temperature-average measured in a span of previous years for that zone, and then, using a weighting for the residual depending on the amount of Earth surface-area that pertains to each zone's contribution (which will go as sine [LATITUDE] ), yielding the result you quote. Easier and more elegant to write this out as an algebraic formula!, and I hope I have not misspoken too badly, anyplace. My point is that the error-bars on the 0.04 C number are V-E-R-Y small, contrary to what you say you had thought, intuitively.

There's more earth-surface area near the Equator, and temperate zones, and the effects of clouds and aerosols may moderate or mitigate warming there. But near the Poles, the story is different. Warming there is greater, but surface area is smaller in the polar zones. Anyway, you get the picture, geometrically. The algebra is simple, too, you'll admit.

If we had a blackboard and a piece of chalk before us, we'd have some fun, ...and might just have to break the chalk in half! :lol2:

Oh, another thing to recall: the "noise" on a signal or measurement is random. Continue to AVERAGE the signal or measurements and you beat-down the noise by the square-root of "N", where N is just the number of measurements taken. Quickly, the error-bar (uncertainty) on the Average becomes much less than the error of single measurements. And the signal stands up like Mount Everest against the lowlands, quite "significantly" (statistically, and otherwise)!

See you,

--Joe
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 7236
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby Michaeljc on Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:33 pm

Joe - we need reincarnation. Could a teacher arrange for us to be born again around the same time (say, 50 years from now)? :lol2:

Eliminating noise to great accuracy is dependent on the number of data points for any one 'cell'

The show is not over until the fat lady sings

Right now she is not doing what she was supposed to do. We are now inundated with a chorus of "yes, but"

I have made my predictions. What are yours?

Cheers

m
User avatar
Michaeljc
 
Posts: 3670
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: Raglan New Zealand

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby desert_woodworker on Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:28 pm

Michael,

Yessir, we need reincarnation. But, shucks, is it OK if we can't remember our previous lives / life? We'll just have to leave an Internet message for ourselves. But that would just go into some "dead-letter-office", if "undeliverable", or not picked up by some date-certain.

Alternatively, wanna go to sleep "on-the-rocks" for fifty years? Actually, I don't think we have that technology (yet?). :tongueincheek:

Some potent-quotes about "the future": :)

"The best thing about the future is that it comes one day at a time." --Abraham Lincoln

"The future starts today, not tomorrow." --Pope Paul II

"The future ain't what it used to be." --Yogi Berra

Oh, about "predictions" -- no, again, I'm not "into" it. Let's talk about sea-level rise. Can you / (do you) admit that it must be due to "warming"? I'm imagining and friendly-with "zonal-"warming, as I call it. By the time you turn the zonal-warming figures into a global one, to cover the full area of the Earth, the warming extremes (near the Poles) are of course, er-r, "watered-down", so, for sure, you come out with a small GLOBAL rise of +0.04 C +/- 0.003 (or whatever). But the warming near the Poles may be the source of the melt-water ...adding to the oceans' MASS. And/or, the sea-surface-temperature warming, ...adding to the oceans' BULK (through thermal expansion of sea-water).

Or, maybe you deny -- or don't see -- that sea-level is rising. Maybe certain islands or coastlines are sinking, instead. Whereas, I'm relying on actual measured sea-level rise as the MAIN SIGNAL that there is warming ANYWHERE, zonally, and / or globally. I'm taking a different tack -- and perhaps a different hint, or set of hints from Nature -- than most, or many, perhaps. Story of my life... . See, why lock our seeing and thinking into a box?

Call me an empiricist. I am not Prog-nostradamus. :tongueincheek:

Well, with all warmth, or warming, here's to Life!, this one and any subsequent or past ones. Hey, what the hay.

You take care, you and yours!, please,

--Joe

ps BTW, each "cell" in the temperature averaging is V-E-R-Y heavily sampled, as each cell is a zone of latitude! From space, now, that's very easily done, and is in fact carried out with fantastically sensitive and accurate radiometers, in a multitude of radiation-bands, aboard satellites whose entire mission is to make these continuous synoptic measurements. And the many hundreds of thousands of individual measurements in each latitude zone ("belt", around the planet) are, each of them, individually, themselves very highly accurate. See the tech-specs on the remote-sensing instruments on any NASA satellite of your choice. It's all online. The ESA ones, too, I think. "Hail!" :lol2: (with hat's off to my Instrumentation colleagues... ).

Michaeljc wrote:Joe - we need reincarnation. Could a teacher arrange for us to be born again around the same time (say, 50 years from now)? :lol2:

Eliminating noise to great accuracy is dependent on the number of data points for any one 'cell'

The show is not over until the fat lady sings

Right now she is not doing what she was supposed to do. We are now inundated with a chorus of "yes, but"

I have made my predictions. What are yours?
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 7236
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby desert_woodworker on Sat Sep 12, 2015 11:25 pm

Michael, et al.,

On the other hand, my "prediction" closely matches these guys' prediction. But, they get paid for theirs! I'm just an inveterate sky-watcher.

I just discovered this internet-streaming option for our "Weather Radio" UHF station, which I always access at 162.40 MHz, by radio(s). But here it is, for all, not limited by the curvature of the Earth:

http://tunein.com/radio/NOAA-Weather-Radio-1624-s88185/

Still "warm" here: 100 deg today, and still warming this afternoon, at 3:20 PM, local standard time (MST = UTC-7).

--Joe

ps yes, Weather, not climate. Best I can do. :lol2: Our doyen of Science-Fiction writing, Robert Heinlein, said,

"Climate is what you expect; Weather is what you get." (I note that this can apply to other spheres of life, too). -J.
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 7236
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby desert_woodworker on Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:46 pm

Michael, et al.,

Not really on-topic, but here's a graph of my rainfall measurements for this year, 2015, thus far, through 14 Sept. (yesterday). Made daily, at 2450 ft. (747 m) elevation here at my desert home. I use a "Tru-Check" precision rain-gauge mounted 5 ft. above the ground, and well away from any structures, trees, or cacti.

Precipitation, for individual days of rainfall and for the running cumulative amount is given in inches (to convert to cm, just multiply inches by 2.54).

You can see that our Winter rains are scanty, and can see the onset of our Summer thunderstorm "monsoon"-season, beginning July, and still continuing now ...but about to end in two weeks.

There's still somewhat of a drought here in southern Arizona, compared with the 30-year average (not shown).

rgds,

--Joe

Joe_rain_2015_partial.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 7236
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: Climate Change - Ajahn Sujato's Blog

Postby desert_woodworker on Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:27 pm

The University of Arizona Laboratory for Tree Ring Studies just announced that the current year's snow-pack accumulation in the mountains of California is the lowest (smallest) in 500 years. Ancient, past, drought conditions can be studied by noting the width of growth-rings sampled from trees in the areas of interest. Long-lived "Blue Oak" provides a very long record, and serves this function well.

Michael, if you're reading, you'll note that one of the Tree Ring scientists claims that warming, anthropogenic at that, may be some cause of this latest very severe drought. Without comment, I extract this quote:

"Our study really points to the extreme character of the 2014-15 winter. This is not just unprecedented over 80 years — it’s unprecedented over 500 years," said Valerie Trouet, an associate professor of dendrochronology at the UA Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research.

"We should be prepared for this type of snow drought to occur much more frequently because of rising temperatures," Trouet said. "Anthropogenic warming is making the drought more severe."


An illustrated article (maps; photos) with some details of this work is linked below:

http://uanews.org/story/sierra-nevada-s ... ekly-uanow

--Joe

BlueOak-CalifCentralValley_Quercus_douglasii.jpg

Sierra_snow_anim.gif
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 7236
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Current Events & Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
RocketTheme Joomla Templates

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 157 on Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:44 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest