DMSP F-17 and F-18 satellites have a story to tell, are we listening?

[YNM]

24 minutes ago, Darnok said:

But that is not overpopulation issue, that is the problem of overcrowding. Which is caused by taking/buying lands from common people, after that those people are going to cities to search jobs, because they have no other options. Give them (each person) land and problem will be solved.

We have plenty of land. Just that slaving away in farms isn't something you see an adolescent doing today. More of slaving in industrial buildings. Or some other buildings.

People go to cities clearly out of their naiive view of living a better life in it. While often that's not the case... Guess how many times retired elder consider moving to the countryside ? Very often. It's the usual human nature of neighbor's lawn greener than yours.

[Matuchkin]

On 16/05/2016 at 10:37 AM, PB666 said:

As everyone here is probably aware 2016 has really broken temperature records for just about every month this year.

Yeah, we're aware.

[CptRichardson]

8 hours ago, Scotius said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene

In a nutshell. Medium temperature was 2,5 degree (Celsius) higher than now. There was no ice in Arctic. Water level was higher. LIFE THRIVED! There were snakes and lizards living in freaking Greenland, and continents were covered in thick, lush forests. Biodensity was highest since the golden age of dinosaurs.

And if you want to toot "Climate is changing! We are all DOOMED!" horn, may i remind you that Homo sapiens survived freaking Ice Age just fine? Having only stone tools and leather garments at his disposal. In my humble opinion, 7 billions of fairly well educated humans with global communication means and access to nuclear energy sources will do just fine too.

Great. Life thriving.

 

What about the damage on the path to there? Billions of homes flooded, the current places we grow our food turned to dust bowls and potentially not replaced at all, mass desertification, hundreds of trillions in economic damage as nice places like NYC, London, and other such pretty critical cities suffer flood damage or wash out to sea entirely depending on the specifics of their location, on and on. Sea fisheries stressed to the point of collapse, dropping even more food out of circulation, possible hydrogen sulfide producing bacteria blooms killing off massive zones in the ocean from sea warming happening so quickly;

 

While the end state might maybe be desirable, the uncontrolled and nearly unprecedented rate of change in Earth's climate to get there is going to be catastrophic on ecosystems and could well knock our nice global economy into the grave.  About the only things that compare in terms of quickness of change would be an asteroidal impact, or one of the mega-trap eruptions like Deccan or the Siberian traps, or in general, even if we could theoretically survive it would not be a pleasant place for us, and the very fact that it's only theoretical that we could adapt means it'd really be better if we didn't damage the planetary paint at all when we could just not do the damage altogether.

[LordFerret]

About ice melt and ocean rise: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/worried-about-floods-due-to-rising-sea-level-forget-it-not-happening.php

Of all greenhouse gasses, water vapor is the most important... it is the Sun which drives our climate. Period.

3% of all greehouse gasses is CO2, 97% is 'other' gasses, mostly water vapor. Now, of the CO2 in the atmosphere, 3% of that 3% is man-made... which is to say, 97% of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural. So to believe CO2 is the cause of 'global warming', if there really is global warming, 0.009% of CO2 being caused by man - so negligible as to be a fart in a wind storm.

[PB666]

2 minutes ago, LordFerret said:

About ice melt and ocean rise: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/worried-about-floods-due-to-rising-sea-level-forget-it-not-happening.php

Of all greenhouse gasses, water vapor is the most important... it is the Sun which drives our climate. Period.

3% of all greehouse gasses is CO2, 97% is 'other' gasses, mostly water vapor. Now, of the CO2 in the atmosphere, 3% of that 3% is man-made... which is to say, 97% of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural. So to believe CO2 is the cause of 'global warming', if there really is global warming, 0.009% of CO2 being caused by man - so negligible as to be a fart in a wind storm.

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jay-bookman/2014/mar/04/selfish-amorality-climate-change-naysayers/

[LordFerret]

Unless "climate change" equals "global warming", we're discussing two different things. The climate ALWAYS changes, and ALWAYS will continue to change... it's driven by the Sun. Man-made 'global warming' is another story... and for each Nobel Laureate espousing man-made 'global warming', there is another who denies it.

Sun spot cycle 24.

[sevenperforce]

17 minutes ago, LordFerret said:

Unless "climate change" equals "global warming", we're discussing two different things. The climate ALWAYS changes, and ALWAYS will continue to change... it's driven by the Sun. Man-made 'global warming' is another story... and for each Nobel Laureate espousing man-made 'global warming', there is another who denies it.

Sun spot cycle 24.

...said no peer-reviewed scientific study ever. 

[LordFerret]

5 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

...said no peer-reviewed scientific study ever. 

Sun spot cycle studies have been peer-reviewed since there has been peer review. What is it you're referring to?

Speaking of peer-reviewed studies:

Quote

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

- https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

 

Incontrovertible.

 

Galileo is laughing at you.

[cantab]

And solar activity doesn't correlate with climate data over timescales longer than the 11/22 year solar cycle. Carbon dioxide levels do.

We have a good idea how much fossil fuel humanity has burned, and we have a good record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and about half of the carbon dioxide we've emitted is still in the atmosphere. Some of the rest has gone into the oceans making them more acidic, and we have records of that, and some more has been taken up by plants. CO2 has a longer atmospheric lifetime than water vapour, so it's much more easily perturbed by adding a new source of it.

Anthropogenic global warming is a well-established theory. It's also not at all new - it was predicted by Arrhenius in 1896, and later in 1908 he wrote that he thought it was a good thing (for similar reasons that have been mentioned in this thread already).

[PB666]

1 hour ago, LordFerret said:

Unless "climate change" equals "global warming", we're discussing two different things. The climate ALWAYS changes, and ALWAYS will continue to change... it's driven by the Sun. Man-made 'global warming' is another story... and for each Nobel Laureate espousing man-made 'global warming', there is another who denies it.

Sun spot cycle 24.

This idea was previously presented and discredited. Climate change and global warming are twomfaces of the same coin, on the one side you have a climate forcing agent on the other side you have the mechanics of force speading. If you heat a cup of water it warms, but over time it cools, one way is to release heat, another way is for it to release steam and the steam causes convection which increases the rate of evaporation, cooling the cup. 

 

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/climate-forcing.html

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html

Anyway this thread is not about CO2 fircing, its about 2016 and climate destabilization in parts of the world. 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2016 by PB666

[Scotius]

See guys? Just like scientific community, we can't form a consensus. "Climate is changing! No, it isn't." "It's humanity's fault. No, it's a natural cycle." "We are going to suffer because of it. No, we will be fine." One opinion per user. There is no agreement about causes of changes either. How can we reach any conclusion if we don't know what is exactly happening and why?

[YNM]

We know what's happening (data). We just can't conclude anything about it.

Also, I believe some users here are just RPing troll.

[Findthepin1]

5 hours ago, LordFerret said:

About ice melt and ocean rise: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/worried-about-floods-due-to-rising-sea-level-forget-it-not-happening.php

Of all greenhouse gasses, water vapor is the most important... it is the Sun which drives our climate. Period.

3% of all greehouse gasses is CO2, 97% is 'other' gasses, mostly water vapor. Now, of the CO2 in the atmosphere, 3% of that 3% is man-made... which is to say, 97% of CO2 in the atmosphere is natural. So to believe CO2 is the cause of 'global warming', if there really is global warming, 0.009% of CO2 being caused by man - so negligible as to be a fart in a wind storm.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1750 or so was 280 ppm. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in 2016 is around 400 ppm. That means about 120 ppm of the CO2 in the atmosphere got there between 1750 or so and now. Human society is the only thing we know of that has significantly changed on Earth since then, and is simultaneously able to create CO2, so the increase in CO2 concentration probably has something to do with us.

You are correct in saying that the Sun is much more influential than humans in determining the climate of any planet orbiting it. However, I don't agree that it is a closed argument, that the Sun is the sole factor. Nothing in science is ever a closed argument. Everything affects everything else, including temperature-wise, and I see no reason why humans/their civilization can't have some impact on the temperature, whatever it may be. 

This is all I'm willing to say on the matter. 

Edited May 18, 2016 by Findthepin1

[Elthy]

The most propable outcome of the climate change will be a all-out third world war. Look whats currently happening in europe from a few million refugees, now imagine the political issues with a billion refugees. No country on the world can evade those effects...

 

The only way to make people produce less CO2 is to make it beneficial for them to not do it. One way to do that is by making renewable cheaper than e.g. coal, which is mostly an engineering task but also a political one (you have to change how the power-market works)

An other way would be to apply force, either economical (nothing is as good at saving CO2 as a collapsing economy) or by military means (undesirable for obvios reasons, but if they dont want to listen?)

 

[Darnok]

13 hours ago, PB666 said:

If you confine the population to a common state or nation then it is an overpopulation issue. At least technology is driving people to the big cities were employment may be easier to find, that is a technological problem of sorts. Giving each person land does not work if that land cannot support them and if they lack the skills to exploit, and if overpopulating that land means lower fertility. Couple that to climate change and risk goes up markedly.

You can call it as you like, but you are trying to look at this from wrong side, that is why you won't be able to see any solution, other than fighting against nature.

You don't understand that laws and what people can own and what they can't is affecting their way of thinking. If you would give people land, they would learn how to not destroy it, so it would give them income.

Climate is change since Earth was formed and you won't stop that, all you can do is to adapt or die. I see you don't want to adapt, so you will die, either from economical issues or wars that comes.

 

13 hours ago, Kerbart said:

It's not just land. Farmers don't get a fair price. And it's not that we're not willing to pay for it either. Doubling or tripling the income of farmers would have a neglible effect on what we'd pay for our Big Mac, cup of Starbucks coffee or the food in the supermarket in general. And it's not a third-world problem either.

If people would have some land, they could produce food for them selves. Food prices are controlled by governments, but on free market farmers should earn fair prices... problem is how to take control from governments

 

7 hours ago, PB666 said:

http://www.ajc.com/weblogs/jay-bookman/2014/mar/04/selfish-amorality-climate-change-naysayers/

 

Quote

The National Academy of Sciences, comprising 2,600 of the nation's most respected scientists, including some 200 Nobel Prize winners, has joined with its British counterpart

Why do they started from that? It is pure "hail to our authority", which is against science. If any of this would be true then article would start from arguments.

 

6 hours ago, cantab said:

And solar activity doesn't correlate with climate data over timescales longer than the 11/22 year solar cycle. Carbon dioxide levels do.

We have a good idea how much fossil fuel humanity has burned, and we have a good record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and about half of the carbon dioxide we've emitted is still in the atmosphere. Some of the rest has gone into the oceans making them more acidic, and we have records of that, and some more has been taken up by plants. CO2 has a longer atmospheric lifetime than water vapour, so it's much more easily perturbed by adding a new source of it.

Anthropogenic global warming is a well-established theory. It's also not at all new - it was predicted by Arrhenius in 1896, and later in 1908 he wrote that he thought it was a good thing (for similar reasons that have been mentioned in this thread already).

http://www.inquisitr.com/2550786/nasa-warns-earths-magnetic-field-weakening-pole-shift-imminent-reversal-could-have-caused-neanderthal-extinction/

(I was reading about this on NASA page... but can't find link, I think I used it also on this forum once)

Neanderthals will die once again, and by Neanderthals I mean people that can't or don't want to adapt. As for magnetic field, how much more heat, radiation and energy is delivered to us when field is getting weaker? How much more energy and radiation was delivered to Earth when we had ozone layer issues? How much those things can increase global temperature?

[PB666]

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

You can call it as you like, but you are trying to look at this from wrong side, that is why you won't be able to see any solution, other than fighting against nature.

You don't understand that laws and what people can own and what they can't is affecting their way of thinking. If you would give people land, they would learn how to not destroy it, so it would give them income.

Climate is change since Earth was formed and you won't stop that, all you can do is to adapt or die. I see you don't want to adapt, so you will die, either from economical issues or wars that comes.

Lots of words, mostly fertilizer. Of course if you want to go this route I can observe, and see how well,it works out for you. I've decided that I am not a Neanderthal, and since 94% of their genome went extinct, not sure why feel the need to dig them up a force the other 6% into extinction. 

[cfds]

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

If people would have some land, they could produce food for them selves. Food prices are controlled by governments, but on free market farmers should earn fair prices... problem is how to take control from governments

That assumes that the land actually provides enough food for the farmer. And even then the problem is not he government of the land the farmer works but the governments of countries of highly industrialized farming that try too push their overproduction into every other country that is not powerful enough to say "keep your crap". The prize of wheat and corn in African countries is not controlled by African government, it is controlled by US, EU, China and Russia. But according to you, these countries have to be "free to do what they want in their countries".

[kurja]

There is no consensus on global climate change just like there is no consensus on whether cigarettes are bad for your health.

[Darnok]

27 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Lots of words, mostly fertilizer. Of course if you want to go this route I can observe, and see how well,it works out for you. I've decided that I am not a Neanderthal, and since 94% of their genome went extinct, not sure why feel the need to dig them up a force the other 6% into extinction. 

I like your arguments Neanderthal was metaphor to describe people that adapt slower than others. If you are not Neanderthal then adapt and try to think about way how we can adapt instead of trying to save your style of life.

 

1 minute ago, cfds said:

That assumes that the land actually provides enough food for the farmer. And even then the problem is not he government of the land the farmer works but the governments of countries of highly industrialized farming that try too push their overproduction into every other country that is not powerful enough to say "keep your crap". The prize of wheat and corn in African countries is not controlled by African government, it is controlled by US, EU, China and Russia. But according to you, these countries have to be "free to do what they want in their countries".

You have to be independent to be able to do what you want, not what others want.

That is why I said we shouldn't go path where empires are making colonies, once again, and are affecting laws in developing countries. If developing countries would be allowed to do what is best for them (independent decisions) then over few decades we would have many competitors that would push scientific progress forward much faster, than current dominant countries.

Of course not every piece of land is good for farming, but maybe you would be lucky and you would have oil or gold on your land   or other useful resource that would be enough to provide enough income to sustain your needs.

3 minutes ago, kurja said:

There is no consensus on global climate change just like there is no consensus on whether cigarettes are bad for your health.

Because scientists needs to eat and behind both it huge business and huge money.

[Darnok]

4 hours ago, Scotius said:

See guys? Just like scientific community, we can't form a consensus. "Climate is changing! No, it isn't." "It's humanity's fault. No, it's a natural cycle." "We are going to suffer because of it. No, we will be fine." One opinion per user. There is no agreement about causes of changes either. How can we reach any conclusion if we don't know what is exactly happening and why?

That is because most of people do not understand what they are fighting for. They are saying they want to save humanity, but in fact they want to save their style of life. That is impossible in changing environment and with limited resources.

Once majority notices that changing style of life, regime and way of thinking can save humanity... well we will be saved. Those who refuse to change will extinct and that is basic law of nature, not some statistical study or artificial opinion created by scientists.

EDIT: editor doesn't allow me to merge posts... sorry.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Darnok

[Nibb31]

There isn't enough land to provide a viable plot of land to 8 billion people at anything near western standards of living. Look up "ecological footprint". The average european requires 5 ha of land to support their standard of living, which, if extended to the world population, is more than is available. Americans need 10ha. There are only 2.1 global ha of bioproductive land available per capita. 

So either you have to reduce the population or reduce the standard of living. Of course, you'll have less chance of convincing Western populations to reduce their standard of living than to reduce their CO2 emissions, so it's a lost cause.

Besides, if every person was to become a farmer of their own land for their own subsistance, you lose efficiency in production. Also, you can't have a modern society where everyone is a farmer. You need a much wider variety of skill sets for a society to be productive.

And if everyone is handed 2.1 hectares of land, and that land happens to get flooded, polluted, or not viable, then "adapting" is going to mean moving somewhere else, potentially taking someone else's land. That is surely going to end well.

29 minutes ago, Darnok said:

You have to be independent to be able to do what you want, not what others want.

Global problems require global solutions. Climate change and pollution doesn't care about borders. If you decide to take measures to adapt, and those measures are defeated by neighbours who choose to ignore reality, then you're screwed. This is where either diplomacy kicks in or you go to war.

Quote

That is why I said we shouldn't go path where empires are making colonies, once again, and are affecting laws in developing countries. If developing countries would be allowed to do what is best for them (independent decisions) then over few decades we would have many competitors that would push scientific progress forward much faster, than current dominant countries.

Once the effects of climate change start hitting economical interests, there is no more scientific research. When major cities are flooded, industries are shut down, populations are displaced, and demographic tensions arise, your society switches to survival mode.

10 or 20 years simply isn't enough for our societies to adapt. 

Edited May 18, 2016 by Nibb31

[magnemoe]

29 minutes ago, cfds said:

That assumes that the land actually provides enough food for the farmer. And even then the problem is not he government of the land the farmer works but the governments of countries of highly industrialized farming that try too push their overproduction into every other country that is not powerful enough to say "keep your crap". The prize of wheat and corn in African countries is not controlled by African government, it is controlled by US, EU, China and Russia. But according to you, these countries have to be "free to do what they want in their countries".

Farming yields change from year to year, mostly dependent on weather. 
The major producers export grain. Grain price on the world marked is mostly set by supply and demand. 
You get dumping because its an national interest to keep food production higher than economical for reasons from food security and farmers income as the income would else be a too unpredictable. The extra food is sold on world marked.
Note that this is an effect of too much food, you can buy  it cheap something who is nice for poor people but bad for farmers in this countries. 

You can easy put an tax on imported food, many countries do and its no problem doing so, yes this will increase food prices internally something who is an bad idea if food is an major expense for the poor.  
The Arab spring started a lot because of higher grain prices because of an bad harvest in Australia. You would probably get an even more violent reaction with an food tax to protect farmers. This is the real reason why poor countries dont regulate food prices, that is outside subsidies to keep food priced down. 
The US or Russia don't care if some African country establish and grain tax anymore than they react on Japan or Norway have it, plenty of other buyers 

Now the kernel in the issue is that many farms in lots of countries is too small and old fashioned. as average standard or living rises while food prices goes down farmer fall more and more behind. Solution everywhere has been to increase the farm size and mechanization. 
Farming was the major occupation until the 21 century now its services. 

[PB666]

Ok, so we have decided tongo back. 

Biggest single cause of greenhouse gas is

. . . . . . .  .Coal fired electrical 44% could fall to 22% if replaced by natural gas

. . . . . . . . Cattle Livestock 18%. This one gets double duty sine it is a cause of deforestation, could be reduced by 2/3 rds if people who eat too much red meat and milk replaced these with vegetarian equivilants. Not all are the sames, eggs have more prorien and have smaller foot. 

 

IOW right now one third the global greenhouse emissions are simply due to human carelessness, and have nothing to do with technology. 

[cantab]

6 hours ago, Darnok said:

Climate is change since Earth was formed and you won't stop that, all you can do is to adapt or die. I see you don't want to adapt, so you will die, either from economical issues or wars that comes.

We will all adapt. The very fact that we have an internet connection, a device, and the free time to be on this forum and presumably to play Kerbal Space Program too, means that we are plenty rich enough to handle whatever the climate does. It's the other 90 percent of the world's population that will suffer.

[PB666]

15 minutes ago, cantab said:

We will all adapt. The very fact that we have an internet connection, a device, and the free time to be on this forum and presumably to play Kerbal Space Program too, means that we are plenty rich enough to handle whatever the climate does. It's the other 90 percent of the world's population that will suffer.

If i am reading Darnok correctly, thats what he wants, a seventh of the world deserves their fate because they lack the proper adaptive mutations, CO2 is more or less a convinient reason for institutional genocide. Namely they did not crawl out of their mud huts and eliminate all the coal miners, burners and feed lot technicians when they had the chance, survival of the fitest. There was a term for this in the early 20th century, though i forget the name. 

Citing the law of unintended consequeces and I see black swans all over the place here. You could be a high scale PhD of environmental science but if cat 5 storms trps  on a freway you in your lexus as you try to flee a storm that reaches max winds just 24 hours after forming. . . . . . . . . .it was your genes that cause you not to build a stainless steel spherical home 100 feet above sea levell with enough power and supplies to last a month. 

One thing I see here this year is something that we have not seen since the Younger Dryas, the climate may, for many places, have a profound jumpstate, i.e. pushing the thread back on topic, that was the topic, the potential that 2016 is a jump state, its not about CO2, though its amazing how the climate deniers changed it into a thread about such.