The Analysis of Sea Levels.

[FleshJeb]

30 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Side question: does Ankh-Morpok humor translate well into Russian, or must it be read in the original to be appreciated? 

Well I had ChatGPT translate it, and it made Vetinari the protagonist and CMOT Dibbler the audience surrogate. Curious...

[kerbiloid]

32 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Side question: does Ankh-Morpok humor translate well into Russian, or must it be read in the original to be appreciated? 

The humor translates perfectly (and almost all books are translated long ago), but the original text in English is hardly readable because it totally consists of wordplay based on original idioms, so some nuances have to be replaced  with corresponding local cultural references or explained in comments.  Also proper names sometimes have a couple of different variants from different translators..

Though, being compared to Jack Vance's "Dying Earth" original high-style archaic language, Terry Pratchett's English is much more understandable.

7 minutes ago, FleshJeb said:

it made Vetinari the protagonist

Isn't he?

[FleshJeb]

9 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Isn't he?

LOL, occasionally.

My favorite character is actually DEATH, because he's very, very fair. If there's an afterlife (highly doubtful), he is exactly who I would hope handles the transition.

Apologies for my post, I lost my temper. It was unfair.

A friend of mine who is passionate about Russian literature made me read A Cloud In Trousers. Mayakovsky translates perfectly.

 

[magnemoe]

On 1/11/2023 at 2:08 AM, mikegarrison said:

The improvement in the ozone layer is a fantastic example of how effective international governmental regulation can, if done in a timely manner, undo ongoing environmental damage.

There are many other examples of governmental intervention also working to correct environmental problems, like (for example) how many US urban waterways are far safer and cleaner to live near than they were when I was a kid. US urban air quality is also much better with the implementation of bans on leaded gasoline and the requirement for strict emissions controls on cars.

None of this is a sign that government intervention is not necessary -- rather it is evidence that government intervention can be highly successful.

Yes, its pretty common that the fish in rivers running trough cities is safe to eat today, its an long time since that has been true using current health code. 
Now you might get spills who wipe out the fish but this is rare and is an police case. 

For me I remember how black the snow at the side of even minor road was back 30-40 years ago especially at spring. Today its just the bottom 30 cm who is dirty and its mostly from asphalt and tire fragments. 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Ocean surface heat is at record-breaking levels. Temperatures began climbing in mid-March and skyrocketed over the course of several weeks, leaving scientists scrambling to figure out exactly why.

Temperatures have fallen since their peak in April – as they naturally do in the spring – but they are still higher than they have ever been on record for this time of year.

...

One major driver of the heat is believed to be an approaching – and potentially strong – El Niño, a natural climate fluctuation associated with warming in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean, which has a global heating effect.

The world has just emerged from a 3-year La Niña, El Niño’s cooler counterpart, which has helped mask the full impact of global warming. Since La Niña ended in March, ocean temperatures seem to be on a rebound, scientists say.

“It’s a little bit like we’ve had the freezer door open for a while and it’s helped to cool the planet,” Johnson said. But even while that freezer has been open, background temperatures have continued to rise. Now the freezer is closed, everything is hotter than before.

Ocean temperatures are off the charts right now, and scientists are alarmed | CNN

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Found this couple of articles interesting. 

https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.522

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna89123

 

I'd read the NBC article about glacier retreat on Ranier first.  There is an interesting graphic in the article illustrating the change in glacial cover since 1896.  The first 'step' of the graphic (six date stamped illustrations) showed a dramatic (the most dramatic) drop in coverage happened by 1913.  The next step showed another (less) dramatic loss between 1913 and 1970.  The rest (to present) shows fairly steady loss, but nothing particularly dramatic.

Curious, I googled and discovered the second article about the Early Twentieth Century Warming (anomaly).  The information coincides with some things I've read about major climate anomalies like those that resulted in the Dust Bowl, etc. 

In all, the second article is recommended because it talks about several climate anomalies from the Early 20th Century that don't get a lot of attention. 

[darthgently]

34 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Found this couple of articles interesting. 

https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.522

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna89123

 

I'd read the NBC article about glacier retreat on Ranier first.  There is an interesting graphic in the article illustrating the change in glacial cover since 1896.  The first 'step' of the graphic (six date stamped illustrations) showed a dramatic (the most dramatic) drop in coverage happened by 1913.  The next step showed another (less) dramatic loss between 1913 and 1970.  The rest (to present) shows fairly steady loss, but nothing particularly dramatic.

Curious, I googled and discovered the second article about the Early Twentieth Century Warming (anomaly).  The information coincides with some things I've read about major climate anomalies like those that resulted in the Dust Bowl, etc. 

In all, the second article is recommended because it talks about several climate anomalies from the Early 20th Century that don't get a lot of attention. 

Antarctica has gained snowpack overall, though the particular shelf the media focuses on has lost lately.  Geothermal forces are a good candidate for that local loss.  Iceland has also gained glacial snowpack iirc

[Codraroll]

2 hours ago, darthgently said:

Antarctica has gained snowpack overall, though the particular shelf the media focuses on has lost lately.  Geothermal forces are a good candidate for that local loss.  Iceland has also gained glacial snowpack iirc

After all, it only snows when the temperature is within a range of a few degrees around 0 °C. Too much warmer than that, it rains instead. Too much colder, and the air doesn't hold enough humidity to form snow. Certain high-altitude regions are expected to see more snow in a warmer climate, because it was usually too cold to snow there before.

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, Codraroll said:

After all, it only snows when the temperature is within a range of a few degrees around 0 °C. Too much warmer than that, it rains instead. Too much colder, and the air doesn't hold enough humidity to form snow. Certain high-altitude regions are expected to see more snow in a warmer climate, because it was usually too cold to snow there before.

That sure would make Antarctic snowpack a poor indicator of climate change warning then. I wonder why it is referred to all the time?  Especially that one shelf.

But having lived in Idaho winters and driven truck year round in Canada and the lower 48 states and I know I've seen blizzards at well below 0c

Sudden ocean warming is nearly always geothermal

Edited June 22, 2023 by darthgently

[StrandedonEarth]

41 minutes ago, darthgently said:

That sure would make Antarctic snowpack a poor indicator of climate change warning then. I wonder why it is referred to all the time?  Especially that one shelf.

But having lived in Idaho winters and driven truck year round in Canada and the lower 48 states and I know I've seen blizzards at well below 0c

Sudden ocean warming is nearly always geother

Oops dbl mobile quote 

41 minutes ago, darthgently said:

That sure would make Antarctic snowpack a poor indicator of climate change warning then. I wonder why it is referred to all the time?  Especially that one shelf.

But having lived in Idaho winters and driven truck year round in Canada and the lower 48 states and I know I've seen blizzards at well below 0c

Sudden ocean warming is nearly always geothermal

That would be when warmer, moister air hits the subzero air and all the moisture falls out

Edited June 22, 2023 by StrandedonEarth

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Oops dbl mobile quote 

That would be when warmer, moister air hits the subzero air and all the moisture falls out

I'd think that with the "roaring 70s" southern latitude belt around Antarctica there would be plenty of relatively warmer wetter air slung south which would become snow further south as the temps drop.  Just guessing

[Codraroll]

2 hours ago, darthgently said:

That sure would make Antarctic snowpack a poor indicator of climate change warning then. I wonder why it is referred to all the time?  Especially that one shelf.

Because the mechanisms that add snow (and by extension, ice) to the interior of the continent are rather different from the mechanisms that keep the glacial shelves in place. The ongoing collapse of the Larsen ice shelf happens due to warming of the sea underneath the shelf, whereas the additions to the Antarctic ice cap occur elsewhere on the continent.

[farmerben]

I've often wondered if a good geoengineering option is to make it snow more on Antarctica.

[darthgently]

I don't think we know as much as we think we know.  Which would be inline with all of human history, so a good starting assumption, political expedience aside

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, farmerben said:

I've often wondered if a good geoengineering option is to make it snow more on Antarctica.

 

42 minutes ago, darthgently said:

I don't think we know as much as we think we know.  Which would be inline with all of human history, so a good starting assumption, political expedience aside

... Which is precisely why we should stay away from all geoengineering attempts. 

 

FWIW I suspect that the most likely result of such attempts will be failure to achieve any result, and the next most likely would be 'more harm than good'.  To be successful we'd have to actually know what is going on - and I'm not convinced we do (aside from stopping the rampant pollution, which, to be fair - we are working on... Slowly) 

[darthgently]

18 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

... Which is precisely why we should stay away from all geoengineering attempts. 

Bingo

[mikegarrison]

Glaciers are really susceptible to summer heat. In the winter, cold is cold, and it doesn't matter how cold as long as it is below freezing. But in summer, the hotter it is, the quicker the ice melts. So even if you have a situation where the winters are colder and the summers are warmer, that will lead to glacial retreat. It is cool summers that make glaciers grow.

12 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

... Which is precisely why we should stay away from all geoengineering attempts. 

Isn't this a "the perfect is the enemy of the good" statement?

Should SpaceX stay away from all Starship flights because they don't know enough to make sure the flights will be successful? Isn't that the opposite of the approach that many people on this forum love them for?

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

Isn't this a "the perfect is the enemy of the good" statement?

Should SpaceX stay away from all Starship flights because they don't know enough to make sure the flights will be successful? Isn't that the opposite of the approach that many people on this forum love them for?

Risk reward analysis.  There is only one human habitable planet that we know of.  We should actually have models with predictive power before we embark on grand schemes.  So far the climate models have been quite imaginative wrt reality.  A far deeper understanding is required

[mikegarrison]

55 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Risk reward analysis.  There is only one human habitable planet that we know of.  We should actually have models with predictive power before we embark on grand schemes.  So far the climate models have been quite imaginative wrt reality.  A far deeper understanding is required

All models are models. Models are never perfect representations of reality.

But there are a lot of climate models out there, based on a massive amount of data, and most of them are in pretty good alignment with each other. I'm not sure where you guys are getting the idea that the models are highly unreliable.

[kerbiloid]

https://pikabu-ru.translate.goog/story/pro_yekologiyu_i_globalnoe_poteplenie_tsugtsvang_chelovechestva_10374357?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp

("seals" is google's typo for "cats"
In Russian, "kotik" = "seal" and "cutie cat")

Edited June 23, 2023 by kerbiloid

[darthgently]

4 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

most of them are in pretty good alignment with each other

Exactly.  Unfortunately they've failed to predict very well.  They aren't aligned very well with reality

Edited June 23, 2023 by darthgently

[FleshJeb]

All human activity is geoengineering, whether we like it or not. Fossil fuel power plants ARE geoengineering, as inconvenient a truth as that is.

We used to drain/fill wetlands because we thought that we could make better use of these "economically unproductive" areas. As it turns out, they're absolutely amazing and vital water filters. The rise of industrial farming and ranching contributed a lot of nitrogen and phosphorus runoff into streams and rivers, causing algal blooms and fish kills all the way out into the nearby bays and oceans, and depleting fishing stocks. This is also geoengineering. (The relevant search term is "non point source pollution" for those seeking to learn more.)

So we decided to do more geoengineering, and reconstruct what wetlands we could, to mitigate and reverse the damage. It's expensive and time-consuming, but it's working.

Portions of the Central Valley in California have subsided up to 28 feet due to the collapse of groundwater aquifers due to overpumping for agricultural irrigation. That's some serious unintentional geoengineering.

So we design groundwater recharge basins and other facilities to try to halt that process, and make agriculture in the region sustainable. (Shall I beat the dead horse and say "geoengineering" again?)

All of these mitigation efforts started with identifying the problem, conducting small pilot projects to investigate the impacts of solutions, and then moved to becoming large-scale standards of practice.

So, we've established that the problems and the solutions are in the same category and scale of activity--One of which has known unintentional, uncontrolled side effects, and the other involves the deliberate, cautious application of time, effort, and expertise. It follows that doing nothing is the more radical, dangerous option.

[Codraroll]

2 hours ago, darthgently said:

Exactly.  Unfortunately they've failed to predict very well.  They aren't aligned very well with reality

Where did you get that idea? Actual evaluations of old models to predict the then-future climate show that most of them align quite well with what was later observed.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019GL085378

To quote the most relevant figure:

Note also that there is inherent uncertainty at play there. To predict how the climate will develop over the next X years, you have to make assumptions of how greenhouse gas emissions will develop, and that's mostly down to inherently unpredictable politics.

 

Edited June 23, 2023 by Codraroll
The figure did not embed nicely inside a quote tag.

[mikegarrison]

2 hours ago, darthgently said:

Exactly.  Unfortunately they've failed to predict very well.  They aren't aligned very well with reality

I don't know what propaganda you have been swallowing, but your statement is incorrect.

There are a lot of people who make it their business to spread FUD about climate science, but I've worked directly with enough climate scientists to have a pretty good feel for what they do know and what they don't know. And while of course they don't know everything perfectly -- that's not a human possibility -- they have some pretty damn good models of a *very* complex system.

Edited June 23, 2023 by mikegarrison

[darthgently]

32 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

There are a lot of people who make it their business to spread FUD about climate science

You got that right