Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[moproblems99]

At this rate you may be right, but those wars will likely be driven by resource-grabs CAUSED by global warming.

Ideological wars will undu us long before environmental wars. If we make it out of this decade with a mostly usable planet, I'll be surprised.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Yep, because guess what, those people in 1859 survived and still had to keep on living didn't they? If the economy collapses because of its reliance on something that collapses of a solar flare... well... that's not a world I want to live in.

I'm not sure if you realize this, but in 1859 nobody had electricity, manufacturing was mostly via steam / water (watermill) / animal & human power, no refrigeration, the majority of populations lived on farms/ranches. Very few people would have been affected by this at all, and most probably didn't even know it happened. Nothing of importance to survival would have been affected in 1859. By contrast, I saw an estimate that if this were to happen today, about 90% of the population would die off.

 

[moproblems99]

I'm not sure if you realize this, but in 1859 nobody had electricity, manufacturing was mostly via steam / water (watermill) / animal & human power, no refrigeration, the majority of populations lived on farms/ranches. Very few people would have been affected by this at all, and most probably didn't even know it happened. Nothing of importance to survival would have been affected in 1859. By contrast, I saw an estimate that if this were to happen today, about 90% of the population would die off.

You forget they never taught real American history at any point and I am not even sure what they teach now. Mostly about feeling guilty about things we weren't alive for.

 

[rruff]

By contrast, I saw an estimate that if this were to happen today, about 90% of the population would die off.

"The Carrington event was first estimated to have a Dst of about −1760 nT41. If we assume this threshold, the corresponding Weibull distribution would have shape and scale parameters 0.68 and 3.18 × 1010 days (8.7 × 107 years) respectively, so the probability of having such an event within the next decade would be 0.0005%, with a 95% confidence interval"

Probability estimation of a Carrington-like geomagnetic storm - Scientific Reports

Intense geomagnetic storms can cause severe damage to electrical systems and communications. This work proposes a counting process with Weibull inter-occurrence times in order to estimate the probability of extreme geomagnetic events. It is found that the scale parameter of the inter-occurrence...

www.nature.com

 

[the54thvoid]

An earlier post mentioned the Greenland Ice Sheet. This is from the article, showing the sudden spike in mass increase:

This is from a daily graph of SMB. The article used this info to suggest the ice sheet is increasing massively. The very same source data (Polarportal) continues with the graph into July.

It shows the normal, annual trend continuing. The aberrant spike is still there but the seasonal annual trendline continues.

The recent heatwaves in America, Siberia, the Arctic cannot be definitively attrtibuted to long-term climate change (the record breaking heat dome from earlier this month, however, has been described as impossible without global warming). But, that aside, single events (such as that anomaly from the SMB, or a bad heatwave season) cannot be attributed to climate change. It's bad science to use one data point and extrapolate a theory. Which is what the initial (top graph) source did. Long-term climate trends need to be considered to get a clearer picture.

This is the longterm mapping of the Greenland Ice mass (again using the exact same data source -polarportal - as was used in the initial graph).

The associated text, from: http://polarportal.dk/fileadmin/use..._report/polarportal_saesonrapport_2020_EN.pdf, says:

That's a loss of 4261 gigatonnes of mass over 17 years. Seasonal increases are offset by the long term downward trend. Again, to re-iterate, I used the very same data-set and source from the article that says it disproves warming. What that article did is take a snapshot that gives zero information on trend. I'll check back and see what caused that spike but from further reading, it appears unusually heavy precipitation had been ocurring, ironically, due to changes in global weather patterns. It would be nice to think that climate change might dump enough water/snow on Greenland to offset a little bit of the water loss. More snow also means more reflective surface to remove heat. But using a climate change doubters own evidence, it's pretty clear Greenland is losing ice on a long-term trend.

 

[RandallFlagg]

"The Carrington event was first estimated to have a Dst of about −1760 nT41. If we assume this threshold, the corresponding Weibull distribution would have shape and scale parameters 0.68 and 3.18 × 1010 days (8.7 × 107 years) respectively, so the probability of having such an event within the next decade would be 0.0005%, with a 95% confidence interval"

Probability estimation of a Carrington-like geomagnetic storm - Scientific Reports

Intense geomagnetic storms can cause severe damage to electrical systems and communications. This work proposes a counting process with Weibull inter-occurrence times in order to estimate the probability of extreme geomagnetic events. It is found that the scale parameter of the inter-occurrence...

www.nature.com

History seems to show otherwise.

"A good example is the great storm of mid-September 1770, when extremely bright red auroras blanketed Japan and parts of China. Captain Cook himself saw the display from near Timor Island, south of Indonesia. Hayakawa and colleagues recently found drawings of the instigating sunspot, and it is twice the size of the Carrington sunspot group. "

These two were half the power of the Carrington event :

"They found that superstorms in February 1872 and May 1921 were also comparable to the Carrington Event, with similar magnetic amplitudes and widespread auroras."

A Warning from History: The Carrington Event Was Not Unique

Sept. 1, 2020: On Sept. 1st, 1859, the most ferocious solar storm in recorded history engulfed our planet. “The Carrington Event,” named after British scientist Richard Carrington who w…

spaceweatherarchive.com

12% in 10 years of an event like the 1921 storm. 1.5% in 10 years for an event like the Carrington event. The odds are actually being beaten for now, but we are also at a solar minimum.

https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/ssbsite/documents/webpage/ssb_153147.pdf

 

[Space Lynx]

I'm not sure if you realize this, but in 1859 nobody had electricity, manufacturing was mostly via steam / water (watermill) / animal & human power, no refrigeration, the majority of populations lived on farms/ranches. Very few people would have been affected by this at all, and most probably didn't even know it happened. Nothing of importance to survival would have been affected in 1859. By contrast, I saw an estimate that if this were to happen today, about 90% of the population would die off.

that's exactly what I meant. in response to the other person saying going back to snail mail and less reliance on tech as a deterrent to what you just described.