111–120 of 257 posts
So it's going to get warmer, sea levels will rise. coastlines will move inland as sea levels rise. Typically colder areas will become more tropical. Other than displacing a large number of people who live on coastlines, what's the big deal? Insult me for my niavety if it makes you feel better, but I honestly don't know the answer.
War.
What industry is contributing to climate change the most? Where is a good place to find data on this?
http://www.wri.org/resources/charts-graphs/world-greenhouse-...
Although the data is from 2005. Personally I was surprised by the impact of concrete (it says 5% but some estimates are 9%).
at least we've created lots of shareholder value
What industry is contributing to climate change the most? Where is a good place to find data on this?
This is a relatively well-researched list: http://www.drawdown.org/solutions-summary-by-rank
So it's going to get warmer, sea levels will rise. coastlines will move inland as sea levels rise. Typically colder areas will become more tropical. Other than displacing a large number of people who live on coastlines, what's the big deal? Insult me for my niavety if it makes you feel better, but I honestly don't know the answer.
Would melting sea ice lead to a rise in sea level? The ice is floating, so it's displacing the approximately same mass of water as it contains. If it melts the overall water level shouldn't change.
2. It's a feedback effect. Less ice means less light reflected means more energy in our oceans/atmosphere. In turn this creates more ice loss that won't be sea ice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as sea-level rises are concerned, the Arctic sea ice will probably be a net sea-level fall, except around the Equator. If all of the Greenland glaciers were to disappear, well then, we would see a sea-level rise, globally. But it would be distributed unevenly across the world. The higher levels would again be around the Equator with decreasing levels the further north or south of the Equator you go. But to get…
Your reasoning omits that there is also a large amount of energy stored im the oceans. The greenlandic glaciers have already sped up and are calving into the oceans where there is plenty of energy to melt them.
The problem I see here is that the energy flows and pathways required are of such a magnitude and are so complex that the simplistic modelling being used basically ignores it.
For every kilotonne of ice being calved, it will require, at a minimum, the energy stored in 4 kilotonnes of sea water at 20 degrees Celcius. The resulting temperature of that sea water would be reduced to just above freezing point of water. If you, say, set the limit at a 1 degree Celsius drop, then we are looking extracting the energy of about 84 - 85 kilotonnes of sea water. You still need to take into account the energy conduction through water and also from water to the ice.
At this end of the globe, we see stories often enough of the end of small icebergs that have calved off the Antarctic ice mass. Many of these have been tracked from the initial calve to their final demise and it takes many years for even small ones to finally disappear.
To get any serious ice melt, you have to have serious amounts of energy flowing into that ice.
One question to ask is how the calving is occurring? There can be a variety of ways this can happen and they are not all caused by temperature increases. This, in itself, is a very interesting subject and there are some quite complex processes involved.
The world around us is extremely complex and we have very little understanding of how things work, irrespective of what is portrayed in popular media.
Historical records do indicate that the Arctic Polar ice mass has been of varying sizes. Some of these have essentially indicated that the ice mass was very small at some points in history and at other times very large. Some of these records and reports go back many hundreds of years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't answer on where to best find this data, but it is compounded by many industries. Particularly, manufacturing and the transportation of raw materials that are transformed into products by other manufacturers and then distributed to distribution centers, and then again distributed to local regions and retailers. This, for every last little thing. If you want to talk just plastic bottles, we consume 1 million bo…
Don't forget all the factory farming and raising cattle to feed billions of people - methane emissions from cows are very significant.
Couple this with the (probably false) rule of thumb that 90% of the energy is lost at each step in the food chain. The beef I eat could literally feed ten people if they ate the vegetable proteins instead[1], with nearly no loss of quality of life for me. It's very hard to rationalise eating large amounts of beef at that point.
That said, I still do enjoy it at times, but as the expensive luxury it is, not an everyday staple.
[1] If not directly, then in the long run by reduced emissions etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I host over 30TB of excellent climate date here: https://mirrors.sorengard.com/azimuth . These datasets were collected from various government agencies as part of a larger collaboration with John Baez and a couple of other scientists from the Azimuth Climate Data Project: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/azimuth_backup_project/ My server has a 1Gbps connection and can support sustained downloads of very large files. Unf…
Self hosting is important, but it seems like the wide disimmenation of this data would be helped by also making it available in torrent form as well.
What industry is contributing to climate change the most? Where is a good place to find data on this?
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emiss... : * Electricity and Heat Production (25% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions) * Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (24% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions) * Industry (21% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions) * Transportation (14% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions) (Top 4 only, accounting for 74% of emissions)
It'd be easier if there were only one source of problems because all the others would look at him. Here we'd just need "finger pointing".
The heat spikes in the Arctic now so early on in the year and the jet stream which previously brought cold towards the Arctic now shifts the cold down in cold spikes and record cold fronts to north east and Europe. It seems we will no longer have an Arctic soon and the jet stream will be permanently shifted due to anthropogenic climate change. We had record heat in Southern California in early February and around the…