My apologies for the lateness of the report, its been a really busy week and I was going to write it up last night but my buddy talked me into a metal concert. We got backstage passes and the works it was pretty cool
surprisingly accurate
Anywho on to last weekend. The win over Boston College I believe has given a lot of us a pretty hype feeling. I for one forced all of my friends to sit through the entire game before we went to chick fil a. That coupled with the absolute collapse UVA had at the end of their game and I can only imagine my entire attitude was something like this on Saturday
Seriously we took Boston College to the woodshed and aside from the #38-0bro game I cant remember a more complete and utter annihilation of a legitimate FBS opponent since....well since I've started watching hokie football 8 years ago. This game had it all and I for one am totally on board the fuente hype train
Now for my science fill, and disclaimer I dont want this to become political at all I want this to stick to facts. I'm going to discuss global warming and the theory behind it, and I think this is a really good month to discuss it because the average high temperature is 15 degrees above normal. (THATS REALLY HOT) seriously Wisconsin hasn't been under 40 degrees in an almost record 140 straight days, and im paying the consequences for it. Its damn mosquito haven up here.
my average walk to work
This may be a multi-part discussion because there is a hell of a lot to talk about from greenhouse gases, to a little chemistry behind it, to the impacts that we may be causing, to the future of our climate. For starters lets get this bad boy started! As a lot of you have noticed its been warm this September...like REALLY warm, unusually so. For Virginia in particular the entire global warming talk is really bad news. As a lot of you are familiar (and I'll get into the details shortly) global warming leads to higher sea levels which will submerge a good portion of one of the most important regions in the state. On top of that impacts also include more severe storms, changing weather patterns (the jets get really screwed up) and even more droughts.
A lot of climate change's impacts currently comes from several gases that you've all probably heard of. There's Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs which we used to use for EVERYTHING), and N2O. All of these...we'll call them the big 4 have huge impacts and i'll gloss over them this week and give you the how next week. Carbon Dioxide is the one I'm sure you've all heard of.
looks to me like we're throwing a lot of that into the atmosphere
To first understand CO2s impacts one must understand basic radiation terms. Basically radiation comes into our atmosphere and is absorbed, shortwave radiation (Ultraviolet and stuff) is absorbed by the ozone, long wave radiation (visible light and stuff) gets through our ozone and hits the surface. Some of it is absorbed and some ricochets off back up into space.
realllllly important graphic right here
The important concept surrounding CO2 is, as you increase the levels of Carbon dioxide the outgoing longwave radiation (you can think of it as heat) cant leave the atmosphere and instead of bouncing out of the earth, attempts to leave the atmosphere and gets bounced right back into us. Eventually as you increase CO2 more and more energy is going to get reflected back into us, thus driving up temperatures. THIS IS BAD. our poles cant handle increased temperatures and as a result will melt. Melted poles and warmer poles = bad news for weather patterns as the jets depend on temperature gradients. As the poles melt water will rise which is really bad news for coastal cities like Miami, Hampton, or NYC.
the next gas I mentioned is methane. Methane is one driven by our farming techniques, natural gases, and landfills/wetlands. Methane works in really similar ways to CO2 but is MUCH more potent, like 85% better at trapping heat in our atmosphere. Luckily for us methane levels (while still rising) are only a fraction as high as CO2 levels. Definitely another gas that we have to keep an eye on though, by trapping heat in it too rises temperature levels.
Another one that was HUGE in the 90s were CFCs or chlorofluorocarbons. These bad boys react with the atmosphere in much different ways than CO2 or methane and were basically directly responsible for our first climate change scare in the 90s. For whatever reason everybody thought these aerosols were absolutely perfect, we could spray them into the air and since they didn't bond with water vapor they would drift into space.
This was before we discovered that the atmosphere is much more complex than just the tropopsphere and the ozone basically keeps us alive. CFCs were absolute cancer to the ozone, and were really good at killing the ozone and lingering around the middle atmosphere for a really long time. We quickly put a restriction on these and only now is the ozone starting to recover (no its not fully recovered yet)
thank you CFCs
moral of the story is make sure you understand the things you're messing with before you throw stuff into them.
Finally the last one, and frankly the weirdest one are the NOx gasses. NOx is a term for nitrogen oxides and can be written a number of different ways but the two bigguns (correct me if im wrong chemists) are NO and NO2. These bad boys are released via combustion, and while aren't as available as say CO2 still react really badly and produce bad air. NOx bonds with sunlight to perform a hazy toxic gas aka Ozone. While ozone is absolutely amazing in the middle atmosphere for blocking bad sunlight. Its absolutely terrible to breathe, puts holes in your organs, and gives you cancer. Interestingly however, NOx gases also bond with methane to actually cool the Earth...so its not all bad I suppose? But still certainly not good its a fine line we've gotta learn to walk a fine line.
Now for the weather write-up. You guys are in for an absolutely beautiful day on saturday. With an upper level ridge blowing in it seems as if a high is going to be dropping down and giving us another beautiful day of sunshine. Seriously there will be no clouds and little to no breeze (bring your sunblock) I expect highs to climb into the mid 80s (we'll venture up to 86) with a low around 62. It might be a little bit of a chilly tailgating morning with temperatures around 70 in the morning but will warm up quickly around and after kickoff. Later that night temperatures will drop down due to the lack of cloud cover resulting in a low of 62. Check out this little weather graphic maker I found online, not the best but its quick and easy and I'll probably make more of these weekly
...For some reason the image wouldnt post but you can find it here
I dont expect weather to have any real impact on the game, aside from maybe it being hot as hell if either defense is on the field to long. I expect both teams to be able to run their offenses to full effect and as such I expect some points to be put up. But I also expect Foster's boys to get the job done this week
Tune in next week for a better understanding and write-up of climate change's impacts on the jet, and a better write-up of how this all goes on chemically.
Final Predictions
High 86
Low 62
Little to no cloud cover
Little to no Wind
No precip
GO HOKIES!!!!
Comments
You sure are smart for a 12 year old!
Im sorry to say i was 15, currently 23
Wisconsin has two seasons; swat & shovel!
So are the mosquito swatters re-purposed snow shovels or are the snow shovels re-purposed mosquito swatters?
I literally gagged on one of these guys walking home once
If what you claim is true, the actual impact of anthropomorphic global warming is to sink Miami under 15 feet of water, you can't convince me this is a bad thing.
Eg, that is an improper use of the word anthropomorphic . Let's drink to that.
Fuck ECU!
Lol yeah. That is pretty funny.
I've really sick this week and my head still isn't itself.
I've lost a lot of weight this week.
Miami under water might not be a bad idea , however it could take a long time . Over the last 300 years the ocean has risen only 20 cm per 100 years.
If we lose Miami, we also lose Ft Lauderdale and the Keys. I can't accept that trade.
Someplace will take the place of the keys.
They weren't there before, they won't be there forever anyway. Ocean level there has risen 20-30 ft in the past 20,000 years and there is likely to be another 80,000+ years of that to go.
eh by 2080 miami will probably be underwater barring some serious engineering. If anyone has brand new children push them into civil, that jank is gonna be huge in about 30 years...particular water levees (see the netherlands)
"By 2080 Miami will probably be underwater". To date 31,487 ( 9,029phd's) American scientist who have signed a petition challenging the climate change narrative , would disagree .
I promised myself I wouldn't wade into this debate, but I felt the need to comment here. Numbers without context are meaningless.
Who conducted the survey or sponsored the petition, and when? Who was asked and how were their credentials verified? Are all scientists equally able to judge the quality of climatology data and analysis? I'm a scientist, I have a Ph.D., and I don't come anywhere close to being able to claim an authoritative stance on climate data. What I've seen is rational to me and justified by data, but I'm not going to shout from the rooftops about it.
What does the term "challenge" mean? Scientists routinely challenge everything. Even those who believe the prevailing narrative of human contributions to climate change challenge the data, because that's what we do - we challenge it, refine our hypothesis, and modify the interpretation accordingly.
There are 6.2 million scientists and engineers in the United States, as of data from 2012. These 31,487 represent 0.5% of that number. Is that reflective of the overall thinking of US scientists? We have no way to know. A popular statistic that gets trotted out is that "97% of scientists agree on climate change." That's not entirely accurate, but what is true is that (approximately) 97% of peer-reviewed scientific literature indicates that human contributions to climate change are the majority factor (>50%) in our current trajectory. What is important here is that a scientist can say that he or she is skeptical of another specific work (the magnitude or significance of its findings, its data, or its statistical analysis), or put differently "challenge" that work, while still believing an overall narrative.
Context is critical. Again, I emphasize: numbers without context are meaningless.
The counter to the "97%" was how many of those scientists actually did their own research, and how many just agree with the prevailing opinion.
But that one also works both ways.
The 97% I refer to is specifically from meta-analysis of published, peer-reviewed, primary literature. The numbers fluctuate depending on study methodology, but it's from 91-100%, with the median being 97%.
" Global warming is a scam I am amazed , apalled and highly offended by it" - John Coleman , Weather channel founder. " Global warming is a non-problem- Dr Ivar Giaever Nobel Peace Prize winner in physics. 1973, Renessier Poly prof. Engineering. A few scientist questioning the accuracy of climate change projections 1- Judith Curry , chair of school of earth sciences at GT 2- Richard Lindzen , prof of atmospheric science MIT 3 - Roger Pielke , prof of environmental studies U of Colorado 4 - Stephen Koonin, NYU . ( can list many more ) Global warming to climate change to anthropogenic climate disruption ( looks like the name changes to suit most recent data. Anyone old enough to remember the global cooling scare of the 70'S , pushed by extreme environmentalist and some of these global warming scientist . Well, they were predicting that the earth was cooling , the sun was dying and we were heading into the next " ice age". A few facts: 1- Recent satellite photos by NASA show the North polar ice cap is increasing in size 43% to 63% 2- Since 2002 ocean temps.have fluctuated less than 1 degree . 3- World is 1.08 degree cooler than 1998 ( Remote sensing systems which provides data to NASA) 4- Polar bears and moose are thriving. I agree with Prof of physics at UC SB. " Global warming is a scam" and when the politicians get the carbon tax to 150% , the average citizen cannot afford to by food , heat or cool their home , drive to work if he or she is lucky enough to have a job and enough wealth has been "redistributed" you will hear very little about global warming. We will have much bigger problems. And SCREW ECU
A rebuttal to your 'facts':
I assume you mean Antarctic Ice has been growing, not arctic, but your numbers are way off. Antarctic ice has been growing. A little. It's been massively offset by the Ice lost on the North Pole. See here:
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record...
Key quote:
That's from NASA. They really don't have a dog in the 'carbon tax' race.
Next 'fact':
That's not really a meaningful statement, especially if 2002 was still significantly warmer than, say 1940. Which it was. You're confusing weather with climate.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth%E2%80%99s...
Key quote:
Also see this, again from NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Key quote:
Next one:
See the link above. This statement is demonstrably false.
And finally:
Again, I'm really not sure how this is proof that global warming is made up, but it's also demonstrably false. Here's a National Geo article on Polar Bear population since 2000:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141119-polar-bears-arcti...
and this:
Another quote:
I'm not going to bother looking up info about Moose.
I could go way more in depth buttttt this basically covers it all and im still celebrating a great weekend for the hokie/badger that currently writes you. Regardless the broski has covered every point pretty well if you want some evidence why people might be drawing the wrong conclusions from papers im more than happy to look it up. Regardless science thrives when people challenge ideas, it forces you to prove you're correct which has been done time and again. Theres always going to be people that doubt the obvious answer, and thats OK, people to this day question quantum mechanics, but that stuff is pretty proven... As is climate science at this point. Iunno why these people are questioning it, but I cant forcibly change their minds, just present facts much like hokieshibe and myself have done in this thread. Again im trying to avoid politics but until you present factual evidence as to why I might be wrong (without massive holes in the arguments that can be shot down by the very data I have access to) I find it rather offensive when you call theories a fabrication. That makes it sound like scientists for years are trying to pull wool over your head? But for what purpose? To scare you? Honestly what sick kick do you think they get out of that, let alone 99% of the scientists in a single field. Do you think they all just got together one day to decide "Oh hey lets mess with the world governments and convince the world is utterly and totally screwed!" no...just no... there's a lot of evidence...A TON OF IT if you read my statements and followed my sources and read up on the topics. This isnt some hoodoo voodoo magic, this is a legitimate problem.
Alaskans are already seeing awful consequences from this stuff... There are horrible grizzly bear polar bear hybrids, that are as angry as polar bears and as free roaming as grizzlys... Regardless its bad news, and they're mating as grizzlys trend further north due to warmer temps, and polar bears are heading to land due to the lack of ice because....well its melting. They're a horrifying abomination of everything that doesn't represent the coke a cola commercials properly
http://sciencenordic.com/grizzly-polar-bear-hybrids-spotted-canadian-arctic
I think the nature of tech46's post and some things you have acknowledged before about politics/economics drives the doubt. The public has to take the nuggets of good science slathered in bacon grease, lard and frosting from the media /government /international organizations, who we can't trust to be impartial or have our best interests in mind already. It begins to sound like a fad diet based on a kernel of truth, so cumbersome you eventually throw the whole book out and forget the wisdom that may have been on page 1.
It is quite obvious that we disagree about much of scientific data regarding global warming and we can re-butt this information forever. I am just not convinced global warming is happening or that it will have the effect that some have proposed . Although we agree to disagree , I greatly respect your and other opinions. This will be my last post on this . 1- Quote from Canadian Geographic. " The populations of polar bears are estimates. Some sub-populations haven't been counted in years. In Davis St, between Greenland and Baffin Island , the population has grown from 900 in late 70's to around 2,100 today. In Fox Basin a population that was estimated to be 2,300 in early 2000's now stands at 2,570 . And in specific areas of Western Hudson Bay , the most studied group of bears on earth seems to have been on a slow but steady increase since the 70's." So, the assertion that global warming is causing a decline in polar bear populations is incorrect. 2 - Moose , moose are relevant because it was claimed by some scientific studies that the population was declining because of global warming . Until it was discovered that soaring wolf populations were killing most , and the pop of moose increased during the warmest years.
Bro, do you even science?
Yes, I can read scientific reports both pro and con on all matters scientific, and am able to form my own opinions which may or may not agree with yours.
Hard to tell, since you started your disagreement with an appeal to authority.
You can come to my neighborhood and watch it. I live on the northern limit of the mangrove line on Florida's east coast.
As I illustrated earlier in the thread, the line isn't moving because the weather is warmer, it's moving because the lower extremes are less severe and less frequent.
And it isn't just the mangroves, there are now land crabs literally 100 feet from where I'm typing this, and snook are now breeding here as well. When I was in college in the 1970's the snook line was about 100 miles south of here. 20 years ago, you'd get the rare snook in this area. Now locals catch fingerlings in cast nets.
Any time there are changes in natural systems, there are ecological winners and losers. Mangroves and the species they support are winners. Cold dependent species are the losers.
The debate I hear really isn't about whether there is climate change, it about man's influence on that change, whether it will occur faster than natural systems can adapt to it, and what, if anything, should be done about it.
People denied that we could poison our rivers, use up our water supply, harvest species to extinction, cause cancer by polluting the air, etc. But man has succeeded at doing all of those things.
I understand the concern with policy changes that impact pocketbooks and lifestyles. I truly don't understand the denial associated with the science, other than it is a natural tendency (I do it) to deny something associated with an outcome we don't like.
You haven't offered any rebuttals. You just cherry picked a quote from the same article I posted, which concluded that despite small pockets of populations increasing, the species worldwide is threatened.
Again id love to see the petition, and who signed it. A biologist isnt going to be the person to talk to. Amongst my field where a majority of the experts are, this is pretty widely accepted and the results are already there. Read my comment below regarding sea rise. It's already happening
Agreed. My favorite bar is in Ft. Lauderdale.
Not by any chance the Bahia Cabana, is it?
Nope but I will try this place next time I'm down there.
Noon game? Check. 86 degrees? Check. No clouds? Check. No wind? Check.
Yep, this ginger lad made the right decision in skipping this one.
This is absolutely preposterous and the most controversial thing I've ever seen on here. In no way, shape or form is UVA a legitimate FBS opponent
In other news, it is colder than normal in NY for this time of year.
Thanks for the write up man! Damn those CFCs and ECU.
nice work on the climate change lesson!
visiting fam next week in MSP...hoping for cooler than here (NE FL)
My uneducated weather forecast, based on historical evidence. It's homecoming, so there will probably be rain at some point.
Or...since it's a September homecoming, and I would be wearing a maroon sweater if i was there, it will be balls hot.
You seem to want to discuss global warming, so here is an alternate opinion:
(1) If you would just leave it at saying it's a bad idea to have an excessive amount of CO2 in the air, I'd go along with you: however, it's normally presented as man-made global warming. Any good geologist will tell you that between 90 to 95% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is put there by volcanoes erupting. Last time I checked man does not control when volcanoes go off.
(2) The earth has been going between heating and freezing phases long before man was ever on the planet. Like a spinning top, the earth's rotation changes back and forth slightly about every 20,000 years. The sahara desert has shifted between being a desert and a jungle many times (again long before man was here).
(3) Nothing is massively going under water for a long, long time. Yes, the North pole is melting, but the North pole is not on land. It's total weight displacement is already compensated for by the ice being in the water (just as a glass with ice does not overflow when the ice melts). The largest mass of water trapped in ice is not located at the north poll, but at the south poll. This ice is located on land and if it melted, we would have sea levels rise substantially; however, it is still 30 below zero and is a long way from melting.
(4) I also feel that there are much better long term solutions to reducing CO2 in the air than our current government policies are pursing without having such a stark effect on our lives and economy. Unfortunately, this is the point in the conversation at which one normally expects to be personally attacked as a global warming "denier" rather than actually having a productive discussion.
I actually thought the OP avoided anything terribly controversial...the tone on this response, although you clearly avoid attacking, seems mildly harsh.
Go Hokies
I apologize for any harshness of tone, but it's difficult to keep all emotion out of it when you constantly feel inundated by all this stuff with no opportunity to point out it's short comings. I also didn't want to become political, but we seem to have two radically different visions as to what the "facts" actually are. The title led me to feel I would like to find out what the weather for the football game would be, not the weather for the next 1000 years. I'm attempting to rephrase parts of the original post above to soften them.
I do agree with Eshiben5 that we put a real ass whooping on Boston College and am as excited about it as he is.
I like the edit.
For what it's worth, I work at a coal power plant so I'm very in tune with publicly perceived "facts" if you catch my drift. :)
Thanks, You were right, it was originally harsher than warranted. :--)
I like how you handled the situation.
Can you discuss "Chromium 6" non-politically?
Is it a real thing?Is it really a concern, and does your industry have an effect on it?Picture is too big to embed so I'm linking. The mouse over text though "[After setting your car on fire] Listen, your car's changed temperature before..."
XKCD
I've heard this argument before. It's a false analogy.
The ocean isn't a glass of water, and the polar ice caps aren't ice cubes floating in it. The water locked up in the polar ice caps are kept out of the oceanic currents and held in place at the pole. If those ice caps melt, that water escapes and enters the currents, which does elevate sea level. And the math is irrefutable. There is enough water trapped in the ice caps to submerged heavily populated areas if they melt.
I don't know the origin of this argument, so I can't say if it's intentially misleading or innocently misguided. But it's a dangerous fallacy that tries to give people false hope that no threat exists when one most certainly does. I feel compelled to refute it whenever I see it brought up.
wrong thread.
The nice thing about facts is that they're true regardless of what you want to believe. Look at the data - the planet is warming far more rapidly than ever before. Trust Eshiben - he's getting a masters in it.
1.) I would love to see where you get this result, on the average year the amount of eruptions is approximately 35. This is an average trend, it's a fact, it cannot be argued. This includes both active and dormant volcanoes that are still emitting by lava (google it). Regardless the average output of volcanoes per year is somewhere around 200 million tons of CO2 which, yes seems like a good chunk. But it absolutely falls in comparison to human releases which come into a whopping 26.8 billion tons per year. Do a little math and the volcano output comes out to less than 1% of carbon emissions, which is totally short of making a difference.
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
if you don't trust the government I'll be more than happy to dig up some papers and show you some results from research myself (my research isn't pertinent to this what so ever so I am a completely unbiased source trust me)
Likewise check out this site I have some of my students doing for a lab coming up, it calculates your carbon footprint. Take that average and multiply it by the human population (7.4 billion) if the average person lived like the average American it would be even worse. Trust me I'm guilty of it too, I don't live this hippy recycle everything and save power all of the time lifestyle, buuuuuuuut its not a good look fersure.
http://www.nature.org/greenliving/carboncalculator/
2.) Yes the Earth has been going through these phases and many people also argue the solar maxima and minima being a factor (trust me its not I've done direct research on this jank and solar flares impact on the climate in undergrad....which GO HOKIES was cool as hell). But to say we're in one of those phases is not a good excuse....if that is the case we're in for the sharpest temperature drop in the history of forever. Our temperature is growing at an exponential rate rather than a sinusoidal rate. That is take a nearby calculator and plot y = sin(x) vs y = 10^x and note the difference. Temperatures have reached a higher peak than ever under our current atmosphere. Yes there was a trend, a great one, but it has completely shattered in the last 100 or so years, which has coupled with a boom in the population and also a massive spike in the carbon emissions from factories and other sources. Coupled with the fact that we know and have proven that carbon dioxide holds in radiation better seems to point to pretty definitive evidence that yes CO2 is heating things up more and at a faster rate than ever before. The fact that the Sahara desert has shifted has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the atmosphere but rather what I would assume would be the jets shifting. The amazon exists right on the equator, life can exist on the equator. That's a thing. Likewise even if it didn't have to do with this and had to do with Earths orbit, that doesn't mean the Earth on a whole is receiving or losing more radiation. Seasonality determines a lot of our weather patterns. Case and point if the tilt were off and for whatever reason storms didn't form over the Sahara during the summer we would never get hurricanes. It's a very unique system that requires the perfect variables (IE warm water and strong storms coming off the Sahara). My point is that even if the tilt was off, that would not effect GLOBAL temperatures year round, its not like the Sahara is suddenly putting off all of this extra heat to make the difference
3.) SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO FALSE. Companies (real estate and the like) are hiring meteorologists to determine sea levels rising. At the current rate (this just in it might even speed up)
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/
I think national geographic is pretty reputable, if not once more I can dig around for some scientific papers with scientific evidence (remember I work with these guys I have access to anything and everything). Even the lower estimate of 2.5 feet puts a good chunk of Miami and parts of NYC under water, sure its not going to be overnight but something has to be done about this. Engineers are going to have their work cut out for them keeping these cities afloat A la the Netherlands. And as mentioned below no this is not a complete analogy, water will be added in this scenario. Worse yet, what a lot of people don't understand is the shifting of the jet stream. These are really really really driven by the jet stream, and basically influence weather globally. If this shifts expect hurricane positions to shift and rainfall positions to shift which could shift the positions of deserts and flooding and lakes. This could further put major cities underwater and put some cities in the middle of deserts (BOTH BAD ECONOMICALLY). The point that all of this is driven from is the fact that antartica and the North Pole both have ice developing on top of them so when it melts it does in fact add to the ocean levels because its above land not above water. They're not just floating on the oceans, this means as the water melts it will be added to the oceans. Likewise as it melts, it melts quicker as there is less ice surrounding it to keep it cool. SCIENCE. Seriously you want an experiment take a 2' x 2' block of ice record how long it takes to melt the first tablespoon. Then record how long it takes to melt the next...so on and so forth.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-i...
Please read the whole article and not just the title theres legitimate concerns that we could be facing an irreversible trend here shortly that sees the poles shrinking and never turning back. Increased snow fall is covering our flaws right now to the naked eye but the evidence is there if you look hard enough. The polar ice caps are shrinking and once that threshold gets overcome (growth versus shrinkage) we're in some serious shit
4.) I am completely on board with you here, I agree there are better ways. Unfortunately if there's one thing we're really good at its arguing for a really really long time and then doubling down saying "Told ya so" until the issue has come and its even harder to cope with at this point. Fact of the matter is though that this could be a real issue for my generation and the generation after. Its scary, and its not a scare tactic. That being said the first time in the last....long time, CO2 emissions decreased in a year was 2015, and ironically the economy spurred that year. LETS NOT MAKE THIS POLITICAL but iunno how much of an impact that actually plays
I'm sorry if this came off as offensive in any way shape or form your edits got your point across a lot better and I'm more than happy to have a serious discussion about this. I respect your opinion and would love to discuss this further and have a very respectful conversation regarding the topic as you are handling yourself with a very level head!!!!
The science is solid and you did a great job staying on that side of the road. The controversy is in the public policy/economic ramifications and I totally understand why people ask the questions they ask...as all of us should.
I currently work on developing long term landscape level wildlife conservation strategies in Florida. We interact with climate science/scientists with some frequency not only on the coastal inundation models but with projections re: shifts in rainfall patterns and climate variability as well. [One of my pet peeves is thinking of things in terms of averages, when in fact the extremes often define the sideboards on survival in natural systems.]
Sea level rise seems to draw the most ink in the press but what a lot of people don't appreciate (I know didn't) is how subtle changes and increases in variability in climate, can have a huge impact on things such as agriculture and water supply.
In our house we do the normal things conservation wise (energy efficiency, recycling, etc.) but I don't live an ultra green lifestyle. We do however live across the street from a tidal marsh and 3 years ago we built our house 4 feet higher than required. Builder thought I was nuts. Then I kicked myself for not going a few more!
Not really but this is the longest comment I've seen on TKP
I'm legging this solely for the Hamilton! gif.
It would be pretty cool if we did though
Damn all of those supervillains who just have to have those fancy volcano-island lairs.
So what was the metal band?
August Burns Red, apparently my cousin ran track with the bassist? wish i had known prior to the concert because I got pictures with the band and got to meet them. They're cool dudes
August Burns Red is incredible, I saw them at Warped a few years ago and have been following for awhile. Their drummer, Matt Greiner, is world class.
I had one of his drumsticks in my hand....some dude ripped it out my hand I was really disappointed in myself for that one
Regardless awesome fuggin concert
I looked them up and I dig them. Gonna go punch something now.
Did they do their cover of Baby, One More Time?
First of all, I am not a scientist. Secondly, I love discussions based on logic and fact. Therefore, I would like to know if global warming/climate change is solely based on the amount of solar energy arriving at the earth, or are there other sources of heat energy that contribute a significant amount to global temperatures. Secondly, I would like to know if that amount of solar energy is a constant, or a variable. Thirdly, if the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth is a variable, I would like to know if that radiation amount is able to be measured accurately, and if so, what are the historical records? Finally, I would also like to see 50 to 100 years worth of sea level measurements at various locations around the globe. I have no doubt that climate is changing and has been changing slowly for all of human history, just not sure whether mankind is going to be able to do much to impact that change process short of near extinction of our species. In the meantime, there are still beaches in the summer and ski resorts in the winter to enjoy.
Go Hokies!
I would like to know many of the things you point out as well. Our discussion earlier was centered more around what makes it to earth thru our protective atmosphere. CO2 (and many other things as eshiben5 points out) have an effect on this.
I just want to see Miami under 15 ft of water.
Oh, and certain parts of Charlottesville.
Yeeeeees
Chachl or is Chachi, let me drop some straight knowledge on you. I actually studied solar variability a lot in undergrad (totes by accident basically around the water cooler with another undergrad at SPACE@VT). Basically we use satellites to study solar intensity IE which measures how much radiation is coming out of the sun. (It was through an instrument called EVE...cant remember the exact satellite, blame the 3 years and booze) basically though while we do have a solar maxima and minimum (every 11 years) basically all that functions to show is an increase or decrease in solar flare amounts not energy. If there is a change in energy its so minute we hardly notice and it can be ignored (think of it as a difference of 10 cm when your GPS directs you to your friends house). The instruments studying it are REALLY accurate trust me on this. Historically we dont have many instruments studying incoming radiation (because that'd take a global network or a satellite system) however we do have global temperature records from people and from ice cores both of which have accurately displayed temperature trends. (I can cover how these work if you'd like?). As for sea level changes checkidy check this out...
dunno how many arial pictures youll find from the 1800s but that chart is pretty telling.
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html
NOAA is absolutely awesome at life and science trust them. Sea level rates since 1900 have increased on avg .06 per year, since 1990 the rate has been 1.2 inches....thats a pretty stark increase and it may not seem like much but people in bangledash literally have to move further upshore every year
Seriously a second weekend of perfect weather and I had to give up my ticket!
We can tell you but you don't want to hear it.
Because shit happens when you party naked.
Well, when a mommy and daddy love each other very much...
I say again:
Hi I am Carl Sagan.