Heavy rain, possible flooding forecast for West Coast by Niki2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Oh, geez, did you have to go right to that? I happen to believe, if not global warming, the environment IS changing and yes, I blame man in part.

Global warming doesn't mean it gets warmer everywhere; it means the ecosystem CHANGES. And this isn't global warming, we get these every year, or did until the past few years, so for us it's a return to NORMAL, dammit!

Oooo, hey, just since I started typing this, it's gotten lighter in the sky and tapered off to a mere "downpour"! Time to grab the huskies and wear them out (if possible) before the next one! See 'ya...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 18, 2010 9:17 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Time to grab the huskies and wear them out (if possible) before the next one! See 'ya...

Mmmmmm, wet fur!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 18, 2010 9:35 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Cause it's just so appropriate, not to mention funny.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 18, 2010 9:36 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Not for long, Chris. Rain sheds off husky fur almost immediately, they're built that way.

That's why I said that Kochak's sleeping right up against my face is no fun; when I'm in bed, she's just gone out in the rain to "do her business", so it's fresh...give 'em half an hour, and you'd hardly know they'd been out in it.

Trouble is, in that half hour they can track a LOT of black in, and mess up your bed, rugs (we have few because of that!) and about everything in your house!

It's monsooning again, but off and on, so as I said elsewhere, I'm gonna get right by the front door now and pray it lightens up enough to get them OUTTTTTTT!!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 18, 2010 10:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Niki2, here's hoping you get enough for drought relief, but NOT enough for mudslides!

(Oops sorry for the typo!)

BTW- I recently found out why mudslides are so common in burn areas. Aside from the fact that there is no vegetation to hold the soil together (Mudslides occur in clear-cut areas, a very good reason not to clear cut!), fires volatilize hydrocarbons from vegetation. Most go up in flames, but some are driven as a hot vapor underground. When the hot vapor hits cool dirt (six inches to several feet underground) it condenses as a greasy, water-repellent layer. Then when it rains, you wind up with a very soggy, heavy layer of soil on top of a greasy layer... a recipe for disaster.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 7:24 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Wow, you didn't know that? As many slides as you guys get, I would have thought you did...I knew about the layer of waterproof gunk, but didn't know what caused it, thanks!

I wonder which gets more slides, No. or So. Ca? We get 'em because of our clay-like base in so many places, and because we get lots more rain and we're so hilly; you get 'em because of your fires and canyons. The end result is sure the same, but it'd be interesting to find out which. Not interesting enough to look it up tho', I'm lazy.

I wish the same for you; that your folks living near the fires don't get too many slides out of this--or how about "too many devastating" slides? If they occur where nobody gets hurt, I don't care, just changin' of the earth and brings new growth...but anyone stupid enough to have clear-cut who gets a slide, I have no sympathy for!

And you need the drought relief MUCH more than we do, so here's hoping you get enough to keep you for several years!

We had two right here in '81. One was caused by a swimming pool on the hillside (idjits), which took down two homes right around the corner and killed a neighbor, the other was clay--up on a trail above us, lots and lots of vegetation, just water table filled up and the clay went WHOOSH! I'll never forget that--I outran the one from up the trail JUST in time to race with the dogs up the steps and call everyone into the living room to watch it go by. Brrrr...neighbors slept with us that night, after the houses came down, and I don't think "slept" is the operant term...

Keep us updated, 'kay? I'm curious as to how we "share" this lovely Pineapple Express!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 7:26 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"a recipe for disaster"

I'm sorry, all I can think of is - frog soup.

(Dante's Peak)

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:03 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

Could tell tales of the '81 storms and what we experienced (like two homes coming down just up our street, and the flood picking up our VW bus and depositing it, and our next door neighbor's Mercedes, on said neighbor's lawn). Hope this isn't another one...Marin was totally cut off from the world that year.

Oh, you kids. I remember the BIG Mendocino County Flood of 1965.
"Why, I walked uphill 20 miles in the rain, to and from school, both ways, after the bridge washed out. Walkin' across the River was the hardest part..."
Seriously, I'm sure it's gonna be tough in Northern Calif, and maybe real bad in the burn areas here in LA.
It rained real hard here in Long Beach yesterday morning and afternoon, but bu 4:00 PM, the Sun broke out in Huntington Beach, and there was blue sky. Nothing more than sprinkles overnight or yet this morning. Might not be as bad as the Weather Nitwits are predicting...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 8:05 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Time to grab the huskies and wear them out (if possible) before the next one! See 'ya...

Mmmmmm, wet fur!

The laughing Chrisisall

Smelly dog. A fond memory from my youth. Not so much now, we've got a houseful of cats...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 10:32 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Rue: I'm a Dante's Peak freak...I know it's a stupid movie, but I can't help it, I enjoy it and watch it every time it comes around (unless there's something better

). Yes...frog soup...

Newold: If you remember the Mendocino flood, then you know the River Rats who live arond the Russian? Those poor idjits are flooded out nearly every year (or used to be) and they amaze me. The Russian floods--at its worst something like 20 feet--and they rebuild, sometimes every year. To each his own I guess!

Pray for So. Ca. more than us, those anywhere near the fires have my sympathy! Well, you're getting a lighter version, if it wore off yesterday and you haven't had another round today. I posted about last night's thunder...it's kept up all morning and is just now starting to taper off (12:30). Started last night and ran straight through, tho' this time not steadily, rather breaks where it almost stopped raining followed by torrential downpours.

It DID stop yesterday, but no sun, and I doubt we'll see the sun today either. I hope you get your fair share of water out of them...supposedly Wed. and Thur. will be the "big ones", last I heard. If Sunday's wasn't a big one...oh, dear!

(you also have my deepest sympathy for where you live...intelligent people shouldn't have to live in LA!)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 10:39 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Dante's Peak ...I know it's a stupid movie ..."

Is NOT ! B/c - well, I say so !

Actually, it's on my list of all time favorites, along with To Kill a Mockingbird, Blade Runner, The Duelists and a few others.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 11:01 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, it's certainly not among my "favorites", more that it comes around frequently and there's little else of value on TV, for me.

Beyond the fact that I love disaster movies (usually for the special effects), I can't even say why I like it so much, to be honest, I just DO.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:07 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Dante's Peak is actually fairly accurate - something you don't see in disaster movies very often. And the chemistry, geology etc that they do is first rate. It was the first time I'd seen LIDAR even referred to in passing, years before it was common.

When they were making the film, apparently they tried to interview vulcanologists to find out what it was really like. So they went from reference to reference - oh you really need to talk to Dr X b/c he's really the most experienced. So they went to find Dr X and found out he'd died - in a pyroclastic flow. But they'd get another name and try to track that person down, only to find THEY had died as well. And so on.

Apparently there are old vulcanologists, and bold vulcanologists, but no old, bold vulcanologists. Except in Dante's Peak, of course.

End of off topic.

Your normally scheduled program will be resuming.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:10 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Niki dear, if I really was intelligent, would I be living here????

It would be so nice if regional planners would just do what Portland did: draw a boundary and say BEYOND THIS, NO MORE. There are NO “bad” areas in Portland; they’re masters of renovation and infill. Alas, there no intelligent life in LA!

It looks to me like we’ll be getting just above our normal January rainfall this month… which is usually about 3.5 inches. Enough to break the drought, but not enough hydrologically-speaking. That’s mighty disappointing for an El Nino year! Anyway, in addition to renovating our house (double-paned windows, cool roof, insulation) I’m renovating the yard. The previous owners were into maples, azaleas, ferns, lawn, and roses; very nice plants but not suitable. Also, the grading was all about getting the water to the storm drain as fast as possible. I’ll be putting in oak, sage, hyssop, hellebore, autumn crocus and the like, re-grading to retain water, installing a cistern, and planting for shade management in the summer. Much as people dismiss global warming, it’s here to stay.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:11 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Wow, I didn't know that. Doesn't explain why I like it so much (it IS Hollywoodized, anyway), but damned interesting nonetheless.

My favorite is one done on Yellowstone, portraying the caldera coming active again (does anyone here NOT know what Yellowstone's caldera becoming active again would mean?). They did a great job of portraying it scientifically, I even bought the video!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:15 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... does anyone here NOT know what Yellowstone's caldera becoming active again would mean?"

We could stop worry about what we've done to the planet.

I so cynical. My bad.

***************************************************************

I go now.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:21 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Silly Sig...SOME intelligent people get stuck in LA, even I know that! How'd you come to be down there...if you knew the Mendocino floods, you must have been up here at SOME time?

Good on you for replanting! The redwoods kinda make "planting" a joke for us; nothing grows under redwoods but ferns and stuff. And I'm not into landscaping; my planting (I have to admit with head hung low) is hanging planters, urns, etc. It's 'cuz I can take them inside to work with them...back and other things don't allow playing in the dirt...sigh...

And we don't have to worry about water. It's not called "Spring Grove Avenue" for nothing, we have a natural spring running under our entire side of the street. We've lived here 30+ years, never once watered our front lawn. Never had to, even in the "real" droughts!

One of the guys on the website I run lives in Portland, and gave me a real good eduction on how screwed-up Portland is because of overpopulation. Wish I could find the thread, he posted aerial shots and maps and everything, but it was loooong ago. So apparently they didn't do all that great, either.

I'm sickened by the Bay Area...they keep moving East to lands I wouldn't ask a--well, I was going to say "dog", but that's not fair--a Tea Partier to live in. Hotter than hadies and twice as dry.

Thank GAWD Marin got smart early on. We have three corridors, set in stone. The one closest to Highway 101 allows growth, to a degree, slowly over time. The next one West allows much less growth, no commercial growth of any kind, and has dotted open space in between. The third corridor, open all the way to the Coast, allows NO development of any kind. We had what I was told was the first big "urban green belt" in the country; runs from SF all the way up to beyond Pt. Reyes Peninsula!

One of the main reasons I love it here--let the East Bay build out to where people have four-hour commutes to and from work if they're that stupid (and they do!), just keep 'em from building HERE!

Ah, Rue, so cynical. The operant question is "when"? Many children and children's children's children could live lives before she goes; do we have the right to deny them that?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:27 PM

There's actually one thing I don't like about that movie, and that's their take on what would happen if the lava came in contact with a creek. Yes, you have sulfur, so creating sulfuric acid would be possible, but really, by the time the lava actually reached the creeks, they'd be less water and more debris filled clay, on account of the pyroclastic flows and lahars.

It's kind of sensationalized. Technically it's well researched, but I just find it hard to get past the writing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 12:59 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I didn't know that...well, as I said, "Hollywoodized".

Are you getting the winds? Friends in Oregon and Washington are, and we got hit with them something fierce this morning. AND thunder and lightning. They say the worst is yet to come...

We've been getting thunder and lightning since last night...3:00 pm and it's still rolling through! Here's today's fun:

Quote:
California Hit By Western Storms: Rain, Wind, Mudslides
As Much as 20 Inches of Rain and 10 Feet of Snow Forecast

Now it's California's turn. The second of three major storms in a row is coming onshore from the northern Pacific today, bringing 1 to 3 inches of rain to the California coast -- and with it, the threat of flooding and mudslides in the million acres stripped of foliage by wildfires last year.

All told, by the end of the week, some parts of California may get up to 20 inches of rain. The Mammoth Mountain ski area is expecting up to 10 feet of snow.

There was a tornado warning for southern Los Angeles County this afternoon -- a rarity in California.

Fifteen-foot waves crashed on Hermosa Beach, forcing officials to close the local pier. Piers in Ventura and Manhattan Beach were also being closed as a precaution, the Los Angeles Times reported.

During the first wave of storms Monday, rain and hail swept the San Francisco-Oakland area. Wind gusts of 59 mph were reported at San Francisco International Airport, forcing an American Airlines jet with minor mechanical problems to divert to San Jose where a landing would be easier.

Quote:
LOS ANGELES — Residents of canyons and foothills braced for possible mudslides as a series of powerful storms is forecast to begin pounding the West Coast today with heavy rain and snow, strong winds and high surf.
National Weather Service meteorologist Jamie Meier said the foothills and mountain areas around Los Angeles could receive 8 to 16 inches of rain this week.

Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies went door-to-door Sunday, warning residents in the most vulnerable areas that they should leave for safer ground when the rains start and before mandatory evacuations are issued, Lt. Angela Shepherd said. Those homes are in areas stripped of vegetation and left susceptible to slides of mud, ash, rock and debris by massive wildfires last year.

She said roads into forest and mountain areas would close to traffic. The county has put in place sandbags and concrete barriers to try to divert slides away from homes.

Bob Spencer, spokesman for the county Department of Public Works, said the department has advised more than 500 homeowners to erect barriers that could protect their homes.

"There are certainly hundreds of residences that could be vulnerable," he said.

High surf and big swells were forecast to accompany the storms, and in Northern California, the Coast Guard and state officials urged boaters to avoid the water this week. Waves reaching 25 feet were predicted. Inland, heavy snow was forecast for higher elevations, and forecasters said coastal and urban flooding was possible in parts of Southern California.

The weather service is predicting that this will likely be the wettest week in Southern California since early 2005.

In addition to the heavy rain, winds could howl up to 70 mph in the mountains around Los Angeles.

It's of course the time of the year for high-high and low-low tides. The Coast is spectacular...I can't hike, but I can drive out there!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 1:01 PM

PLATONIST

Okay, this is getting serious my infinity pool edge is looking like a waterfall.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 2:07 PM

Could we have some of your rain and snow? We're at 25% of the usual snowpack we usually rely on to fill our reservoirs for drinking water. In a desert. Not good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 2:48 PM

LITTLEBIRD

I live in a suburb of Portland, OR, and yes, we have been getting lots of wind. I was outside yesterday picking up branches from our Oak tree that had blown off. so sad, poor tree.

Ok, I enjoyed the movie The Day After Tomorrow, but I've heard the science was off. Could something like that actually happen?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:08 PM

Not really. There is a possible phenomenon that's been proposed that the movie might be based on, but it really wouldn't happen the way the movie depicts.

The phenomenon is the potential shutdown of the thermohaline circulation in the middle of the Atlantic ocean. It's what generates the gulf stream, which keeps the eastern seaboard of the United States and a lot of Europe warm. It's been suggested that if this were to shut down, North America and Europe could experience an ice age.

The shutdown would be the result of the ocean warming too much in the northern hemisphere for there to be any real density difference between the north and equatorial Atlantic waters, and deep waters and surface water. Density and temperature differences is what causes a concentration gradient, which makes ocean waters circulate.

Of course, whether you think this is possible depends on whether you believe in climate change and global warming. I believe in both, a little bit, but I think they have been seriously sensationalized. I don't think the world is going to end.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:23 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

'Course its not gonna end! However, it MAY be uninhabitable for seven billion of us!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:52 PM

LITTLEBIRD

Thank's for the explanation Byte. Makes sense. Still pondering on the end of the world.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 3:55 PM

The most I've ever heard predicted, even if the ice caps melt, is a 20 meter rise in sea level. It'll inundate coastal cities, sure. But gradually. We're not talking a tower of water from nowhere, like a Tsunami in Indonesia.

If we doubled CO2, depending on how much influence CO2 has on global temperatures (it's a greenhouse gas, but we have no idea) the last time we saw such numbers was in the Cretaceous. Most of the western United States was underwater at the time due to ocean thermal expansion. But then Servier orogeny pushed up the rockies and the basin and range (which is now thinning, but still pushed up by a low-lying mantle hotspot).

Now, we could end up boiling off methane into the atmosphere, but honestly it's very difficult to predict the effect that additional greenhouse gases will have on global temperatures. The computer generated models are speculative. The only thing I trust is the 0.6 C global temperature rise and the old so-called hockey stick graph. This was intact over a decade ago, and I think this is before there was really any movement for adjusting temperature data (most of which I think is benign).

However, a runaway greenhouse effect like Venus is unlikely. We just have too much Nitrogen in the atmosphere. The real problem we have to worry about is pollution, all the crap we put out tends to act with Nitrogen as a catalyst to produce Ozone. That's not too fun to breathe.

I don't think we'll render the Earth uninhabitable for human life through global warming. The Cretaceous was about 5 degrees Celsius higher at double the current CO2. The ocean floor with all those methane traps was 11 degrees Celsius higher. Dinosaurs breathed oxygen, same as us. There would be mass migration inward and to more temperate climates, but humanity wouldn't end.

But the migration could be devastating economically, I admit, and of course since I do believe in some climate change, we're looking at stronger storms, some local wild species population die-offs, migration of tropical disease, harsher droughts, more extreme temperatures hot and cold, etc. There's definitely some good reasons to slow fossil fuel use, and go green, and go self-sufficient and biosphere friendly, and stop polluting so much.

And if all else fails, move to Utah, we used to be a gigantic beach and delta system! Prime real estate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:05 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
The anti-Global Warming peeps will start their rants any time now...

The laughing Chrisisall

Fifty percent of my palm trees and shrubberies are dead because of the coldest week in Florida history. If global warming gets any worse, there won’t be a plant left in Florida.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:38 PM

Local weather phenomena or even freak polar jet stream occurrence is not synonymous with global temperature averages. If you wanted to argue global warming, bring up the platforming effect between 1998 and today, but that's likely an El Nino and La Nina leading straight into another El Nino back to back to back.

However, most of the legislation that has to do with this is politicized and arbitrary. On both sides. Our concern should just be pollution, period, until we understand the science better. Cap and trade is just a gimmee to put little industries out of business.

It's also possible that the increased CO2 we're seeing isn't the real cause of the temperature increase, just a side effect.

Atmospheric science is exceedingly complicated and difficult to predict. The comparison to a weatherman/woman making a weekly forecast to the success rate of someone trying to project 20 years in the future is apt.

I can only speak on what we currently observe and measure, and currently, even with the last decade's platform, we've seen storms with increased intensity, increased droughts, increased hot and cold temperatures, increased spread of tropical disease and pests. The previous stuff is indisputable. Global warming, for now, fits as an explanation. Maybe migration patterns have a lag effect behind temperature. We don't know! But so long as the signs continue to increase, we're hard pressed to think of any other explanation for it, and it's not that we aren't trying.

Oh, and hey Kirkules, haven't seen you recently. Or Geezer! Someone says "I wish we had some of our conservatives back" and there you are. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 19, 2010 10:22 PM

LITTLEBIRD

Just heard that since Sunday there have been 469 quakes in Yellowstone. They are calling it a Quake Storm.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 4:38 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Byte, you misunderstand. I didn't say it would be uninhabitable for human life, I said it would be uninhabitable for 7 billion human lives.

It used to be that if you took all of the food produced in the world - and by converting meat production to grain production- everyone would have enough to eat. No more. We've bred past the carrying capacity of the soil, and carbon and nitrogen cycles. We depend on everything being just so because we have little excess capacity and even less forethought.

The rainforests- the earth's lungs- are being chopped down for beef, soy, and coconut production, and by people with primitive axes and fire as their tools because there is no place for them in the capitalist economic system. We're in the midst of an extinction event surpassing the Cretaceous event... and BTW, ecologic production depends on diversity.

Yes, we are already boiling off methane from the clathrates, no "if" about it. The effect is NOT speculative; it means: hotter, faster.

So the effect on human isn't just loss of land due to flooding. It means larger deserts, shifting of whole ecosystems northward and loss of species which can't shift fast enough, loss of snowmelt from the Rockies and the Himalayas and less freshwater, more extreme weather events (drought, then summer floods, and deep freezes; more category 5 hurricanes, less productive oceans etc). Canada and Russia may benefit, but the world as a whole won't. We're already past the tipping point, and if we haven't YET started implementing this wonderful technology that you often speak of... what makes you think we ever will?

Quote:
It's also possible that the increased CO2 we're seeing isn't the real cause of the temperature increase, just a side effect.

Sigh.

Basic physics, Byte. Carbon dioxide output has increased due to industrialization. Carbon dioxide has increased in the atmosphere. Measurably. Carbon dioxide is undeniably a greenhouse gas. Its possible to calculate the additional quadrillion tons of carbon dioxide in the air and calculate the warming effect from that. The SYSTEM is complicated: the ultimate effect and energy distribution is indeed difficult to calculate, but the basic physics is undeniable.

Oh, and BTW- the Yellowstone caldera (well, actually, the hotspot underneath it) erupts about every 600,000 years, and we're about 50,000 years overdue.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 5:13 AM

It's increased measurably, but it's also been about on the scale from 300 ppb to 380 ppb. That's going from 0.0003% to 0.00038%. I'm just saying, this CO2 level isn't unprecedented. Now, the RATE might be, which is why you might see species not able to adapt quickly enough. And I'm not saying that this is a good thing.

And yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but I was under the impression that we just DO NOT KNOW exactly what the ratio is between increasing concentration and increasing temperature. And the exact same thing goes for the methane traps, which probably also boiled off in the Cretaceous and nothing world ending happened. Where have you encountered these calculations? I didn't see anything like that the whole time I was in school studying this, and my teachers are very much in favour of global warming and taught with a strong bias for it. That's not to say these calculations don't exist, so if you know where they are, I really want to see them. I'd be swayed if there were experiments to back up the calculations based upon increasing CO2 concentrations in a closed system filled with ordinary air, sunlight, and measures of temperature increases compared to a control system with no increases in CO2. If some manner of predictive equation were derived from this that predicts roughly the current temperature change to the CO2 change, that would be perfectly scientific and absolutely indisputable.

What I was saying about CO2 is that I don't think we don't know that the CO2 increase here is the ONLY factor in the 0.6 degree Celsius change. Correlation is not causation. Every scientist should have had that DRILLED into their heads in school. Is the temperature change manmade? Hell yes. Is the CO2 change manmade? Also, hell yes. How much are they related? Hmm. Based on what I know (really want to see those calculations!), could be a lot, could be a little. They correlate strongly, but it doesn't rule out that this is a side effect of something else, DT told me in an e-mail once that it could be massive deforestation (also very bad, and you are right on the money about ecological biodiversity). Which makes a lot of sense to me, actually, though I don't think industry output is negligible here, I think DT is underestimating that. I believe a lot of the recent temperature data adjustments are trying to rule out the urban island effect, and if they do, then we can say with that much more certainty that this is straight up the influence of CO2.

Science is being pulled both ways by politics, you have the big oil companies, who yes, are pushing with all their might against having to make any kind of change until they can ease over into green technology, which, guess what? They are already investing in, because they're not dumb. BP has known for years that the global oil supply is probably only going to last us until 2050, every single report they've published says as much, and of course, that's the optimistic look. Someone people think it's only 2025. The Oil companies run out, and they're dead, they have to switch over before then. Natural Gas will run out even sooner, it's less common than oil, and technically all the claims that North America has a lot of natural gas that we should exploit are bogus. The reserves are very small, though we have more than other places, and it's the only thing we have locally that could remotely compete with oil (though not well). Natural gas isn't clean, either, it burns as clean methane, but processing it to that degree produces a lot of garbage hydrocarbons. North America pretty much lost the fossil fuel resource lottery. Coal worldwide will last maybe 1,000 more years, but no one likes coal anymore, which is good, burning coal causes acid rain and London-type smog.

But on the other side, we do have people who see this as an opportunity, and I don't think all of it is innocent. The environmentalists mean well. Even zero population growth, most of them, mean well, except the super rich leaders driving the movement. Other environmental scientists mean well, but a lot of the models for climate change just plain are speculative, it's difficult to forecast so far ahead when there are just so many factors.

Again, that's not to say we shouldn't be reducing pollution, looking into sustainability (and self-sufficiency), preserving existing biodiversity as much as possible, and investing in green technology. Those are good for us no matter what the end result of the global warming debate is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 6:11 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... calculations based upon increasing CO2 concentrations in a closed system ..."

It's a simple calculation. CO2 has a known molar absorbtivity at a known wavelength. That absorption of IR can be directly calculated as heat gain.

"... it could be massive deforestation ..."

No. Unless you count the forests as being CO2 sinks, and then it gets back to CO2 levels. The only OTHER effect is albedo, and forests have a lower reflectance than rock, sand, or ice and snow. That would mean their loss would be driving temperature decrease, not the other way around.

"Science is being pulled both ways by politics ..."

Then it is an international conspiracy including Europeans, Asians, South Americans and everyone else. That magically, seems to thrive despite opposition by VERY large and global vested interests. Who generally run our government, if not others. Naw. Doesn't pass the sniff test.

"... a lot of the models for climate change just plain are speculative ..."

About the when, and how much. Not about the if.

***************************************************************

ETA: a number of years ago the results of a decades long study on OCEAN temperature increases was published. As I recall, on the average, temperatures have gone up globally ~ 0.5C. Included in that study was a calculation on how much excess heat would have to be absorbed to increase ocean temperatures that amount. That is not the figure SignyM is referring to, but it is an additional fact supporting the idea that global temperatures have gone up in tandem with CO2 levels.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:04 AM

Quote:
About the when, and how much. Not about the if.

Agreed. I think global warming is happening and man made, I'm just interested in what all man made factors there are.

So, okay, you present an interesting counterpoint. I had been considering forests to be a CO2 sink (and that does get back to CO2), but I thought that even considering albedo, urban areas tended to be warmer than rural areas. And looking at a field, compared to a forest, the sunlight reaches the ground, whereas in the forest energy is absorbed by the trees and converted to a useable form through photosynthesis (plus trees create shade).

Though now I'm also thinking about the humidity and high temperatures in rainforests.

In either case, cutting down trees can't be considered to help the environment in any sense. Definitely it's not a solution for global warming, if trees are a source of warming.

Quote:
"... calculations based upon increasing CO2 concentrations in a closed system ..."

It's a simple calculation. CO2 has a known molar absorbtivity at a known wavelength. That absorption of IR can be directly calculated as heat gain.

Is that CO2 alone, or in a system? That's a useful proof for CO2 being a greenhouse gas, which I never refuted, but I would really like to know how CO2 acts within the system represented by standard earth gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Then we could compare this to the temperature increase, and determine once and for all if the temperature increase is mostly CO2, or if there are other factors.

Relative concentrations in a mixed system is a very important consideration for temperature change in the entire system.

Quote:
Then it is an international conspiracy including Europeans, Asians, South Americans and everyone else. That magically, seems to thrive despite opposition by VERY large and global vested interests. Who generally run our government, if not others. Naw. Doesn't pass the sniff test.

Please don't mischaracterize my opinions. I've said nothing about Europe or anyone. This is an issue that's been politicized, and any issue that is politicized will have interests unrelated to the issue on both sides that are driving the debate. That is how politics WORKS.

If they'd stay out of the damn science, we'd all be happy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:29 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, you guys are smarter and more knowledgeable than I on this stuff. All I know is it seems simple common sense that we couldn't keep dumping all the things we've been dumping in the air, water, land, ocean at the rate we've been doing for so long, without it doing something very bad to our environment. That's enough for me.

I know about

the "sludge island" in the ocean
clearcutting
species extinction
cutting down of the rainforests
bad land-use practices in farming
how delicately our ability to feed ourselves is balanced
overfishing of the ocean
glaciers melting

I know that the climate HAS changed, what you spoke of about droughts, flooding, weird weather virtually everywhere the past few years, and I don't think it's something we cn consider just naturally cyclic. Yes, the earth's weather is cyclic, but I don't buy all this is natural.

As to the Yellowstone caldera: pffft. We're waaaay overdue for the San Andreas popping, too; I don't hold the Earth to a timetable. These things will happen eventually, I don't think THAT's something we're causing or can be predicted. Hell, that gigantic fault out in Illinois is the biggest one in the country, and someday IT will pop, then where will we be?

Earthquakes I don't think are something we've changed or can control...the rest of it is just too damned obvious for me to say otherwise.

I can't put it together like you guys, I just know it's bad when we can have such an enormous far-reaching effect on our planet, and I'm pretty sure we're past the point of no return. I know mankind has always behaved this way, it was probably inevitable that, once there were enough of us and the earth couldn't undo our damage, this would happen.

That's just an ignorant citizen's viewpoint.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:32 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Is that CO2 alone, or in a system?"

I'm not sure what the question means. So here is where I am coming from, if it helps you rephrase your question so I can understand it:

CO2 has an intrinsic property that it absorbs IR at three different wavelengths, in amounts roughly according to Beer's Law, which is dependent on concentration. That holds true whether you are looking at CO2 alone or mixed with something else (if that is what you are saying).

What happens is that as the sunlight hits the earth, the earth warms and emits IR (heat) as black body radiation (meaning spread across the IR spectrum). If nothing absorbs the IR it gets re-radiated back into space.

But there are different molecules that absorb IR at specific wavelengths, leading to re-radiation only being possible through certain 'wavelength 'windows'. One of those windows is where CO2 is not completely absorbing IR because of its lower concentration. When that concentration goes up, the 'window' becomes more closed and less heat escapes.

The problems come in not on whether this happens, but how much and when, as you look at the earth as a whole.

Increased temperatures may lead to increased cloudiness. If the clouds are high enough they may reflect light back into space. If they are not, then they reflect light into atmosphere which then absorbs a portion as heat.

It also leads to different sized water droplets which also reflect/ absorb light differently. (As does SO2 and other man-made atmospheric particulates at lower altitudes.)

Increased temperatures change the albedo of the earth, as ice and snow melt, grassland becomes desert, forests become grassland.

So the problem comes not necessarily in deciding how much IR CO2 absorbs, but what are the complex effects on the earth system as a whole.

BTW, FWIW, CO2 is pretty evenly globally distributed, while water vapor is spotty. That makes changes in water vapor warming less important for global climate than CO2 (and methane, N2O, SF6, HFCarbons etc).

***************************************************************

"This is an issue that's been politicized ..."

How could it not be ? It impinges on very rich, very powerful economic interests, and billions of people. The overall effect though is to deny/ minimize global warming and keep the status quo. So I don't see politicization as driving a 'gobal warming agenda' forward.

And while the issue is politicized, that doesn't necessarily mean the science has been as well.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:49 AM

Quote:
I know that the climate HAS changed, what you spoke of about droughts, flooding, weird weather virtually everywhere the past few years, and I don't think it's something we cn consider just naturally cyclic. Yes, the earth's weather is cyclic, but I don't buy all this is natural.

Never said it was natural. It's pretty much certainly anthropogenic (hey, I used it correctly this time).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 7:59 AM

Quote:
The problems come in not on whether this happens, but how much and when, as you look at the earth as a whole.

Quote:
So the problem comes not necessarily in deciding how much IR CO2 absorbs, but what are the complex effects on the earth system as a whole.

Right right right. I think we're in the same place, we're just approaching from different angles. Your explanation did answer my question.

Your measured CO2 radiation absorption is either a constant or an equation based on it's relative concentrations. I'm familiar enough with equilibrium constants and temperature exchange to understand how that can work.

The only difference here is that when you're asking "what is the effect on the system as a whole," you're wondering how this is going to affect climate. I'm assuming climate change is a given but going to be difficult to predict, so I'm looking at this and wondering if there's anything else (Man made!) that might also be influencing this. In addition to the CO2. Methane, as Sig mentioned, could be one. Deforestation could be another, depending on which interpretation (forests as a source of warmth or a source of cooling) is right, and the removal of forests releases additional CO2. I'm not arguing that there isn't a greenhouse effect or greenhouse gases or that CO2 produced by people, cars and industry hasn't contributed. I'm trying to figure out if there's other sources as well.

Quote:
How could it not be ? It impinges on very rich, very powerful economic interests, and billions of people. The overall effect though is to deny/ minimize global warming and keep the status quo. So I don't see politicization as driving a 'gobal warming agenda' forward.

I think really it's both, though granted, it's difficult for me to explain the politicized side of the pro-global warming agenda. Like I said before, I think some of the claims about imminent devastation and ruin are somewhat sensationalized, long term there are definitely problems, but right now I'm sticking to the strictly observable. The only reason to sensationalize an issue is because you want people to buy, invest, or consent to something. The science should speak for itself. And it does, mostly. Back during the Bush administration, when it seemed like global warming had no voice at all, the public saw the science, and by the end of the Bush administration, I think we had around a 60 to 70% public belief in global warming. But now, the public seems to feel like there are a bunch of Chicken Littles running around, and so we've seen a swing back to skepticism. It's science. There's no reason to sell it, that just makes things look sloppy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 8:44 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... some of the claims about imminent devastation and ruin are somewhat sensationalized ..."

Low lying areas like The Maldives ARE facing imminent destruction. Venice, Italy and The Netherlands are two places that are also facing imminent damage unless they pour a lot into their protective infrastructures. I would say probably many coastal areas as well, like in Florida. The only place (in the US) that is already making plans to minimize THEIR losses is the homeowners insurance business. They see trillions in losses ahead of them.

But, eventual ruin is a foregone conclusion unless something is done NOW. There is no question about that. That is why people are trying to convey a sense of urgency.

"... now, the public seems to feel like there are a bunch of Chicken Littles running around ..."

There is a sort of demoralizing effect when trying to get people to face large-scale, long-term problems. People often end up saying, yeah, well, since there's nothing I can do about it, why the hell should I care. Denial - a basic human response, as ineffective as it is.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:18 AM

Quote:
Low lying areas like The Maldives ARE facing imminent destruction. Venice, Italy and The Netherlands are two places that are also facing imminent damage unless they pour a lot into their protective infrastructures. I would say probably many coastal areas as well, like in Florida. The only place (in the US) that is already making plans to minimize THEIR losses is the homeowners insurance business. They see trillions in losses ahead of them.

Like... storms, or are you saying we're seeing some significant ocean thermal expansion already?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BYTE: Thermal expansion already.

*TAPS FOOT IMPATIENTLY*

OK, where's the frikkin' RAIN???

*scowls*

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:31 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Like... storms, or are you saying we're seeing some significant ocean thermal expansion already?"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,341669,00.html
http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/venice.shtml
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/08/0829_wiredutch.html

The answer is both - ocean levels are on the average higher, causing what would have been expectable swells to become devastating. For The Maldives, the highest point of the islands is only 8 feet. A small rise in the ocean would not only take out a lot of land areas, but cause even modestly high waves to completely wash over every island. Venice, Italy is considering building a sea wall. The Netherlands is building theirs ever higher.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 10:51 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Hoookaaaay... rain's here now. Not mad anymore.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:52 AM

PERFESSERGEE

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The most I've ever heard predicted, even if the ice caps melt, is a 20 meter rise in sea level. It'll inundate coastal cities, sure. But gradually. We're not talking a tower of water from nowhere, like a Tsunami in Indonesia.

Actually, Byte, if both the Anatarctic and Greenland ice sheets were to melt, it would be more like 100m. But even 20m would devastate humanity. Something like 40% of humanity lives, and large proportion (I don't remember that figure offhand but its big) of arable land lies within 2 vertical meters of mean sea level. Oh, and that arable land includes coastal wetlands used for aquaculture (and supports ocean fish populations). Personally, I'm sitting pretty I live about 300m above sea level, facing west in LA. My house is going to become beachfront property!

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:24 PM

PERFESSERGEE

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
It's increased measurably, but it's also been about on the scale from 300 ppb to 380 ppb. That's going from 0.0003% to 0.00038%. I'm just saying, this CO2 level isn't unprecedented. Now, the RATE might be, which is why you might see species not able to adapt quickly enough. And I'm not saying that this is a good thing.

Byte,

Your figures are off by a factor of 100 (actually, using the ppb unit, they're off by 1000 - its 300 ppm increasing to 380 ppm). The actual volume percent figures are 0.03% historically, and 0.038% now. The proportional change is the same, but CO2 is not quite such a rare gas.

There are some additional human-based sources of greenhouse gases. Rice paddies produce a lot of methane. So do cows (though they actually produce more CO2). The old joke used to be that the flatulence of cows might be a cause, but it turns out that it's their belching while chewing their cud. More cows, more CH4 and CO2. On the other hand, termites produce, on a global level, enormous amounts of both gases and the only likely link to humans in this case might be increased production of dead wood (i.e., deforestation), since termites don't eat living plant tissue.

The point is that there are lots of sources, some human-caused, some not so much, but they are all headed upward. And their thermal profiles are well known, as explained by Rue. (The discovery of those profiles led to several Nobel prizes in chemistry). In a closed system, it's very easy to predict what happens with increased concentrations. The difficulty is that we don't live in a static, closed system. We live in an open, rather chaotic system so that predictions have to be made using very complex models that have to be run on supercomputers, and nobody besides atmospheric scientists understands them. Makes it pretty hard to explain to the general public.

Given the above, it's easy for folks to say "well, we still don't know enough and the costs of action will be large". The former is incorrect, and while the latter is indeed true, the costs of inaction are likely to be much greater. And include great loss of human life.

Were you aware that New Zealand has offered immigration rights to all residents of SW Pacific islands? They (the kiwis and the islanders) are taking sea level rise seriously.

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:49 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Local weather phenomena or even freak polar jet stream occurrence is not synonymous with global temperature averages.

Yes I realize that, I was just trying to give Chrisisall the response he expected.

Quote:
If you wanted to argue global warming, bring up the platforming effect between 1998 and today, but that's likely an El Nino and La Nina leading straight into another El Nino back to back to back.

Actually the plateau since 1998 is more likely just the result of more accurate temperature measurement by NOAA and other temperature monitoring groups. As a result of the hysteria about global warming, NOAA decided that they needed an overall review of their monitoring stations so they could collect more accurate temperatures to show the progression of climate change. These reviews lead to the discovery that up to 60% of their stations didn’t meet their standards for monitoring temperature change. It wasn’t that there was anything wrong with the equipment, it was that in the years since the equipment was installed, housing and commercial development had encroached on the permissible boundaries for accurate temperature collection. The problem being that the data from a station that once sat in the middle of a vacant field can’t be used now because that same station now sits next to a 10 acre asphalt parking lot.

One thing many do not understand is the difference between accuracy and precision, the stations were precisely recording temperatures and temperature differences the entire time, but the data is worthless because monitoring conditions changed affecting the accuracy of the overall data. It would be just fine if all of the monitoring stations were exactly 50 feet South West of 10 acres of asphalt, but the fact that some were and others were not is what makes the past data questionable. The data collected after 1998 is most likely just the first accurate data we’ve collected in a long time.

Quote:

Oh, and hey Kirkules, haven't seen you recently. Or Geezer! Someone says "I wish we had some of our conservatives back" and there you are. :)

That’s because I never went anywhere, just enjoy luring mode more that posting.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 12:54 PM

PERFESSERGEE

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:

We had two right here in '81. One was caused by a swimming pool on the hillside (idjits), which took down two homes right around the corner and killed a neighbor, the other was clay--up on a trail above us, lots and lots of vegetation, just water table filled up and the clay went WHOOSH! I'll never forget that--I outran the one from up the trail JUST in time to race with the dogs up the steps and call everyone into the living room to watch it go by. Brrrr...neighbors slept with us that night, after the houses came down, and I don't think "slept" is the operant term...

Keep us updated, 'kay? I'm curious as to how we "share" this lovely Pineapple Express!

Niki,

I remember that storm very well. As I recall, it dropped 12 inches on Inverness in 24 hours. I drove from Sacramento to Berkeley for a grad school interview that morning, and all hell broke loose while I was trying to talk my way in. Then,
it took me 3 or 4 hours to get from Berkeley to San Pablo, with my old 65 Mustang slowly running out of gas (most of the offramps were closed due to flooding) and starting to overheat. It was a seriously unfun experience, though not in the same league as nearly being run over by a house! There's been only one time in my life that I felt a bigger relief to get to clear road - and that one was due to a huge rainstorm in very rural Patagonia. I look back on both with some degree of fondness now (and they make good stories), but they sure weren't much fun at the time. Oh, and it's continued to rain off and on down here all day so far. I wish we had better infrastructure for storing it and recharging ground water - it's one hell of a lot of water!

perfessergee

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 1:02 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by perfessergee:

Actually, Byte, if both the Anatarctic and Greenland ice sheets were to melt, it would be more like 100m. But even 20m would devastate humanity.

It would "devastate humanity" if it happened over night, but even the most hysterical doomsayers understand we’ll have a 100 years or more to adapt. More reasonable scientists say we might be looking at more like 20 inches over the next 100 years.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:01 PM