|
Oh, Australia...quote:As many as 110 out of 140 positions at the atmosphere and oceans division at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) will be cut, Larry Marshall, the agency’s chief executive, told staff Friday. Another 120 positions will be cut from the land and water program. Across the agency, 350 climate staff will be moved into new roles unrelated to their specialty.
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
What they really want to say is: " The question is no longer whether the climate is changing, but how we can best monetize that change for profit." 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Oh, Australia... quote:Marshall, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, became CSIRO’s CEO in Jan. 2015 and immediately announced that CSIRO would focus on innovation over basic science.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 08:59
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
*reallocates research points from environmental science to power plant development* *clicks "finish turn"*
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Oh, Australia... I'm pretty "happy" that I managed to get on happy pills before this news. Otherwise there'd be blood.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
More good news! The Supreme Court has issued a stay on the Clean Power Plan! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Is there a good source that discusses this plan and it's potential effectiveness? Saw someone post on FB that it wouldn't have actually done anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 10:28
|
|
|
Good. The EPA is drastically overreaching it's authority on the subject, much like they have with a number of other issues over the past decade (and were slapped down in court on many of those, too).
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
blowfish posted:*reallocates research points from environmental science to power plant development* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEJd838oNp4
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Good. The EPA is drastically overreaching it's authority on the subject, much like they have with a number of other issues over the past decade (and were slapped down in court on many of those, too). It's a stay, not a striking down or "slapping down". The case has yet to be argued before the appeals court, which will happen in June. In other words, 5-4 Supreme Court said, "Eh, alright, you've got a case. We'll preserve the status quo until the case is actually heard/decided."
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Listerine posted:Is there a good source that discusses this plan and it's potential effectiveness? Saw someone post on FB that it wouldn't have actually done anything. The end goal is 30% reduction in CO2 from electricity production by 2030. The specific targets varied by state. Its the final stage in a series of rules culminating to it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The end goal is 30% reduction in CO2 from electricity production by 2030. The specific targets varied by state. Its the final stage in a series of rules culminating to it. Yeah I guess my question was would the proposed changes actually meet those goals? The comment that got me interested was a claim that it would take a 1000 years before you would see measurable changes in CO2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Listerine posted:Yeah I guess my question was would the proposed changes actually meet those goals? The comment that got me interested was a claim that it would take a 1000 years before you would see measurable changes in CO2. Yes, it would if it gets fully implemented, or get very close. It is a regulatory action not just a proposal or policy paper.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
I keep reading things in print media along the lines of "the scientific community is in overwhelming consensus regarding climate change." I've only started reading research publication journals outside American Journal of Physics in the last year and feel like I've largely missed the boat on what precisely contributes to that consensus. I'd love to (because I'm lazy) put together a short reading list of what you consider to be modern milestone publications in climate change. I realize that climate change as a research field is quite broad now, so even if you know of a well-known paper in a specific field, I'm interested in what you'd have me read.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
I would start with the IPCC reports and go from there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Something like this? http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
totalnewbie posted:Something like this? http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024 Anyway, doesn't fit the initial ask all that well, but it still has value (to me) as just an absolute shitton of research and studies and findings and  from all over the world that all touch AGW one way or another. Frankly this is a really good way to get really fuckin irritated with people that still maintain there's some tacit conspiracy at play here.In other news, some interesting findings on PETM find that it really did take thousands of years for poo poo to get as real as we're boldly working to achieve in a few decades. I'm still encountering "happened before, no problem if it's happening now!" stuff from time to time; nice to have something new to point at when making the case that it was a slightly different scenario sixty million years ago. Also, hoping I can get a hand on a couple fronts from y'all:
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 01:58
|
|
|
Edit: It's 4am and climate change is not the climbing thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
New study claiming that a lot more people than previously thought currently experience severe water scarcity. About half a billion year-round, with another 3.5 billion at least one month of the year. The study: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/2/e1500323.full Washington Post article on the study that spoke to one of the researchers: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/12/the-world-has-even-bigger-water-problems-than-we-thought/ Rime posted:Edit: It's 4am and climate change is not the climbing thread. Climbate Change: Are We Headed for an Insurmountable Cliff?
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Hello Sailor posted:Climbate Change: Are We Headed for an Insurmountable Cliff? Imagine four climates on the edge of a cliff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Scalia died today. This is the most significant turn off events for climate change policy in easily twenty years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Scalia died today. Not really?
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Scalia died today. rip in piss, but probably no
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
rivetz posted:Yeah, I was going to link to this as well, not the study itself, but the supplementary data used to support Cook's study incidentally also serves as one of the best (albeit clunkiest) one-stop-shop repositories of climate research out there, just in terms of being able to clumsily browse thousands of titles of studies, poke around for a paper investigating some aspect that interests you, and then track down the study itself via separate search. If you do go that route, be sure to check the ratings assigned to the paper. I've yet to find any exaggeration or misrepresentation in categorization of papers as explicitly/implicitly/etc endorsing the consensus. How about making your presentation interactive? Activities like this: https://www.climateinteractive.org/programs/world-climate/ help make climate change feel very real to people without any lecturing - it's basically game-ifying mitigation. Poke around the website, there's a few educational tools on there.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Do you know what September 1979 and January 2016 have in common?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 05:48
|
|
|
I didn't need to start my day with that  drat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 12:50
|
|
|
An ice-free arctic summer by 2020 seems a likelihood at this point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Do you know what September 1979 and January 2016 have in common? I see what the graph says, but what DO those months have in common?
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Colonel J posted:I see what the graph says, but what DO those months have in common? Sea ice volume for the two months are approximately equal. January is the dead of winter, and September is just after melt season ends, if I am not mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Inglonias posted:Sea ice volume for the two months are approximately equal. The valley/peak is usually September/March - this year however... 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
If at first you don't succeed, fish, fish again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
JohnnySavs posted:An ice-free arctic summer by 2020 seems a likelihood at this point.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 06:06
|
|
|
Grouchio posted:Wouldn't that cause a greenhouse effect on the north pole, creating massively hosed up weather patterns and extreme seasons for the rest of the century? Like the east coast getting 10 inches of rain each season? I don't think it would increase the greenhouse effect (that's more gases reflecting heat radiated from the earth), but it would decrease the albedo of the planet, since water is obviously much darker and absorbs more energy than ice. The arctic ice decreasing is a positive feedback loop, since the more ice goes, the warmer things get, and the more ice goes. Climate change is going to screw with weather patterns and intensify seasons, yes. I don't know if models are good enough to predict something like the east coast specifically getting X amount of rain each season.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
The poles are, in addition to reflectors, massive heat radiators.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:The poles are, in addition to reflectors, massive heat radiators. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:The poles are, in addition to reflectors, massive heat radiators. I'm pretty sure that outgoing longwave (infrared) radiation is a function of temperature, so the Equator radiates a lot more heat outward than the poles.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Water vapor attenuates IR emission. Dry polar air permits greater net IR emission despite the surface sitting in a lower blackbody regime. Equatorial air is not transparent to IR in relevant bands.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
The heat pump wherein energy is moved from tropics through the primary Hadley cell to sympathetic cells is complex.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Water vapor attenuates IR emission. Dry polar air permits greater net IR emission despite the surface sitting in a lower blackbody regime. Equatorial air is not transparent to IR in relevant bands.  The poles are massive net radiators of heat only because the incoming energy is much lower at the poles than the equator. As you see in the plot, there is indeed more outgoing IR radiation at the equator (which is why if you look at an IR satellite image of the globe, the surface of the tropics is hotter and emits more energy) but because the incoming radiation is lower at the pole, the net effect is that of heat escaping at the poles.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:12 |
|
|
The blue curve of that diagram will illustrate the point. Can you tell me whether that blue line looks like a simple sin(theta) for theta polar angle ranging from pole-to-pole or whether there's something deeper than introductory physics blackbody modeling for a simple sphere with its shape? Hint: that's not a straight trigonometric function, nor is it merely the power output of each polar latitude as a function of regional temperature. Accounted into net radiation is how well each slice of a given power density vs wavelength radiating blackbody function penetrates the atmosphere. This is dependent on functions including aerosols (suspended particles), water vapor, onward. One of many asymmetries between the northern and southern poles involves different life cycles of polar stratospheric clouds and how they stabilize nitrogen oxides and the different life cycles of reservoir species. Such a cycle is interesting to those studying CFCs. Background: I used to work with polar atmosphere models. I have a background in computational physics. Edit: I was (and am) willing to leave it at "atmospheric science is complex."  I came into this thread a few weeks ago seeking more info on policy and climate change because I've only started reading a broader digest of journals since leaving academia for IT a few years ago and feel like I've missed out on broader (see: political) policy implications.
Potato Salad fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Mar 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2016 21:52
|
|