Climate crisis may be increasing jet stream turbulence, study finds
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 69
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Air tends to want to flow downhill”
Not only is silly gumpf, it is completely off for the phenomena she wants to explain: It flows “downhill” because there is a massive area of laterally offset cooler air below. Come on, this is a pilots’ forum, how can you post this?
Not only is silly gumpf, it is completely off for the phenomena she wants to explain: It flows “downhill” because there is a massive area of laterally offset cooler air below. Come on, this is a pilots’ forum, how can you post this?
Wrong question
The exponential growth rate of humans over the last century followed industrialisation and increased food supplies at the same time as changes to the longevity of the population above prior levels. This has placed civilisation in the hot seat of being dependent on substantial levels of energy and the associated environmental effects of increased energy use.
40 years ago, we were talking about CO2 causing temperature changes, recent analysis strongly suggests that the CO2 emissions captured in samples lag, not lead temperature changes. That is an interesting quandary, but doesn't alter the fundamental problem civilisation faces.
Climate is in constant flux, and sadly, the romantic notions of Carson of there being a basic harmonious balance in nature doesn't look good in the data that exists. Climate is stochastic in it's behaviour, and non linear feedback is a real threat, with the potential to cause rapid change in conditions, and this itself is the real problem that civilisation faces. There is a natural rate of change that civilisation can accomodate; exceed those boundaries, and population collapse is a probable outcome. Human ingenuity alters the rate of change that can be accepted, however we have entered a curious stage of our own evolution, where the structure of the system we have established acts to regulate innovation even as the knowledge base underpinning development has expanded at unprecedented rates, and the ability to access knowledge has become extraordinary.
There is a short term expanding supply of hydrocarbon fuels that permits further expansion of the population, which increases the energy needs and places further pressure on food supply, and increases the pollutants and threat of disease that affects food supply, potable water, and increases the risk of pandemics. When(if...) we do finally achieve post peak on the Hubbert curve, the impact will be, well, interesting.
The fundamental assumptions of our society are problematic, growth that is unchecked is akin to cancer... not a good thing. Economic models assuming the need for continuous growth assume no limits exists in the system, and that is patently erroneous. Its going to be a surprise to get any unanimity in any forum that suggests that the direction and rate of change of population and economic activity or energy use needs to be changed. That's politically a 3rd rail.
So.. our climate is changing, as always. The rate that it is changing looks to be higher than historical rates excluding calamities. Anthropogenic or natural/external change causation is still argued while we dig a deeper hole in which to climb out of in due course; we are asking the wrong question. The only good news is that the response for defence of climate change is appropriate as a defence to the management of the rate of change of population and energy constraints. Business as usual is a recipe for a nasty surprise.
40 years ago, we were talking about CO2 causing temperature changes, recent analysis strongly suggests that the CO2 emissions captured in samples lag, not lead temperature changes. That is an interesting quandary, but doesn't alter the fundamental problem civilisation faces.
Climate is in constant flux, and sadly, the romantic notions of Carson of there being a basic harmonious balance in nature doesn't look good in the data that exists. Climate is stochastic in it's behaviour, and non linear feedback is a real threat, with the potential to cause rapid change in conditions, and this itself is the real problem that civilisation faces. There is a natural rate of change that civilisation can accomodate; exceed those boundaries, and population collapse is a probable outcome. Human ingenuity alters the rate of change that can be accepted, however we have entered a curious stage of our own evolution, where the structure of the system we have established acts to regulate innovation even as the knowledge base underpinning development has expanded at unprecedented rates, and the ability to access knowledge has become extraordinary.
There is a short term expanding supply of hydrocarbon fuels that permits further expansion of the population, which increases the energy needs and places further pressure on food supply, and increases the pollutants and threat of disease that affects food supply, potable water, and increases the risk of pandemics. When(if...) we do finally achieve post peak on the Hubbert curve, the impact will be, well, interesting.
The fundamental assumptions of our society are problematic, growth that is unchecked is akin to cancer... not a good thing. Economic models assuming the need for continuous growth assume no limits exists in the system, and that is patently erroneous. Its going to be a surprise to get any unanimity in any forum that suggests that the direction and rate of change of population and economic activity or energy use needs to be changed. That's politically a 3rd rail.
So.. our climate is changing, as always. The rate that it is changing looks to be higher than historical rates excluding calamities. Anthropogenic or natural/external change causation is still argued while we dig a deeper hole in which to climb out of in due course; we are asking the wrong question. The only good news is that the response for defence of climate change is appropriate as a defence to the management of the rate of change of population and energy constraints. Business as usual is a recipe for a nasty surprise.
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: shiny side up
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you believe what you want to mate, it's your right. Scientists have also been known to change their minds as time goes by.
Used that "scientific data" to bust the coal union and build nuclear power.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 69
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Air tends to want to flow downhill”
Not only is silly gumpf, it is completely off for the phenomena she wants to explain: It flows “downhill” because there is a massive area of laterally offset cooler air below. Come on, this is a pilots’ forum, how can you post this?
Not only is silly gumpf, it is completely off for the phenomena she wants to explain: It flows “downhill” because there is a massive area of laterally offset cooler air below. Come on, this is a pilots’ forum, how can you post this?
Yeah, I suppose Prof. Francis dug her professorship out of a crackerjack box. So if the statement that air tends to want to flow downhill is "silly gumpf", perhaps you could explain why air pressure behaves the way it does.
This is a pilots' forum, and pilots learn their meteorology from meteorologists.
I mean, it is a coincidence, right?
Yeah, I suppose Prof. Francis dug her professorship out of a crackerjack box. So if the statement that air tends to want to flow downhill is "silly gumpf", perhaps you could explain why air pressure behaves the way it does.
This is a pilots' forum, and pilots learn their meteorology from meteorologist?
This is a pilots' forum, and pilots learn their meteorology from meteorologist?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Geneva
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is correct that Earth's climate cannot generally be considered stable, even though for extended periods of time it actually has been just that. That does not mean that it changes randomly - it generally responds to things like variations in the Earth's orbital parameters (e.g.eccentricity, precession of the axis of rotation), major volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts, and sometimes - in particular as concerns the chemical composition of the atmosphere - even to the presence of life on the planet. However, the question of intrinsic climate stability is in my opinion somewhat irrelevant to the topic. We humans are obviously not the catalysts for ALL climate change, but we are with near certainty the catalysts of some of it! So if we assume this is the case, how should it frame our actions?
Think of a river that sustains agriculture, and therefore life, in a vast area surrounding the lower part of its basin, but that has a nasty habit of fluctuating, sometimes almost drying out, at other times flooding with devastating consequences. This happens infrequently and unpredictably and is entirely due to natural causes - droughts, excessive rapid snow melt, near-stationary summer thunderstorms, slow-moving tropical cyclones, whatever. Now imagine a manager of a dam somewhere upstream with a past reservoir behind it that could be used to irrigate potential farmland the size of Oklahoma. Even though the river does whatever it does in its natural state, most people would probably agree that this manager does not have the right to neither suck the river dry, nor to flood the downstream areas by releasing excess amounts of water on a whim, just because "this could have happened anyway due to natural causes". The manager would be considered responsible for his actions and their consequences, regardless of the potential of nature to do even worse.
The fact that "climate has always been changing" does not negate the link between CO2 concentration and temperature, nor does it alleviate our responsibility for changing the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere. So should we, the human population, hold ourselves accountable for our actions and their environmental impact, the same way we would with the hypothetical dam manager? And more importantly, would this merit serious and potentially costly action? This to me is an issue of political or moral persuasion, and not one of science.
At the large scale the science is settled on this. Trust me, it is getting very, very difficult these days to find anyone with even a basic understanding of physics who is willing to contest the link between anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the rise in global temperature. The climate system is at one level incredibly complex, namely if you want to understand the details of locally prevailing weather and how that changes over time. At that level very substantial uncertainty remains. However, at sufficiently macroscopic level the climate system is remarkably simple. The link between CO2 concentration and global mean temperature was first quantitatively - and remarkably accurately - described by the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius in 1896, obviously without needing to rely on any of the massive progress made within atmospheric science in particular or physics in general over the last 125 years.
Paxing All Over The World
Thread Starter
Wow! Thank you marsk for an informed view. Sadly, as I have said, the chances of mankind changing their ways is Zero. In the future, history books will be amazed that we knew all this and did nothing but human nature is what brought us to this point.
The early discussion about over population is also valid. Once again, nothing will change and large numbers of people will die (directly and indirectly) through flooding and heat that will remove food and habitat. As that is going on, millions will migrate to neighbouring countries to try and escape. This will be on a scale never seen before.
As to air travel? It will diminish as the world's population goes through this enormous crisis for which the words to describe it do not yet exist.
Right, back to life as normal - until it is no longer normal ...
The early discussion about over population is also valid. Once again, nothing will change and large numbers of people will die (directly and indirectly) through flooding and heat that will remove food and habitat. As that is going on, millions will migrate to neighbouring countries to try and escape. This will be on a scale never seen before.
As to air travel? It will diminish as the world's population goes through this enormous crisis for which the words to describe it do not yet exist.
Right, back to life as normal - until it is no longer normal ...
