Climate change for dummies

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 13 Jun 2013, 14:55

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 19 Jun 2013, 10:04

'nother useful - if wildly optimistic - piece:

Despite all this doom-and-gloom, it’s not over yet. Truly. By my calculation, we have a 5–10 year window to avoid the catastrophe. It won’t be easy — we’re past the point where any transition will be smooth — but we can make the transition and survive as a civilized species, humans in a recognizable world.

But two things are needed:
This has to be our top priority, which means you and everyone you know has to be fully aware and in full battle gear. (For reference, it’s called “hugging the monster.”)
It’s us vs. David Koch and all of his friends and enablers. Tackling any other enemy is tackling a dummy while the game is being played.

Educate your friends, and put a wrench into the Koch machine. How’s that not a plus?

If the Koch Bros keep getting rich, we move backward. If Barack “Hope & Change” Obama approves Keystone, we move backward. If the U.S. develops “domestic oil” resources, we move backward. For every new car (“carbon-delivery system”) sold, we move backward. People need to know this and think like this. We can stop the crisis, but only if we stop carbon. It’s that simple; and that stark.

But it’s also doable, and we’re the species that’s most equiped for “doable.” It’s what our big brains are for.

More here.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 20 Jun 2013, 15:55

More stuff

Rignot and colleagues were able to deduce whether the ice shelf was losing mass through basal melting or gaining it through the basal freezing of seawater.

In some places, basal melt exceeds iceberg calving. In other places, the opposite is true. But in total, Antarctic ice shelves lost 2,921 trillion pounds (1,325 trillion kilograms) of ice per year in 2003 to 2008 through basal melt, while iceberg formation accounted for 2,400 trillion pounds (1,089 trillion kilograms) of mass loss each year.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 20 Jun 2013, 16:25

Good quality satellite images of arctic sea ice, in the microwave frequency bands.

https://sites.google.com/site/apamsr2/home/pngcby32/

Some of the 'smears' are clouds or melt water ponding on the ice survace,
but the ice is shattered up to 87 degrees north.

Ralph · Post by **Ralph** » 30 Jun 2013, 01:41

emordnilap wrote: More here.

It strikes me that anytime the hockey stick information swings into action, it becomes necessary to show the proxy information versus the actual ice core data.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI