Global Warning/Climate Change

[temporal1]

Some desert areas will shrink as vegetative growth invades and takes over. Other areas which were greener may become dryer.

Here locally, there is (and has been for decades) an organized effort to "save the Killbuck Swamp".
But they aren't interested in "restoring" that area to how it was when white settlers first made notes or records of what the area was like at that time. Swamps naturally fill up over time, and if it isn't actively dredged at some point, it will turn into grasslands, then forests. AND, other areas will flood more and more, because of the displacement of all of that run-off.

I grew up on the Great Plains (north East Oklahoma).
Just in my lifetime the area where I grew up has become "forested", and the multiple housing areas that have sprouted up in that area is part of the cause. Trees were planted around houses, which at some stage reached a tipping point, and weather patterns changed, more birds came into the area, different types of birds, and these birds carried seeds from all sorts of "invasive species" all over the place.

So what was under prairie grass when I was a child (what isn't now someone's yard) is now increasingly covered in stuff like briers and scrub cedar trees.

I know, however, that the prairies were "managed" by the Plains Indians long before whites ever set foot there. (They periodically burned it, to stop tree growth, favoring the grasslands that provided the ideal environment for their favored game, the buffalo.

There are now huge buffalo reserves in Oklahoma and Kansas where they follow that same strategy.)
The forestry service in California and other western states seem to have run into the same dilemma - they have to do controlled burns, or the whole forest will burn, or the trees they are trying to save will be choked out by other trees of the same kind, and they all die.

Some areas of the Amazon have been identified as former grasslands.

People now do not want to adapt to the changing world - they want it to always stay the same as it is now, or how it was in their small window on time, their concept of "the good old days".

So-called "primitive" tribes are way more "advanced" in their adaptability to their changing environments. (In my opinion and observation, anyway.)

Neto,
i appreciate this. in the early 70’s, i took a Forestry 101 course at the University of Vermont, in 2 paragraphs, you’ve summarized the content. i must have been impressed with “how ponds naturally change,” “how forest species change,” over time, when left to their natural outcomes.

in today’s world, esp with so many water retention ponds dug for flood control, then used to create attractive “water frontage” homes+businesses, as you describe, DREDGING is necessary to maintain those bodies of water to a specific desired description,
the natural outcome is for them to fill in, eventually reverting to land. (same, whether natural or man made.)

likewise with plant+tree species, the landscape naturally changes, one species overtaking others. i’m fuzzy on it now, but the whole story of grasslands and buffalo, how one is interdependent on the other, is fascinating. (that account may be in earlier pages of this thread.) native Americans managed resources to suit their desired outcome, buffalo herds, if they hadn’t, the natural outcome would have continued to change+change.

(i suppose) historically, humankind on all continents adapted+adjusted to weather+geography, disease, too, until and to the extent technology enabled tampering; humans love tampering with things. then, unintended consequences.

but, yes. humans long to stop/control natural change to suit immediate desires. very “of the moment.”

[Robert]

The 10-meter results seem out of place as there is no discussion when a sea-level rise of 10 meters is expected. Several more centuries, I expect, and still should be a concern, but doesn't fit with the rest of this infographic.

Yet where is the science data behind all this. I have heard this, but still see the rich buying property on the coastline. Even Obama did.

If we are still coming out of an ice age, it makes sense that it would be warming and we will see more melt. Again, I see it as a net good thing. There is plenty of time for the rich to move inland further when needed.

An increase in temperature and increase in co2 is a good thing. It increases plant production, which increases o2 and food supplies. Our bodies are built for warmer weather. I do not really see a down side.

[Ken]

The 10-meter results seem out of place as there is no discussion when a sea-level rise of 10 meters is expected. Several more centuries, I expect, and still should be a concern, but doesn't fit with the rest of this infographic.

Yet where is the science data behind all this. I have heard this, but still see the rich buying property on the coastline. Even Obama did.

If we are still coming out of an ice age, it makes sense that it would be warming and we will see more melt. Again, I see it as a net good thing. There is plenty of time for the rich to move inland further when needed.

An increase in temperature and increase in co2 is a good thing. It increases plant production, which increases o2 and food supplies. Our bodies are built for warmer weather. I do not really see a down side.

Sea level rise comes from both the melting of polar ice caps and thermal expansion of the oceans. It is easy enough to do a little calculation of this. Every substance has a coefficient of thermal expansion. Engineering books contain these. It is why we have expansion gaps in highway bridges and why electrical wires are strung with a built-in sag from pole to pole rather than stretched tight.

For water the coefficient of thermal expansion is 210 × 10– 6 (0.00021) per degree Celsius.
The average depth of the world's oceans is about 12,100 feet
A uniform 1 degree warming of the world's oceans would result in expansion of 12,100 ft x 0.00021 = 2.54 ft.

And that is before we even get into one drop of water added to the oceans through melting of the ice caps. Of course the oceans will not warm uniformly from top to bottom but if we are talking about global warming of 1 degree C then we would expect that to be reflected on average in the oceans too.

How fast all of this happens is open to scientific debate. The models are immensely complex. But whether or not it will happen is not subject to debate. It is universally considered to be an inevitable consequence of global warming. And has been for at least 100 years.

[Robert]

For water the coefficient of thermal expansion is 210 × 10– 6 (0.00021) per degree Celsius.
The average depth of the world's oceans is about 12,100 feet
A uniform 1 degree warming of the world's oceans would result in expansion of 12,100 ft x 0.00021 = 2.54 ft.

H2O actually takes up more room frozen then liquid. This is why frozen pipes burst. The North Polar ice cap is floating in water, thus will not cause massive sea rise. This is why sea levels do not change very much with the summer melts of the north polar cap.

Again, overall improvement for it to warm. Yes, there will be some drawbacks, but overall, better. The temperature raise is slow enough that we can easily manage any slow rise in sea levels. When the elites start selling all their coastal properties, I will consider it an issue. Until then, I see nothing to worry about when it means more people in the world will be fed, I am happy for the rich to loose their fancy houses.

There are also ruins in the oceans now from when the sea level was much lower. It has been happening for thousands of years as we move out of the latest ice age.

[Szdfan]

Someone obviously does not live in a semi-arid area that’s struggling with drought as the planet gets warmer. This is the latest date in a year that Denver hasn’t had snow since they recording snowfall in the 1880’s and the city is about to set a record for the longest time between snowfalls.

The snowpack in the mountains is an essential source of water for the Colorado and other western states. So far this year it’s not really happening.

[Robert]

Someone obviously does not live in a semi-arid area that’s struggling with drought as the planet gets warmer. This is the latest date in a year that Denver hasn’t had snow since they recording snowfall in the 1880’s and the city is about to set a record for the longest time between snowfalls.

The snowpack in the mountains is an essential source of water for the Colorado and other western states. So far this year it’s not really happening.

Was it this way last year and the past 10 years? One year does not set a trend.

And we are all in changing climates. I can remember Texas freezing last year when it usually doesn't do that.

It does seem that water demands are an issue for urban centers. I know in Texas, getting water rights to lakes and reservoirs is quite important to towns and cities. We had several dry spells there and the lake levels got quite low back in the 1970's.

The lack of snow will be a good item to watch to see if it stays trending, or of the snowfall is just shifted to a later time. Seems winter is shifting from when it used to be.

[Ken]

For water the coefficient of thermal expansion is 210 × 10– 6 (0.00021) per degree Celsius.
The average depth of the world's oceans is about 12,100 feet
A uniform 1 degree warming of the world's oceans would result in expansion of 12,100 ft x 0.00021 = 2.54 ft.

H2O actually takes up more room frozen then liquid. This is why frozen pipes burst. The North Polar ice cap is floating in water, thus will not cause massive sea rise. This is why sea levels do not change very much with the summer melts of the north polar cap.

Again, overall improvement for it to warm. Yes, there will be some drawbacks, but overall, better. The temperature raise is slow enough that we can easily manage any slow rise in sea levels. When the elites start selling all their coastal properties, I will consider it an issue. Until then, I see nothing to worry about when it means more people in the world will be fed, I am happy for the rich to loose their fancy houses.

There are also ruins in the oceans now from when the sea level was much lower. It has been happening for thousands of years as we move out of the latest ice age.

1. Yes, frozen water is less dense than liquid water. But when we talk about thermal expansion of the oceans we are not talking melting ice. We are talking about what happens when liquid water warms up. What actually happens with liquid water is that it acts like any other material and expands as it warms. This is basic science. It is how your water heater works. It is how you cook food on the stove.

2. There is a distinction between sea ice and glacial ice packs. Yes, sea ice floating in the ocean does not raise the water level of the ocean when it melts because it is already in the ocean. Scientists are not talking about that. They are talking about glacial ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica which are formed on land from centuries of accumulated snowfall. There is enough glacial ice on Greenland alone to raise sea levels by 20 ft. And if all the glaciers and ice sheets in Antarctica melted it would raise sea levels by about 200 ft. This is all water sitting on the top of land that will flow into the oceans if melted. And that is before we even start calculating the thermal expansion of water already in the oceans from that much warming.

It is fine if you are unconcerned about sea level rise. Current estimates are for sea level rise in the magnitude of 2 meters or 6-7 feet by the year 2100 if dramatic action is not taken to reverse current warming trends. That is the "do nothing" scenario. Sea level rise in the order of 2 meters would dislocate something like 1 billion people worldwide, not just wealthy waterfront property owners in Florida. But vast areas of the developing world. Do you want 1 billion climate refugees flooding into the US and Europe? 2100 may sound like a long time from now. None of us will likely be around. But it is 78 years. Or as far into the future as 1944 is in our past. And there are people here who were alive in 1944. My kids will likely still be alive in 2100.

[Szdfan]

Someone obviously does not live in a semi-arid area that’s struggling with drought as the planet gets warmer. This is the latest date in a year that Denver hasn’t had snow since they recording snowfall in the 1880’s and the city is about to set a record for the longest time between snowfalls.

The snowpack in the mountains is an essential source of water for the Colorado and other western states. So far this year it’s not really happening.

Was it this way last year and the past 10 years? One year does not set a trend.

And we are all in changing climates. I can remember Texas freezing last year when it usually doesn't do that.

It does seem that water demands are an issue for urban centers. I know in Texas, getting water rights to lakes and reservoirs is quite important to towns and cities. We had several dry spells there and the lake levels got quite low back in the 1970's.

The lack of snow will be a good item to watch to see if it stays trending, or of the snowfall is just shifted to a later time. Seems winter is shifting from when it used to be.

We've been dealing with drought since before I moved out here, which was about a decade ago. The West overall is experiencing drought which is one reason (out of several) why forest fires have been so bad over the past couple of summers.

I agree that one year is not a trend, we'll have to see how the snowpack does in the next few years -- we've had some good years and bad years since I've been out here. The lack of snow in Denver is a troubling incident at least.

Water rights in Colorado are a complicated and confusing mess from the 19th Century which nobody wants to reform because it would open a whole can of worms. Urban areas purchasing water rights also negatively affects rural communities. I've written about this before, but Crowley County went dry about twenty years ago when most of their farmers cashed in and sold their water rights to Front Range cities, pretty much destroying the local economy. Ironically, there are several pot farms there now that have enough of a profit margin to purchase and ship water in, but it's impossible to grow conventional crops there anymore.

[Soloist]

1. Yes, frozen water is less dense than liquid water. But when we talk about thermal expansion of the oceans we are not talking melting ice. We are talking about what happens when liquid water warms up. What actually happens with liquid water is that it acts like any other material and expands as it warms. This is basic science. It is how your water heater works. It is how you cook food on the stove.

4% at boiling in contrast with 9% frozen...

[Ken]

This is what a density graph of water looks like.




It is least dense in its solid form of ice and most dense in its liquid form at near 4 degrees C. As liquid water warms, it expands at a relatively constant rate. The oceans are actually stratified with warmer water at the surface and colder water at depth. Due to this exact reason. So one would not expect the oceans to expand uniformly, but more at the surface where climate change would have the greatest effect. It would likely take hundreds or thousands of years for the heat from a warming plant to distribute evenly through the entire ocean given how slowly deep ocean currents move.