Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

General discussions on hiking in Oregon and the Pacific Northwest
User avatar
drm
Posts: 6133
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by drm » October 30th, 2022, 9:58 am

retired jerry wrote:
October 30th, 2022, 8:38 am
For example, there's very little understanding of how fast those glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland will melt. So far, the melting has exceeded what scientists predicted.
So the rate of melting continues to be faster than previously expected, but we still don't know exactly fast. That is overstating the case? Sounds to me like that means they have been understating the case.

As the years go by, many expectations have ended up understating the progress of heating. I read that climatologists thought that the heat dome we had last year was nearly impossible and something that extreme wouldn't happen for a long time. But most of the extreme events that are beyond expectations have been extreme rainfall events. If you wanted to place a safe bet on forecast errors, it would be that they are understating the case.

Webfoot
Posts: 1759
Joined: November 25th, 2015, 11:06 am
Location: Troutdale

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by Webfoot » October 30th, 2022, 10:48 am

drm wrote:
October 30th, 2022, 7:48 am
Human history is full of examples of societies that ignored obvious warning signs of many types and paid a dear price for it. If anything, the current weak response to this particular issue is just par for the course. We could have started responding decades ago and basically prevented the impacts. Now they are starting and the question is far far will it go.
If the research of Oak Ridge National Laboratory on the Molten-Salt Reactor had been continued we could all be using safe, clean nuclear power now. But military preference for weapon-producing reactors and the public's irrational fear of nuclear power intervened. Now we're stuck with rising CO2 levels, continued dependence on fossil fuel and the politics that go with it, and "green energy" that often isn't "green" at all and cannot take its place. The reactors we could already have now still need decades of engineering and construction before they are online.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14398
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by retired jerry » October 30th, 2022, 11:41 am

"So the rate of melting continues to be faster than previously expected, but we still don't know exactly fast. That is overstating the case?"

That is an example of understating because they didn't know so they were conservative.

An example of over stating is calculating the volume of water in those glaciers, and calculating how much that would raise sea level. That's an objective calculation - good. But then implying that it's going to happen is over stating the case.

Or saying this will cause a mass extinction is over stating the case.

User avatar
sgyoung
Posts: 393
Joined: November 3rd, 2013, 7:30 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by sgyoung » October 30th, 2022, 11:53 am

There really isn't any meaningful uncertainty about the core fact that human activity is a significant contributing factor to warming. The perception of uncertainty is largely a consequence of bad faith or deeply uninformed arguments. It's no different that the tactics use by flat-earthers, creationists, or 2020 election deniers. Introduce a number of silly arguments that take time and effort to debunk, and in the process muddy the discussion and public understanding of the topic.

It's all just gish gallop (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)

BigBear: thanks for answering my question. I'm also trained in quantitative research methods and it's what I do for a living. I'm not familiar with the specific Harvard example you mentioned, but also not sure about the relevance. Obviously they handled missing data incorrectly but we know that because there are various established methods for dealing with non-responses. But sure, if the point is that any one study might be flawed then of course that's true. However, that's why the accumulation of evidence and reproducibility are vital. And here is where the abundant evidence for anthropogenic climate change is strongest.

Jerry: I don't agree that scientists are prone to hyperbole. I've published dozens of peer-reviewed papers and been an editor and reviewer for literally hundreds more. Authors will get called out if they speak beyond the data, and especially so if they don't clearly delineate when they are speculating about possible future outcomes. Science journalism is often garbage and sensationalized (across all field, not just climate change) but that's entirely out of the researchers' hands.

User avatar
BurnsideBob
Posts: 534
Joined: May 6th, 2014, 3:15 pm
Location: Mount Angel, Oregon

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by BurnsideBob » October 30th, 2022, 12:20 pm

A different tack.

Returning to the original topic, tree intrusion into meadows, I, a casual observer, see tree intrusion into meadows most everywhere I go in the pacific NW. Whether it be Jefferson Park, Goat Rocks, the Enchantments, Paradise in Mt. Rainier NP, there are many sapling trees growing up in what were the flower garden meadows that contributed to these areas fame. Change is a-foot.

Kudos to TeachPDX for his discussion of why this is happening, namely the roles of snow pack depth, soil moisture, soil water logging on the viability of trees in meadow areas. To those mechanisms we need to add snow creep on sloping areas and the effects of a longer sustained dry season.

This latter phenomenon is harder to explain and missed in discussion of whether or not we are experiencing drought. Taking this year as an example, we did have above average moisture the winter of 21/22 resulting in a deeper than normal snowpack above 5000 feet in the north Oregon Cascades, and an exceptionally long spring with periodic moisture until after 4 July.

Despite the deeper snowpack and late moisture, Mt. Hood and the other big snow mountains lost their seasonal snow cover. Because there were more sunlight hours, higher temperatures, and lower humidities from end-of-spring rain to beginning-of-fall-rain the benefits of above average snow and moisture were lost before summer season’s end. Consequently our montane flora again experienced drought stress and our glaciers and permanent snowfields, without summer long snow cover, continued to melt. There was drought continuation despite above average moisture.


I am perplexed by some statements made in this thread.

The basic physics underlying global warming is well understood. While there are differences of opinion about the rate of global warming’s consequences, like sea level rise, there is no disagreement that global warming is happening. Don’t misconstrue academic tinkering around the edges as denial of the main event. The Thwaites Glacier is a case in point:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/05/world/th ... el-climate
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/there ... r-thwaites

The glaciers on Mt Shasta are not growing—rather, they are catastrophically collapsing.

https://www.digitaljournal.com/world/mo ... ve/article
https://www.mtshastanews.com/story/news ... 579255001/

Thank you, sgyoung for your contributions, including this one worth another view:
https://xkcd.com/1732/

Burnside
I keep making protein shakes but they always turn out like margaritas.

Aimless
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by Aimless » October 30th, 2022, 8:12 pm

BigBear wrote:
October 26th, 2022, 8:30 am
...the change in the precipitation over time was due to the storm systems hitting Mt. Shasta (where the glaciers are actually increasing in size) instead of flowing over the relatively low Kalmiopsis Wilderness.
You might want to reconsider the trustworthiness of whatever source 'informed' you that the glaciers on Mt. Shasta are growing.

User avatar
BigBear
Posts: 1836
Joined: October 1st, 2009, 11:54 am

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by BigBear » October 31st, 2022, 10:19 am

Mt. Shasta's glaciers were growing in 2008. You can do a simple google search to find quite a bit about this. However, I need to update this statistic because in 2021 there were a number of articles that noted their shrinking again. However, it was this fact in 2008 which was the basis to analyze why Klamath County's rainfall had suddenly decreased so much.

If you read Reinhold Messner's account of his cross-continent trek of Antarctica you would be surprised to learn as he did just how much of the continent was barren of precipitation and snow, probably for thousands of years. In fact, the interior was often barren of wind, leaving he and his partner the arduous task of dragging their sledges instead of riding them like sailboats.

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Land_vs_sea_ice: 15% of the oceans are covered by ice, while only 10% of the land is covered by ice. Remembering that 2/3rds of the world is ocean, that comes out to a 10% of the planet is sea ice and 3% of the planet is land ice (that's a 3:1 ratio).

User avatar
rubiks
Posts: 114
Joined: February 12th, 2020, 7:49 pm
Location: Hillsboro

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by rubiks » October 31st, 2022, 10:24 am

BigBear wrote:
October 31st, 2022, 10:19 am
https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Land_vs_sea_ice: 15% of the oceans are covered by ice, while only 10% of the land is covered by ice. Remembering that 2/3rds of the world is ocean, that comes out to a 10% of the planet is sea ice and 3% of the planet is land ice (that's a 3:1 ratio).
Can you please quote a figure for the average *thickness* of sea ice v land ice? Surface coverage can be interesting, but what is the ratio as the total volume of ice? Thanks
You know exactly what to do.
There's no need to be afraid.
Keep walking.

User avatar
BigBear
Posts: 1836
Joined: October 1st, 2009, 11:54 am

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by BigBear » October 31st, 2022, 10:36 am

I can't do all the work for you.

Suffice it to say, I came up with the sources to defend the facts that others thought I just simply made up.

I just want you to challenge the information you repeat without challenging the information. I stated from the very beginning that I do believe the earth is warming, and I equally challenged the theory that just switching from gasoline to coal-fired electricity won't stop global warming because it's been around longer than the things we are trying to change. I further am challenging the fact that the seas will rise 20 feet, and think of it more as a fear tactic because there just isn't that much land-bound ice.

My base concern is that politicians are getting us to go all electric, and no one is asking where this electricity is going to come from or if it will even make a difference because our significance on this planet is far less than most are willing to admit. Nature is in the driver's seat, and we're in the trunk hanging on for the ride.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14398
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: Sub/Alpine meadows, fires, & climate change

Post by retired jerry » October 31st, 2022, 12:31 pm

There are so many windmills and solar panels in Texas that sometimes all electricity is produced by wind and solar.

The price of wind and solar keep dropping making them even better solutions, cheaper than even gas. A majority of new electricity production is wind and solar.

There are many people researching how to store the excess electricity that is beginning to be produced because there are so many windmills and solar panels being produced - more progress is needed

With Russia and Saudi Arabia withholding oil, it is now becoming even more obvious that windmills and solar panels are better. I think this will be a blessing in disguise, accelerating the transition

If people buy electric cars, maybe initially a lot of the electricity will be produced with fossil fuels, but over time that fraction will decrease

Post Reply