Acapulco now modern ruins 54

[Reverse_Bias]

This is one of the few instances of a city with lots of fancy high rise buildings taking a direct hit from a catagory 5 hurricane. Almost every inhabitable structure in and around Acapulco looks gutted. No doubt this is going to take years to get it back to its pre storm status.

Hurricane Otis was predicted to be a tropical storm at landfall the day before, so it also represents a modern weather forecasting being pushed beyond its limits.

https://youtu.be/pTjMK4qCDyg?si=zX8U2M9BeFjkkORv

https://youtu.be/0Pb9iq4cbS8?si=QzSzZF6-8qhPxefS

 

[jhardy1]

TugBoatEng asked: "How is it that we measure CO2 from so far in the past?"

Let me Google that for you:

For the last few hundred thousand years:
"For example, ancient air bubbles trapped deep in the ice of Greenland and Antarctica reveal how much carbon dioxide was present long ago. ... There's more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than at any other time in at least 650,000 years"

https://archive.epa.gov/climatechan... the amount,Climate Change Indicators (2016).

For geological "deep time":
"Various proxy measurements have been used to attempt to determine atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations millions of years in the past. These include boron and carbon isotope ratios in certain types of marine sediments, and the number of stomata observed on fossil plant leaves."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbo...ts have been,observed on fossil plant leaves.

“The problem today is not higher global temperature or carbon dioxide levels alone. The problem is the rate of change,” explained Olsen. “Throughout most of the Earth’s history, carbon dioxide levels have generally changed very slowly. That gave organisms and their ecosystems sufficient time to adapt to climate change through both evolution and migration.”
Climate scientists warn that over the next century, the rate of change will be 10 times faster than any climate pattern that unfolded in the last 65 million years. Because of today’s rapid rate of warming, up to 14 percent of all plants and animals on land may face extinction in the coming decades, according to a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
[My emphasis]

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2...-when-co2-was-extremely-high-why-cant-humans/

Perhaps its time to acknowledge that being a highly proficient marine engineer does not necessarily give one the greatest of insights into global climate science, and the potential consequences for life on Earth - including us?

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

 

[dik]

The graph stipulates 'Ice Core Data'. Catch the NASA link for added information.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Does nobody see the logical fallacy? You're using something (ice) that doesn't exist at high levels of CO2 to demonstrate low levels of CO2.

It's funny watching a post blow up with purple stars when the structural engineers show up. Why does that not happen with any other group?

 

[jhardy1]

TugBoatEng said: "Nice dodge on the ice core question. If CO2 causes warming that reduces ice levels then ice samples would never show high levels of CO2."

Not so; snow / ice is still deposited in periods of "interglaciation", but at a reduced rate. Ice cores exist which go back hundreds of thousands of years, giving us a good picture of the composition of the atmosphere over that period.

The "recent" glaciation / interglaciation cycles (over the last 2.6 million years in particular) are thought to have been driven primarily by the Earth's orbital cycles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

, with changes in CO[sub]2[/sub] levels largely being a consequence of the extent of glaciation, rather than being the main driver of it. (Although there are also feedback cycles involved.)

During past glacial cycles, the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere fluctuated from about 180 parts per million (ppm) to 280 ppm as part of Milankovitch cycle-driven changes to Earth’s climate. These fluctuations provided an important feedback to the total change in Earth’s climate that took place during those cycles.
Today, however, it’s the direct input of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels that’s responsible for changing Earth’s atmospheric composition over the last century, rather than climate feedbacks from the ocean or land caused by Milankovitch cycles.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Age, the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere has increased 50 percent, from about 280 ppm to 412 ppm (update: 421 ppm in 2023).
[My emphasis]

https://climate.nasa.gov/explore/as...ycles, the,driven changes to Earth's climate.

Note that important fact: the change in atmospheric CO[sub]2[/sub] over the past 100 years is dramatically greater than the natural fluctuations which have occurred over the past several million years.

It's very important to not get confused between "cause" and "effect" when looking at correlation between historical CO[sub]2[/sub] concentration and climate; especially where feedback loops are involved. Elevated CO[sub]2[/sub] can be both a driver of temperature rise, and also an effect of temperature rises from other causes.

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

 

[TugboatEng]

It's very important to not get confused between "cause" and "effect" when looking at correlation between historical CO2 concentration and climate;

Bingo! There does appear to be a correlation between CO2 and temperature. It's not so clear which one leads the other. Before you come at me about absorption spectrum, remember that all energy becomes heat.

You still haven't explained how we can accurately track CO2 concentration in ice cores if new ice doesn't form during periods of high temperature/CO2 concentration.

 

[jhardy1]

TugBoatEng, you're the only person who claims new ice doesn't form during periods of higher temperatures. The annual rate of deposition of snow / ice reduces as temperatures rise, but new snow / ice is still deposited each winter in the coldest areas (tops of mountains, inland Greenland, on Antarctica, etc), while the melting predominantly takes place in spring and summer from the warmer areas (toes of glaciers, coastlines of frozen land-masses, etc). If the rate of deposition exceeds the annual melt, there is a net growth of ice (glacial period), while there is an inter-glacial period when the annual melt exceeds the annual deposition - but it can be a long-time before the Earth is essentially ice-free. (It is thought that the Earth was last glacier-free well over 30 million years ago.)

Even today, new ice is being laid down each year in the Himalayas, the Alps, the Andes and the Rockies, even though the annual melt-loss in these areas is significantly greater than it was just a few decades ago, and means there may not be any permanent icefields or glaciers in some such areas within our own lifetimes. Ice is also still being deposited each year in Greenland and Antarctica, but again, the melt-loss currently exceeds the annual deposition. It will take some centuries (or longer) before they are ice-free on current trajectories - but there will have been an enormous sea-level rise long before Greenland and Antarctica are ice-free.

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

 

[TugboatEng]

I'm not understanding your comment. You say new ice is laid down yet the melt loss is significantly greater? Does that mean we're still gaining ice despite the greater loss? Or is the addition being lost every year due to the increased loss? If the new addition is being lost every year how is it being recorded historically 10s of thousands of years later?

If you have access to Pat's Pub see that I was the only person claiming COVID vaccines didn't prevent infection years ago. I'm not allowed in the pub anymore for demonstrating that fact... Consensus ≠ fact.

I also put batteries on cement!

 

[jhardy1]

TugBoatEng:

In an interglacial period (such as the modern age), the annual rate of deposition of new ice onto an icefield is less than the annual melt, so there is a net loss of ice each year. This is true today of the majority of glacier fields around the globe, and also for Antarctica and Greenland.

However, the deposition and the melt occur at different places. The maximum deposition typically takes place at the cold, elevated heart of an icefield (where it may remain below freezing point all year), while the maximum melt typically occurs at the warmer, lower periphery. Gravity causes icefields to flow from high to low ground, where the melt rate is typically higher. The column of ice at the heart of an icefield may not melt at all, and may show an annual series dating back tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of years, even though the icefield may be losing gigatonnes of ice each year, and the glaciers flowing from the icefield may be retreating at hundreds of metres per decade.

http://julianh72.blogspot.com

 

[dik]

It's what's contained in in the layers of ice and sediment that provides the information.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[dik]

Maybe we should drop this conversation; it does not appear to be going anywhere... and revert back to Acapulco.

"Hurricane Otis: At least 27 dead in Acapulco after ‘nightmare’ Category-5 storm
At least 27 people are dead and four people are missing in Acapulco after a “nightmare” Category-5 hurricane, Mexican officials said on Thursday.

Hurricane Otis roared ashore shortly after midnight on Wednesday with 165mph winds and torrential rainfall, slamming into the coastal city where residents had little time to evacuate or prepare.

Otis is the strongest ever storm to make landfall on Mexico’s west coast. The hurricane underwent explosive intensification from a Category 1 to Category 5 in just 12 hours, catching forecasters by surprise. The National Hurricane Center (NHC) described it as a “nightmare scenario” for the region."

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/hurricane-otis-live-updates-death-091423843.html

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

Strongest ever? Acapulco, where the reeds were washed away is from the Nahuatl language. That dates back to the Aztec times. Definitely pre-industrial. It seems that this region has a history of such storms. Remember, you are the one that derailed the conversation. Maybe you're upset you're not getting floodded with a climate change level of purple stars from the structurals. They might come. We will see.

Remember, catching forecasters by surprise means the forecasters are not experts...

 

[dik]

Let's drop it... even experts can be surprised. It's far more significant if they are surprised.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

See comment #4 on this thread. Will you also drop your climate change distractions in the future? I guess we'll have to wait and see
.

Are you allowed to claim surprise when one of your designs fails? Climate change is the only industry that is allowed to be perpetually surprised by their lack of understanding.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

like it or not 20 year ago I landed at one end of the runway 99% of the time now we land at the other end more than 50% of the time.

Your honestly in a dream world if you think things are not changing and faster than Engineer can react.

 

[dik]

My architect pilot friend once told me that there was nothing more useless than 'runway behind you.'

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[TugboatEng]

If we weren't wasting all of our resources chasing the carbon-free dreamworld we would have no trouble reacting.

 

[Alistair_Heaton]

it need everything a far a I can tell.

History will tell you what going to happen when all the stored carbon is released again.

10 year ago flying across the alps there was snow and glacier every where. Not so now. only 3 glacier left and I can see the difference in size year to year.

 

[TugboatEng]

In the USA we have the Grand Canyon. Scientist love to tell us how the Colorado river carved it over millions of years. However, such a slow carving should result in a very narrow channel through rock or a very sloped side in sand. The Grand Canyon is neither. It has steep sides and is very wide. More realistically, it was formed very rapidly during a climate change event.

As an anecdote, my favorite campsite has a river. We had a lot of rain this year and I noticed many of the large rocks I had recognized were gone. That's 3-4 feet in diameter. The river didn't even flood, it only had above average flow. Amazing how much things change during a single event with the power of water involved.

 

[cranky108]

All I see is conversations about the weather, and not the topic of this thread.

So it looks to me like climate change is a way to take money from the Middle east (oil), and divert it to China (solar panels). So how is placing dark colored panels in the sun helping to keep us cool?

Also looks to me the disaster is the construction standards (or lack there of), not the climate. Also we don't know the design life of the buildings in the pictures.

 

[dik]

See my note of Nov 5 @ 6:19...

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik