Although Greek religion is no longer popular because of it 's diversity compared to religion today, it had a great standing back in Ancient Greece; Many aspects played a role in creating it 's foundation such as the deities, worship and rituals, and mystics and oracles. Greek religion was considered polytheistic for it 's belief in many gods and they were called upon during everyday trials and tribulations, providing their wisdom and guidance.
The deities depicted in Greek mythology had strange. Ancient Greek Myths When thinking about Sicilia, this beautiful island in the Mediterranean Sea, it is hard not to imagine people who once live on it. And, it has also listened to the legends and sagas of many cultures. Yet the most cunning legends once told on this island must be the Ancient Greek myths. They were remembered, retold; they survived from the fires of war, traveled from islands to mainlands, they were washed by time without fading away. In it we not only saw gods and love, but also humanity.
How was this world created? How can we humans live and thrive on this land? These are questions were asked for thousand times in every culture, and all of them gave their own answers. The ancient Greeks, also had an answer. Khaos, also known as Chaos, gave birth to Gaea, goddess of earth, mother of the world. The twelve titans, were the first to rule the world. After them, there was still another generation of titans, Prometheus who gave fire to humans among them. Then at last, came the best-known and well-loved gods. Show More.
Tom Majors is mainly an OverWorld player. He's a beginner to Chaotic, and knows less about things than his friends do about the world's of Chaotic and Perim. Despite his lack of knowledge Tom is an excellent player, especially when using Maxxor. At first, he was very shocked and overwhelmed when he first transported to Chaotic, transforming into his Creatures, and experiencing the battle "for real.
He loves playing Chaotic, exploring Perim, and experiencing excitement and adventure. He always helps those in need, and his selflessness sometimes surprises other Chaotic players and Creatures alike, like when he kept his promise to Smildon to cure the disease destroying Prexxor Chasm. He cares a lot about his friends Sarah, Kaz, and Peyton as well as the well-being of the creatures of Perim with whom he isn't enemies with. Peyton and Krystella do a boys vs.
Tom's in a slump and he thinks it's because he lost his Maxxor. He meets a kid and receives a lesson that cards don't win matches, players do. Peyton makes Tom go into the desert to prove to him that not all Mipedians are bad. At Tiaana's request, Tom enters a drome battle with a Mipedian scan. So actually it was saying that in this small sample from Alberta, two thirds of geochemists and engineers, many of whom who work in the petrochemical industry are climate deniers.
That a third accept global warming is the more impressive figure there I think. And that is three years ago. Many in the petrochemical industry are gearing up for transition to clean energy and finding new ways ahead for their companies, so the figures have probably changed since then. Actually CO 2 reduction doesn't have to mean direct conflict with coal, oil and gas.
Probably the best way to deal with the situation involves transition to a mix that includes a fair bit of renewable energy, as well as probably nuclear power to ease the transition for a few more decades. But actually, we can continue using some fossil fuels as well so long as we use carbon capture and storage technology.
You can burn coal with hugely reducing emissions with carbon capture and storage. It has a lot of potential to help reduce CO 2 during transition to renewables, when we are still burning coal, oil and gas. This technology also is one of the few technologies that can actually generate power not just in a carbon neutral way but even in a carbon negative way, if it is used to burn biomass. It actually takes CO 2 out of the atmosphere to grow plants, and then burn them, if you capture the CO 2 emissions from burning them. What is Carbon Capture and Storage.
They will sometimes argue that the climate is going to get unbearably hot no matter what we do, so there is no point in doing anything. But the timescale for methane release from the sea floor in a rapidly warming climate is a thousand years, not decades, which rather puts that to rest.
As for methane from permafrost - then as it warms up, the methanogens that love to munch on methane flourish and eat the methane so very little of it will actually reach the atmosphere. Also methane has a short half life in the atmosphere, about a decade depending how you calculate it. However it exaggerates the situation. It's still a lot. But there is no conspiracy to hide this.
It seems a very active area of research with many papers. These are the google scholar search results for Methane has a much shorter residence time in the atmosphere than CO 2. Around twelve years compared to years for CO 2 however the situation for CO 2 is complex, some of it is removed within 50 years, some remains for thousands of years, more on this later.
For the figures see The Scientific Basis. Every time you eat, you convert food to CO 2 which you then breathe out. However that food would have decayed anyway so you are just speeding up the process of decay. When the farmer grows the food next season all the CO 2 you breathed out gets taken up again into the plants. The same is true for all oxygen breathing life including all animals, insects, fungi and many forms of microbe the "aerobes".
The CO2 they breath out gets taken up by plants and algae. Due to this fast cycle, on average each molecule of CO 2 depends only four years in the atmosphere. It is a rather similar for the oceans. You might think that a sea level rise has to happen uniformly over the entire world, as after all the oceans are interconnected. But no, they don't rise uniformly. As an example, New York experiences a much higher sea level rise than normal while London will have a much lower sea level rise than normal for the same average sea level rise.
There are several effects here. You might wonder how something so small as an ice sheet can have enough gravitational pull to raise sea levels. But a mountain sized mass just one kilometer away from you has four times the pull as the same amount of matter two kilometers away and a ten thousandth of the pull as the same amount a hundred kilometers away. Although the way the maths works is that it adds up so it has the same effect on you as a point with the same mass as the Earth at its center, the matter that is close to you has most effect, counterbalanced by a tiny pull from large amounts of matter far away from you.
Searise: Book 3 Searise The SeaBEAN Trilogy
So a small change in the mass distribution close to the sea can have a significant effect on the sea levels around the coast. Of course any mountains close to the shore will exert a gravitational pull on the sea, but only the ice sheets, by melting, can change that pull. They used two scenarios in their models. Their high end scenario contributes 30 cm of sea level rise by and their mid range scenario contributes 7 cm by then. The increase in the rate of ice loss per year every year for the two scenarios were 2. The rate of ice loss increased by on average The result of this is that places like Scotland and Scandinavia may see almost zero change in sea level from ice melting, because they are influenced by the mass loss from Greenland.
Only the thermal expansion of the oceans will matter there. While with the high end scenario for global warming, sea level rises could reach a meter in the Western Pacific. There, many people live on low islands made up of coral and may need evacuating. It also has severe impacts on some of the coastal regions of North and South America, the Caribbean, the West coast of Africa, Eastern Australia and some other places. In the Americas, the Bahamas are particularly affected as is Florida and many coastal cities. The IPCC has already said that the sea levels will rise by up to one meter by if we don't use stronger methods to limit greenhouse gases.
These graphs are from their summary for policy makers from RCP 8. RCP 2.
Passar bra ihop
RCP 5. There are many uncertainties there as you can see by the range of values with 2. It's also possible that the temperatures are above or below those numbers. The same applies even more for the rising oceans.
- Jeremiahs First Day of School (I am a STAR Personalized Book Series 1).
- Chaos theory.
- How they predict the weather one day ahead.
- Last Stand of the Red Spruce?
- The Mound;
- Truly Tristan (Among Friends Book 4).
The big uncertainty there is about the rate of melting of the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. The rate at which they are melting has continued to increase, year after year, and the estimates depend on how much this rate continues to increase. More on that in the next section. Sea level rises for , and for the scenarios RCP4. The black lines are contours for the middle of the range sea level rise so mark the boundaries of areas of the sea that rise less than normal and areas that rise more than normal. This map is not entirely consistent with the previous one. This is the more recent paper from , so probably the more accurate.
However it is also very low resolution. In these new studies , a team of glaciologists using satellite and air measurements say that the ice in Western Antarctica has already started a process that is probably impossible to stop. With ice penetrating satellite radar mapping of the terrain beneath the ice using the EU Sentinel 1 satellites , they say that here are no mountains or hills significant enough to slow the collapse. The fastest melting glacier, Smith glacier, is losing 70 meters thickness of ice a year.
It's grounding line - the point at which it starts to float on the sea - is retreating two kilometers a year and has been doing that since , is continuing unabated. There are six glaciers that will collapse, enough to raise the sea level another four feet. But these may collapse other glacier leading to a rise of sea levels triple that. A separate team studying just one of the glaciers, Thwaite glacier, came to the same conclusion that collapse is inevitable. That is, will happen anyway, based on the CO 2 emissions so far.
If so then this would cause a 10 foot rise in sea level. This would cause issues for coastal cities like New York and low lying countries like the Netherlands and Bangladesh which is the area in the world likely to be most affected by sea level rise since much of the country is not far above sea level. They spotted a new rift which may lead for a large ice sheet to break off again, like the giant square mile "iceberg" of So what effect will it have if they are right?
Not end of civilization. But some major issues. Florida is amongst the most affected since the underlying geology is porous limestone. This means it will be impossible to build conventional flood barriers as the sea will just percolate through the rock beneath them. So it seems inevitable that Florida will be flooded if sea levels rise. Only mitigation, such as evacuating the affected regions, or preventing climate change is possible as a way ahead. Florida at 3 feet - a level likely to be reached by with "business as usual".
Florida at six feet , a level likely to be reached in the 22nd century if the West Antarctic ice continues to melt. Some think we may reach that level sooner, even by , with "business as usual". Florida before and after a 3 meter sea level rise due to melting ice from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. It is already getting affected more than usual by hurricanes because of the one foot the sea has risen by so far. See Goodbye Miami for an article in Rolling Stone magazine about these issues.
However, remember that Florida is in an area that is much more affected by the global sea level rise than the average, so it may be flooded much more than this. The Bahamas are also impacted. Just a 1. You can have an explore of the world to get a rough first idea of the effects of local sea level rises with this interactive map. It uses NASA altitude data which is approximate. It also just maps a new sea level against the topography of google maps. Places that are inland below sea level of course will not experience sea level rises even if shown flooded in the diagram you need to trace out to see if there is a connection with the sea.
But in the case of Florida, since the underlying rock is porous, then the map probably pretty much shows what the effect would be no matter what flood defenses are used. Also it doesn't take account of the uneven nature of sea level rise around the world. You need to dial in your local sea level rise if you know what it is projected to be. For a more accurately done map - but one that is slower to navigate unless you have a fast internet connection, see the Surging Seas.
It takes account of local differences when working out sea level effects and also takes account of areas contiguous to the sea. To find out when your area will be affected by the various sea level rises, then click on Projections on the map and then choose the relevant scenario and it will show the date by which that sea level rise is projected to happen, if it happens before Use this to get a better idea of what the effects would be.
But for sea level rise especially, its estimates for when you will reach a particular sea level for the various scenarios may be an underestimate, as the IPCC projections are regarded as quite conservative. You can find it here, Sea Level Rise Viewer. One big problem I had with the material here on flooding, is that I can't find a good high resolution map to convert global sea level rises into local sea level rises. The sea level maps suggest anything between over 3 meters for the first map if it scales up similarly to the 30 cm rise , and a little over 1 meter for the second one.
The second one is published three years later but is very low resolution. Both indeed are so low resolution it is hard to be sure what the situation is for a small region such as Florida. The Storm Surge site lets you show when the sea level rise you dial in is reached for a few selected points on the map according to the two scenarios they give but they don't say how to convert global to local sea level rises either.
Does anyone reading this know of anything on this. World wide then naturally the Netherlands are amongst the most affected. As a rich country they would be able to increase the height of their flood defenses but it would be expensive. And after a 3 meter rise. Remember only places that are shown as blue and connected to the sea would actually be flooded.
Unless the geology is porous, inland areas below sea level would not be affected, and the Netherlands particularly can be expected to build better flood defenses, though a 3 meter increase in height of them would be an expensive undertaking. However I'm not sure what the local sea level rise would be there, for a 3 meter global rise.
Then finally, this shows the effect for Bangladesh of a 3 meter rise. This is likely to be an overwhelming humanitarian issue for a poor country with a huge population and they would surely need external help to deal with the issues. I'll do it as links to the images:. And after a 3 meter sea level rise such as might happen by if the western Antarctic ice sheet melts.
A Vanishing Island | Global Oneness Project
A ten foot rise in sea level will not mean the end of civilization at all, but it will lead to major problems for several particularly vulnerable spots world wide. Even if we stop all CO 2 releases, unless we actively remove it from the atmosphere, then it's going to continue to warm the oceans, and melt the ice long into the future. That's because of the long time that CO 2 remains in the atmosphere, the yet slower response of the ocean levels to the warming Earth, and the even slower response of the melting ice sheets. The Greenland ice sheets are melting fast, losing billion tons of ice a year.
There is a lot of ice there. It should take thousands of years for it to all melt. But if it all melts then the sea levels will eventually rise by 7 meters. That should be no problem, if it happens slowly. Eventually we have to abandon coastal cities such as New York, London, etc. Or we build massive flood barriers. Or we actively remove CO 2 from the atmosphere.
Over timescales of thousands of years, we could do any of that. As you can tell from this article, there is still a lot of uncertainty in the models, and they will continue to refine them surely for decades into the future. There are many details that they can model and look into. Also computers will continue to become more powerful, permitting more detailed models taking account of more and more effects. Although they think they have a reasonable understanding of what will happen, there is plenty of reason to continue to debate it and to work on the fine details of what is going to happen.
How much will the temperature rise with business as usual? Or have we got it all wrong and it won't 'rise at all? Or what if it rises much more than expected? At that point it becomes a political rather than a scientific decision. The scientists have done the best they can with their models, and continue to do so.
They provide their best projections for the future, along with estimates of how certain they are. As is usual in science, then there are a few outliers in both directions, scientists that think the effects will be more than predicted and others who think they will be less than predicted.
And sometimes the minority view in science turns out to be right. If we wait for certainty however, it will be too late to act, if the IPCC is right that we need to act swiftly to prevent the worst of the effects. The politicians and the general public who vote for them then have to decide what to do with this information. In the past, this has been a matter for a great deal of political debate world wide.
But now, in the rest of the world outside the US, that debate has already reached a conclusion, and we've moved on to action. There were many actions we could have done, but this was the decision embodied in the Paris agreement. While in the US politicians are still debating it. I think that perhaps once Trump is president, it might be that it becomes more and more difficult to maintain his climate skeptic stance once he finds that he is the only world leader saying this - he would feel like an outsider in a party wherever he goes on the world stage. As president he will have to give words of reassurance after hurricanes, droughts, wild fires etc.
He is not a complete climate skeptic. He has said that he thinks that there is some interconnection. And as well as that he showed through business decisions that he thinks global warming is happening and will continue to happen. Trump's wall to protect his Scottish golf course from climate change flooding is in the news in the UK. He wants to build a wall along the sea shore to protect it from rising seas due to climate change.
They are running into difficulties getting it past planning permission. Actually mentions flooding due to climate change as a reason for building the wall. The US is strong in clean energy, and the technology for clean energy. However, its per capita CO 2 emissions are still amongst the highest in the world, far higher than China for instance, which means there is a lot it could do to show a lead here. China's emissions are 7. UK's emissions are similar, 7. The US emissions are more than double that, Meanwhile, Ethiopia is emitting 0. See the CO 2 tracker on the world bank web site.
When even the poorest countries like Ethiopia and Bangladesh are doing their best to reduce the small emissions that they have already, the US as one of the top emitters and one of the higher per capita emitters stands out as a country that can do a lot by reducing the CO 2 emissions.
The US has been leading so far. But with Trump as president, it seems the US is going to renounce this lead and go into a back seat, or even, get out of the car altogether, in this analogy, and leave everyone else to drive on without them. I have an open mind to it. However it still seems that the Trump administration may dismantle much of the NASA research into climate change.
- A Fluffy Pink Christmas?
- A House on Bali, illustrated!
- Miami: How Rising Sea Levels Endanger South Florida.
He is also likely to lift restrictions on mining shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal, removing much of the legislation for such businesses, also removing rules for limiting methane emissions from oil and gas industry operations and other legislation. There is a lot he could do to dismantle these provisions, some things he could do unilaterally and others would need co-operation of Congress.
So paradoxically he may actually have helped with the process of climate mitigation. Also many cities and states in the US are convinced of the case for action against global warming. Both right and left wing states are taking measures to combat climate change. Either from climate change concerns or economic reasons.
Also the US cities have a fair bit of power for independent action. The major of New York, Michael Bloomberg, in a recent op-ed has said that if the US under the Trump administration does withdraw from the Paris agreement, that he will recommend that the US majors seek to join in its place. They probably can't sign the treaty but they can work together to do their bit to try to ensure that the US achieves its target in the agreement even if the Trump administration does nothing, or withdraws.
Many US cities are particularly impacted by climate change predictions, for instance New York with the prospect of future flooding, and Miami with the risks of flooding and hurricane damage. See also this article in Business Insider Mayors could override Trump on the Paris climate accord — here's how. They declare that they have seen an extraordinary momentum on climate change worldwide and that this momentum is irreversible, and call for further climate action and support well in advance of Whether or not you agree with the views presented here, I hope this has helped to promote understanding of the climate change models, and also to understand why it is no longer a political issue outside the US.
Any comments or questions do say. Also do feel free to correct any mistakes you notice in this, however small. But that one focuses more on the effects and the politics, while this one puts the spotlight more on the models and the climate skeptic arguments. I have had a long term special interest in astronomy, and space science since the s, and most of Please donate so science experts can write for the public.
If you're worried about activists using media to promote fear and doubt about science and medicine,you're in the right place. At Science 2. But we can't do it alone so please make a difference. We are a nonprofit science journalism group operating under Section c 3 of the Internal Revenue Code that's educated over million people. You can help with a tax-deductible donation today and percent of your gift will go toward our programs, no salaries or offices.
Full Site. Physical Sciences. Subscribe to the newsletter. Robert Walker.
Well if you are watching, don't worry, there isn't. But having said that, actually, the weather will become very windy, but most of the strong winds incidentally will be down over Spain and across into France. The white lie there is that actually nobody rang in to the studio, to say that they had heard there was a hurricane on its way. He just said it as an embellishment to enliven his forecast. And here he is correcting it 25 years later : So, how can that happen, and can it be fixed?
Add table of contents to this page on my website - blog post on Science 2. Eventually maybe you can simulate individual clouds right down to this level of detail: Here is an example of a much more complex high resolution simulation running for the weather over Germany with many different cloud types at once.
If you could do that, and it was accurate, then you'd be able to predict every single cloud and you could do predictions as accurate as this scene from "Back to the future II" Doc: First you've got to get out and change clothes Marty: Right now, it's pouring rain! Doc: Wait five more seconds Right on the Tick. Amazing, absolutely amazing. Too bad the post office isn't as efficient as the weather service. It could be from previous visits to that time, but the newspaper cover later in the movie shows that they are able to predict weather to the minute at least There's discussion amongst the fans about how it works in that fictional alternative present - whether it is through accurate weather prediction, or perhaps most likely, it could be through weather modification.
See also fan discussion here. Surprising discoveries about weather prediction Originally in the 50s and 60s, weather forecasters thought we would be able to predict the weather as accurately as we liked, just by getting more data, more accurate data, and using very precise models. To find out about it, see The Lorenz attractor and how it describes flow patterns in a layer of water with videos. And for more maths details see the Wikipedia page and the Wolfram maths page.
For more about chaos theory, this is a good intro And this explains how you can do weather forecasts and also do climate change predictions even though it is a chaotic system. There is a good explanation of this 31 minutes into this video Coping with chaos The result is that you can't predict the weather exactly over long time periods. However that's not the only problem Problems of data and resolution The main reason they missed the storm in was because of lack of data.
Ruins of Hohentwiel castle photographed from a small plane, credit Peter Stein. The models at the time didn't have sufficient resolution to predict such high speeds, and were not able to take account of details of the topography. The first map shows the forecast for the 16 km resolution model. The second map shows the forecast of the 2. This shows that they simply didn't have the models available back in to predict the intensity of the winds.
Climate change random walks - s This is one of the first ideas the climate modelers came up with. Well back in the s they would have had good company from many of the climate modelers of their time One of the best examples of a random walk is "Brownian motion". What does it mean to say the world is warming up?
Five-Year Global Temperature Anomalies from to Correlation with the Milankovitch cycles The first hint of the idea that we might be able to do long range climate forecasts though not exact weather forecasts came with the theory of the Milankovitch cycles - the idea that changes in the direction the Earth's axis tilts, over very long periods of time, coupled with other effects, can cause ice ages. Shows how the position of the pole star varies over a long cycle. This was the Egyptian pole star around 5, years ago.
This image from Windows to the Universe shows the three main ways the Earth changes Orbit gets more circular and then more eccentric, in two cycles which combine together, every 96, and , years Earth's axis precesses , cycle 26, years - this is why the southern hemisphere is pointed towards the sun when we are closest to it. This is a very slow change. But noticeable. At the time of the Ancient Greeks, BC. And as I said above, the Egyptian pole star was Thuban.
The orbit also slowly precesses , cycle of , years, not shown here. This combined with the axial precession means that it takes between 20, and 29, years for the closest point to the sun to return to the same date in the year, with an average period of 23, years, not 26, years as you might expect.
Earth's axial tilt varies slightly , cycle of 41, years. This is a modern diagram from the NOAA. The warmer interglacials are shown in yellow. The graph at the top in red shows how warm it is in July at 65 degrees North, the modern version of Milankovitch's curve. There's a strong cycle there every 23, years due to the precession of the Earth's axis. Interglacials like the one we are in now happen when the weather is warmer in the northern hemisphere, though not every time. As you see, it has happened every five cycles for the last fifteen cycles.
The bottom line in blue shows the CO 2 concentration in the atmosphere which is nowadays thought to play an important role in the warming, though Milankovitch didn't realize that. Calculated from bubbles of atmosphere in the Dome Fuji ice core The middle line shows the temperature in Antarctica calculated from hydrogen isotope ratios in the Dome Fuji ice core. The temperature in Antarctica is higher at times when the northern hemisphere gets most sunlight, even though at those times Antarctica gets least sunlight, because of global warming.
This theory was first put forward by Milankovitch. Here he is as a student with a pocket watch. Milankovitch as a student, Vienna, late nineteenth century This though was not very convincing right away. Correlations of railway train collisions with US crude oil imports from Norway - from spurious correlations At best a correlation like that might lead you to consider a hypothesis to investigate further.
Left shows the extent of permanent ice sheets during an ice age, and right shows them today - just covering Greenland. When the ice sheets are smaller, then less heat gets reflected away so the Earth is a bit warmer. However from the most recent research, it now seems that of those two, it's the CO 2 release that triggers the warming at the end of an ice age, though it's the ice sheets that vanish first.
At the end of an ice age, first the ice sheets disappear, but the world stays at much the same temperature as before. It continues like this for a lag of eight centuries, before the carbon dioxide levels and the temperature of the Earth rise together. This shows that it is the CO 2 rather than the albedo change that contributes mainly to the warming at the end of an ice age.
Importance of water vapour to amplify effect of the CO 2 This study from showed in a simple way that water vapour is an important part of the global greenhouse effect. Without CO 2 , all the oceans would be frozen over However the water vapour can't warm the Earth by itself. Surprisingly small amount of warming to get from ice age to present - temperature changes more at the poles Also bear in mind that though we are making only small differences to the concentrations of CO 2 in the atmosphere, it doesn't have to be a huge effect. But the higher latitudes are more strongly affected.
Proxies - how they know the climate of the world in the past You might wonder how they can know what the temperature of the world was tens and hundreds of thousands of years ago. Ice cores. The ratio of hydrogen isotopes in the ice tells you what the past temperature was. Gas bubbles trapped in the ice shows the levels of gases such as CO 2 in the past. We are lucky enough to have long ice cores in both hemispheres, from the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic ice sheet.