What climate change is not

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by billvon, Jan 28, 2020.

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,840
    What would be the reason to ask me about BS which you propose? As if the answer would not be obvious.

    Dikes all around Russia? No necessity at all, Russia is essentially a continental power. What makes sense, see here, would be to protect the whole Baltic Sea by a dike from Denmark to Sweden. Here all states bordering to the Baltic Sea would cooperate if necessary. Similarly, one could think about protecting the Black Sea as a whole with a dike protecting Istanbul. That would be, in both cases, not much to cut. What else? Vladivostok? That would be 20 km with water depth less than 20 m, no problem. Murmansk? 2 km 20 m. Everything else is quite irrelevant. In fact, even all those proposals for the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea would be quite irrelevant for survival of humanity - it would be some sort of luxury, protecting some historically important towns, with a lot of tourism and so on. From this point of view, it will be a good investment.

    And, don't forget, this would be necessary in a few thousand years, and only if Antarctica ice melts completely. Before this, sea levels rise at most 3-4 m per 100 years. Or 3-4 cm per year. A biblical thing, indeed.

    What I have written about salt you have obviously not read, or were unable to understand. There is no need for salt filters at all. Salt is a problem of very arid regions. If there is more precipitation, the salt will be washed out and flows with the rivers down to the oceans without any need of human participation.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,964
    as/re; one geographical region
    A closer look at marine sediments confirmed this finding.
    and that region would be where the sediments were collected-----the indian ocean?
    as/re gas
    " ... they could not get the models to simulate past climate change unless they also added changes in carbon dioxide levels. ..."

    2 variables-----more than 2 but in response to your posting---2
    1) the climate
    2) the models
    ......................................
    limited to earthly forcomgs?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,964
    forcings
    oops
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,496
    No, it doesn't.
    You are still, for some reason, confusing the 20% predicted to cross aridity thresholds with the total expected to become more arid. The total expected to become drier is much larger than 20%.
    And you have no idea how agriculture is supposed to adapt, or whether it can - you simply assume that the "new places" will allow adaptation, that agriculture can be continually adapted to each new year's needs over hundreds of years of unstable climate and extremely volatile weather with no serious loss of productivity, and so forth.

    All those assumptions of yours contradict the findings of the researchers in the field. You are in denial of that.
    Yep. You're welcome. Now all you have to do is read up on the latest research.
    You have not only questioned, you have outright denied that.
    1) You have posted nonsense about "optimal temperature", for example - which depends entirely on the effects of the warming you assume would achieve it, which depend largely on the rapidity of the warming.
    2) You have also posted a lot of denial of the threats from AGW, paired with assertions of its benefits (failure to assume these benefits exist identifies the "alarmist", according to you): both the minimization of the threats and the claims of benefits you derived from assuming the warmer temps of AGW will have the effects of past warmer temps.
    3) Among the threats you denied was the "methane bomb" feedback - you explicitly claimed that methane's residence time was too short to pose a threat of long-term serious harm. That entire argument of yours, in addition to revealing your ignorance of the physical situation (the implications of methane's rapidly increasing residence time, in particular) rested on your assumption that AGW was not rapid enough to feed back into methane's short residence time. It is.
    And China's amazing achievements have not been able to keep up with even the early, slower stages of AGW.
    AGW is predicted to accelerate, remember?
    You declared that a century's 3-4m rise in global sea level was the "worst case", and that such a rise would not be disastrous. You declared sea level rise to be a "local problem" that could be handled by "building dikes". And you were not joking.
    You have no idea what you are talking about, in other words, and are satisfied merely to deny the findings of the research in the field.
    Over and over and over.
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,496
    You've been trying to sell Greenland's local weather as global climate change for years - starting with your buying into the denial pitch being marketed by the fossil fuel funded websites.

    Give up. They were bullshitting you then, they are bullshitting you now.
    No.
    If you ever have an argument, any time would be none too soon.
     
  9. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,781
    I’m feeling hopeful that in the midst of this horrible pandemic, our planet is getting a bit healthier. Perhaps, we should all go into home quarantine more often?
     
    Quantum Quack likes this.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,496
    You obviously have no idea what a four meter rise in average sea level in a century would do to human civilization - especially if it occurs, as now expected, in a series of sudden jumps.
    Unless the extra precipitation falls as torrential additions to existing storm patterns and frequencies, as expected.
    Unless the salt contaminates the aquifers agriculture depends on, as expected.
    Unless the extra precipitation on the salt-contaminated fields falls at long intervals, with drought in between - as expected.

    Unless AGW proceeds according to the findings of the people doing the research on it, in other words.
     
  11. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,661
    and ...
    What infrastructure do you build to deal with 2 meters of rain fall in 24 hours?
    What infrastructure do you build to protect thousands of acres of wheat from being destroyed by hail storms?
    How do you protect exposed crops from >200km winds?
    How do you determine where these events are going to happen and when?

    As I said agriculture needs certainty other wise planting is not viable... what infrastructure can you build other than domes and sheltered crops etc, that can provide that certainty?

    The risk factors that farmers deal with have been learned over many years of relative stable weather systems.
    Today the risk factors for crop failure are essentially indeterminable but certainly higher.
    What infrastructure can you build to lower the risk that comes with the degree of uncertainty about weather patterns that is growing in the industry?
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2020
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,661
    One thing that is fairly certain is that the numbers of international passenger flights won't be starting any time soon...and those flights were a huge contributor to AGW.
     
    wegs likes this.
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,723
    This may be of help in visualizing results of sea-level rise.

    Sea Level Rise Viewer
    https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/
     
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,964
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,496
    No.
    I mean the Republican Party's media wing, the swindlers and deception pushers funded by the fossil fuel industry and related corporate interests, the propaganda operations of American fascism.
    Once again, you post no argument or hint of relevance.

    Once again, since you need frequent reminding: AGW stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    The fascinating weather around Greenland at the end of the last glaciation was not anthropogenic, global, or consistently warming.

    Perhaps you would have an easier time making sense if you moved your narrowly focused interests into more appropriate threads.
     
  16. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,840
    No, this was simply economy of writing it down.
    Nonsense. Most investments in infrastructure, in particular those necessary to handle more and more volatile rain, The time scale for climate change is nonetheless hundreds of years. And even if it would accelerate a lot, there would not be a necessity to adapt each new year over hundreds of years. But, say, each decade over thirty years or so.
    I'm not in denial of any facts presented. I ignore only unjustified claims of alarmists. Even this is not a denial, it is simply nothing worth to comment. A denial would be an explicit claim that, "no, this not so". This is what I do if I have own different evidence, and in this case I present it in appropriate form. If my response is "please provide the evidence", this is not denial. So, yet another lie.
    Given that I don't question the AGW itself, as well as most of its consequences too, and tend to refer on my websites to the most horrible scenarios without questioning the justification, at most 0.1% of the research will be really relevant for my claims. And they will be scattered over a much larger domain than climate science, given that my main points are related with various possibilities of humans to react, to politics, sociology, economy (say, in arguments about migration caused by AGW) and many others (costs for building dikes and so on).
    Nonsense. My claim was "I have never questioned that AGW is much faster than any global natural warming event in the geological record". None of your points, even if correct (as usual they are not), would define a questioning that AGW is much faster than natural global warming events.

    The consideration of the optimal temperature aims at distinguishing the costs related with a large rapidity from the costs related with the final result being bad. So, it does not contain any claims about the temp. Instead, it is explicitly clarified that if the temp is high, adaptation may be expensive.
    First, its wrong. Where I consider the particular threats, I consider the speed of change as predicted by climate science. Then, for some of the advantages the speed of change is irrelevant. The larger CO2 is good for plant growth immediately. Then, I refer to the past only to make quite obvious points - say, references to much much larger CO2 content in the past, but flora and fauna being fine at that time. So, this refers to the question which temperatures/CO2 content is unproblematic for live on Earth. I have never denied that a very fast change can cause problems for some species - they may be unable to switch to the new locations where the weather would be optimal after the change. But this will not cause really serious problems for the simple reason that humans can help if necessary.
    Learn to read. First, I never denied that permanent sources of methane will have an influence. Then, I have also not denied that large one-time contributions will have an influence: "It is, nonetheless, not completely harmless - it may increase the speed of a warming. But it does not increase the final temperature." http://ilja-schmelzer.de/climate/methane.php .
    Because you claim so? China is among the states which became greener during the last decades.
    And you are unable to present any reasonable arguments, to provide any quotes from scientific sources, but restrict yourself to boring repetitions of "you know nothing" claims.
    Feel free to share the evidence from where these expectations come from, with references, so that one can extract information about the meaning of these "sudden jumps".

    If a "sudden jump", compared with the average of 3 cm per year of the worst case scenario, means, say, a factor 10, 30 cm in one year, then nothing horrible happens. Because a flood protection which would be adequate would have to have a reserve of more than 1 m to what is expected. Then, the increase of the average would be known quite immediately, so the whole world would know that the average is now 30 cm higher, and they would have to think about increasing the dikes which are critical. This would not be everywhere at the same time, only some part of the dikes would require an immediate increase. This increase would, then, made with some reserve: One would not add 30 cm, but two meters.

    About salt:
    Some large part of it I would also expect to fall at the places where we have large rainfall already now - in the mountains. These are regions with not much agriculture anyway, but the water can be easily collected there with dams and then distributed in a nice way downstream. So, all the agriculture downstream would profit from these horrors.
    As usual, no evidence for the expectation. Instead, I have already presented evidence for the opposite effect - more rain will decrease the salt content of the rivers:
    No. The effect of washing away the salt depends on the amount of water which flows away instead of remaining at the place. This part is even larger if the rain which causes this is heavier.
     
  17. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,840
    No, this was simply economy of writing it down.
    Nonsense. Most investments in infrastructure, in particular those necessary to handle more and more volatile rain, The time scale for climate change is nonetheless hundreds of years. And even if it would accelerate a lot, there would not be a necessity to adapt each new year over hundreds of years. But, say, each decade over thirty years or so.
    I'm not in denial of any facts presented. I ignore only unjustified claims of alarmists. Even this is not a denial, it is simply nothing worth to comment. A denial would be an explicit claim that, "no, this not so". This is what I do if I have own different evidence, and in this case I present it in appropriate form. If my response is "please provide the evidence", this is not denial. So, yet another lie.
    Given that I don't question the AGW itself, as well as most of its consequences too, and tend to refer on my websites to the most horrible scenarios without questioning the justification, at most 0.1% of the research will be really relevant for my claims. And they will be scattered over a much larger domain than climate science, given that my main points are related with various possibilities of humans to react, to politics, sociology, economy (say, in arguments about migration caused by AGW) and many others (costs for building dikes and so on).
    Nonsense. My claim was "I have never questioned that AGW is much faster than any global natural warming event in the geological record". None of your points, even if correct (as usual they are not), would define a questioning that AGW is much faster than natural global warming events.

    The consideration of the optimal temperature aims at distinguishing the costs related with a large rapidity from the costs related with the final result being bad. So, it does not contain any claims about the temp. Instead, it is explicitly clarified that if the temp is high, adaptation may be expensive.
    First, its wrong. Where I consider the particular threats, I consider the speed of change as predicted by climate science. Then, for some of the advantages the speed of change is irrelevant. The larger CO2 is good for plant growth immediately. Then, I refer to the past only to make quite obvious points - say, references to much much larger CO2 content in the past, but flora and fauna being fine at that time. So, this refers to the question which temperatures/CO2 content is unproblematic for live on Earth. I have never denied that a very fast change can cause problems for some species - they may be unable to switch to the new locations where the weather would be optimal after the change. But this will not cause really serious problems for the simple reason that humans can help if necessary.
    Learn to read. First, I never denied that permanent sources of methane will have an influence. Then, I have also not denied that large one-time contributions will have an influence: "It is, nonetheless, not completely harmless - it may increase the speed of a warming. But it does not increase the final temperature." http://ilja-schmelzer.de/climate/methane.php .
    Because you claim so? China is among the states which became greener during the last decades.
    And you are unable to present any reasonable arguments, to provide any quotes from scientific sources, but restrict yourself to boring repetitions of "you know nothing" claims.
    Feel free to share the evidence from where these expectations come from, with references, so that one can extract information about the meaning of these "sudden jumps".

    If a "sudden jump", compared with the average of 3 cm per year of the worst case scenario, means, say, a factor 10, 30 cm in one year, then nothing horrible happens. Because a flood protection which would be adequate would have to have a reserve of more than 1 m to what is expected. Then, the increase of the average would be known quite immediately, so the whole world would know that the average is now 30 cm higher, and they would have to think about increasing the dikes which are critical. This would not be everywhere at the same time, only some part of the dikes would require an immediate increase. This increase would, then, made with some reserve: One would not add 30 cm, but two meters.

    About salt:
    Some large part of it I would also expect to fall at the places where we have large rainfall already now - in the mountains. These are regions with not much agriculture anyway, but the water can be easily collected there with dams and then distributed in a nice way downstream. So, all the agriculture downstream would profit from these horrors.
    As usual, no evidence for the expectation. Instead, I have already presented evidence for the opposite effect - more rain will decrease the salt content of the rivers:
    No. The effect of washing away the salt depends on the amount of water which flows away instead of remaining at the place. This part is even larger if the rain which causes this is heavier.
     
  18. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,348
    Schmelzer, I'm not hearing about any groups of farmers presently cultivating anything, in Russia or anywhere else, who rejoice about their newly desalinated fields and how climate change is bringing them rain to replace the droughts. Do you?
     
  19. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,348
    Ok firstly the article is from 2006 and a disclaimer says it only represents the best scientific picture that was available at the time. A great deal has changed in the last 14 years, although many things remain the same. That said, I can't see anything referring to naturally occurring rapid climate change outside the Greenland region, and my understanding is that the confirming marine samples referred to in the article were taken from the same neighbourhood.

    Secondly, there are several theories on what may account for anomalous historical data such as that referenced, and either those same theoretical effects are accounted for in climate models covering the present, or they don't make enough of a difference in the modern era to be worth including, given how accurate current models have proven to be in describing current and recent trends. Scientists who account for human emissions are able to make accurate predictions, scientists who ignore those emissions can't, therefore the alarms raised by the former should be taken much more seriously than the denials of the latter. Agreed?

    I'm not even trying to push you into taking a political position on the matter, I'm just tired of hearing people make silly non-scientific excuses for not taking action.
     
  20. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,840
    Sorry for the uncorrected double posting, I had bad internet connection.
    I do not expect to hear such things too. If you have not forgotten, I expect that the mass media bring only negative news about climate change.

    But I don't expect such things for other reasons too. Problems which simply disappear into nothing are nothing people mention at all. They usually don't even recognize them. There was a problem, but, fortunately, actually there are other more important problems.

    Last but not least, there usually are no such animals as desalinated fields. If the soil is too salty, there simply will be no agriculture. If, then, this ground will be desalinated, this will go unnoticed. But if people need more soil for agriculture, they will try, and find out that the ground is fine. Explicit desalination is something done if some human stupidity has caused salination of soil in actual use, and one has to correct this failure.

    For dams in the mountains no problem at all. Even the usual terraces would survive this. One would think that at the lowest terraces, there may be some problems if there is too much water at the same moment. But those 2 meters in 24 hours would be not the problem, they should be able to handle peaks which are very local in time - what was coming down 30 min ago is already flown away from the hill.
    First of all, insurance industry. They will have to care about, else they either go bankrupt if they have to pay too much, or lose the competition if their premiums are too high. They will tell the farmers, in form of their premiums, how probable such events are. If it is too risky because such things happen very often, the farmers will think about switching to something else. Say, trees stable enough to survive such events, so that it will be cheaper to insure them.
    Certainty is unnecessary, what is necessary is profitability in the average. Different from subsistence agriculture, when a single crop failure is dangerous for life, for modern agriculture it would not be a problem if there would be, in the average, 50% crop failure, if the profit from the other 50% would be large enough. (Of course, such a high profit would be improbable, given that there would be enough other regions with less exceptional circumstances for those crops in question, and they would define the profits which could be reached on the world market. But in the horrible scenarios of alarmists like you, there would be no such other regions, so that this would become possible at least in principle.) If the risk is higher or not is something the insurance companies will find out, and you can look at the premiums to find out the actual risks.
     
  21. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,964
    How many trees have you planted?

    ...........................
    and
    Greenland did not detach itself from the earth and float off into space to have it's very own climate change, then magically come back to earth and reattach itself to the north american plate and wait patiently for the rest of the earth to warm at a more leisurely pace.
     
  22. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,661
    of course, you are assuming that the 2 meters comes down evenly over 24 hours...which of course is not the observed rate..
    How does 1000 acres of wheat survive that sort of down pour?
     
  23. CptBork Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,348
    A few here and there. I'm not much of a fossil fuel consumer these days either so what's your point? If you don't want to do your part to reduce CO2 emissions, that's a separate issue from whether the science says there's a problem or not, you don't help your case by mixing them together.

    Greenland doesn't need to detach itself from Earth in order to experience localized climate shifts. The article you linked states that there are theoretical explanations for the anomalous data you cite, assuming the data isn't even nullified at this point since you're digging all the way back to 2006. Those theoretical considerations are either factored into modern climate models or not relevant today, otherwise those models wouldn't be able to make accurate predictions. Once again I ask you why you think modern climate models work so well in an era of precise data, if there's an important effect they're not accounting for.
     

Share This Page