EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Thu Apr 17, 2014 3:37 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:22 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
Spongebob wrote:
All this arguing about the cost of defending ports/towns/a few houses is moot and a waste of time if the results of the ANDRILL project is anything to go by, a few feet is nothing when they have found the sea level rises 20m above present in every interglacial so far. It is not worth wasting money and resources (or energy arguing about it) trying to defend what is going to be flooded in the longer term anyway and relocation is the only option.

No links to any graphs with enough spatial detail to show this "fact"? This is the only interglacial with geometric warming caused by HGHGs. The rest were variable from axis tilt and Milankovich ellipticity factors, along with even more variable volcanic factors, and impact/meteorite factors as well. Geologically, there are factors which change the entire height above the center of the Earth of various plates from convection in the lower and upper mantle. These all affect "sea level" also, in graphs with millions of years as the time span.
If the sea level rises 20 meters from present, it will be from human factors that were never here before. What I have seen is 23" by 2050 and 6' by 2100. I have heard of 20 meters max with AETM, which will be at least 20*F higher than any previous interglacial, around 3000AD. Of course, there are those who refuse to think of a complete methane turnover event (geologically, with ELE)
Personally, I don't see the fuss about the cost of something that people will not pay for. The human population will crash to 5% by mid century with nothing to stop the process(large food and water decline with mass world poverty). Those survivors will not be able to pay for new sea walls, and will just go uphill. So you are right about relocation, but "history" will end with human extinction.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:32 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 4:02 pm
Posts: 41
The funny thing is that the Milankovich cycles are between 90,000 and 120,000 and it would appear your graph is lining up the end of max 120k cycles when that is not how they occur, they vary from 90k through to 120k with a 10-20k inter-glacial and a 1-2k slope in and out of them. This is evident on all graphs of inter-glacial temperature proxies. even though it appears on your graph as close to it is out of sync with the cycles.

Also the CO2 is clearly shown as rising quite steeply in the last 8k or so years and dropping in the last few hundred to 1k by a tiny amount overall.



Sorry Johnny, didn't re-link to the graph I had shown before and you are right about so many variations yet this does all link together with sea shores 10-20m higher in other places around the world.

Mass genocide maybe but I doubt it will be an ELE because a few will try and hold on to what they have.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:26 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Spongebob wrote:
The funny thing is that the Milankovich cycles are between 90,000 and 120,000 and it would appear your graph is lining up the end of max 120k cycles when that is not how they occur, they vary from 90k through to 120k with a 10-20k inter-glacial and a 1-2k slope in and out of them.


Maybe you should look again since there is no way 4 interglacials will fit in a 350 k span with a 120 k cycle.

Quote:
This is evident on all graphs of inter-glacial temperature proxies. even though it appears on your graph as close to it is out of sync with the cycles.


Time period determination at that distance back will have large error bars. That makes them all a rough estimate at best.

Quote:
Also the CO2 is clearly shown as rising quite steeply in the last 8k or so years and dropping in the last few hundred to 1k by a tiny amount overall.


You do know the accuaracy for CO2 timeline determination is also problematic due to the snow being compacted at differing rates and bubbles moving upward? They are good indicators, but the time period can be off by hundreds of years.

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/Courses/614 ... _Cores.pdf

Counting of visible annual layers and seasonal cycles in chemistry, coupled with the identification of volcanic eruptions of known age (using ash chemistry and sulfate concentration anomalies preserved in the ice), allowed researchers to determine the age–depth relationship in cores from Summit, Greenland, to a precision better than 2% for the last 10 000 years (10 ky) and 5% for the last 50 ky. Precise determination of layer thickness and age also permitted the calculation of an accurate time series of accumulation (Figure 1).

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:49 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
Quote:
Personally, I don't see the fuss about the cost of something that people will not pay for. The human population will crash to 5% by mid century with nothing to stop the process(large food and water decline with mass world poverty). Those survivors will not be able to pay for new sea walls, and will just go uphill. So you are right about relocation, but "history" will end with human extinction.


Nice to know that you have such a positive view.

Why are we so doomed?

What are the insurmountable troubles that will cause this?

We could with a few years (like 3) notice have a massive program of building hydroponic food factories if we wanted which would provide food for us all but why would we want to?

Do you have anything which suggests that the IPCC has grossly underestimated the problem?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:33 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Quote:
Personally, I don't see the fuss about the cost of something that people will not pay for. The human population will crash to 5% by mid century with nothing to stop the process(large food and water decline with mass world poverty). Those survivors will not be able to pay for new sea walls, and will just go uphill. So you are right about relocation, but "history" will end with human extinction.


Nice to know that you have such a positive view.

Why are we so doomed?

What are the insurmountable troubles that will cause this?

We could with a few years (like 3) notice have a massive program of building hydroponic food factories if we wanted which would provide food for us all but why would we want to?


Water shortages might make that difficult. Unless you have energy to remove the minerals from sea water, there are shortages of fresh water in many areas.

Quote:
Do you have anything which suggests that the IPCC has grossly underestimated the problem?


Do you have anyhting to suggest there will be no problem with results within their estiamtes, other than your personal hope and belief.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:07 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
Quote:
Do you have anyhting to suggest there will be no problem with results within their estiamtes, other than your personal hope and belief.


Currently the IPCC's worst case scenario is for a 3.2 degree c temperature rise by 2100.

From their earlier worst case scenario of a 59cm sea level rise if we got a 6.4 degree c temperature rise I expect that the current worst case is less than 40 cm.

I don't see the horror of either change.

Also since the 6.4 number was predicted in 1998 and whilst the CO2 level has risen at their worst case rate the temperature has remaigned stable, this calls into question the whole theory that CO2 is a significant driver of climate.

This make the position one of me not being paniced about the threat of something mildly inconvienient and over all nice which is it's self unlikely to actually happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 11:36 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Quote:
Do you have anyhting to suggest there will be no problem with results within their estiamtes, other than your personal hope and belief.


Currently the IPCC's worst case scenario is for a 3.2 degree c temperature rise by 2100.

From their earlier worst case scenario of a 59cm sea level rise if we got a 6.4 degree c temperature rise I expect that the current worst case is less than 40 cm.

I don't see the horror of either change.

Also since the 6.4 number was predicted in 1998 and whilst the CO2 level has risen at their worst case rate the temperature has remaigned stable, this calls into question the whole theory that CO2 is a significant driver of climate.

This make the position one of me not being paniced about the threat of something mildly inconvienient and over all nice which is it's self unlikely to actually happen.


So that would be a "no" on anyting other than the personal hope and belief then?

Given you do not see the cost problems with defending against a 2 foot sea level rise as long as it does not involve actually protecting houses and ports, this does not seem to carry much credibility.


Tim the Plumber wrote:
Coastal defense is a costly undertaking because we put expensive things like ports and houses on the coast.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:26 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:59 am
Posts: 2147
Location: Central Colorado
Tim is obviously VERY ignorant. By 2050 the maximum food the Earth can produce for humans will be probably 1/3 less from AGW, maybe up to 1/3 less from lack of irrigation water and soil loss, along with world fisheries collapse, and more loss from oil depletion effects of no mechanized farming and distribution. The population of 8.5 billion will be at well below sedentary starvation level, variable with time and location. Cascading collapse in an a world that has already been in abject poverty for some time. It will start in the 2030s, but build up in effects from 2015 to then. The early 2040s will see the Ogallala Aquifer and many others depleted. The rates of soil loss and fisheries loss will hit more then, also. The TFR is , and has been lowering while population goes up by momentum, but death rates will drastically increase until they overtake birth rates and rapid die off occurs. Some think it may go down with starvation from less oil and not a steep drop off that occurs with other mammals in nature. The population of say, 2070, will be a small fraction of the peak.
Now for AETM and the ELE, sponge. It is thought by many that we are in the 6th Great Extinction right now, and it started with the human killing off of mega fauna 10K years ago. The tipping point of tundra methane self release with no more human HGHG input was believed to be at in 2009. There is also the ocean warming tipping point with Arctic Polar ice loss and the darker ocean warming more rapidly on its own. It is thought by Hansen and others that if HGHGs are not reduced 90% by 2016 to 2020, that the tundra methane tipping point will most likely be crossed, followed in time by the ocean methane hydrate self releases to "turnover" similar but greater than PETM almost 55 million years ago. The rapidity being far greater is what leads biologists knowledgeable to thinking it will be up to a 90% total species extinction rate. Anything of a time range up to 10 or 20 thousand years is,to a geologist, an "event". Anything over a 50% extinction rate is considered an Extinction Level Event, or ELE. The 30% extinction rate of PETM (in 30+K years)was not considered an ELE, or at least a "Great Extinction" "event".
PS: the UN has under scored AGW with "PC" and is off by a significant margin. Things have been far beyond their worse than worst case scenario.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 3:01 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 11:47 am
Posts: 110
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Tim is obviously VERY ignorant. By 2050 the maximum food the Earth can produce for humans will be probably 1/3 less from AGW, maybe up to 1/3 less from lack of irrigation water and soil loss, along with world fisheries collapse, and more loss from oil depletion effects of no mechanized farming and distribution. The population of 8.5 billion will be at well below sedentary starvation level, variable with time and location. Cascading collapse in an a world that has already been in abject poverty for some time. It will start in the 2030s, but build up in effects from 2015 to then. The early 2040s will see the Ogallala Aquifer and many others depleted. The rates of soil loss and fisheries loss will hit more then, also. The TFR is , and has been lowering while population goes up by momentum, but death rates will drastically increase until they overtake birth rates and rapid die off occurs. Some think it may go down with starvation from less oil and not a steep drop off that occurs with other mammals in nature. The population of say, 2070, will be a small fraction of the peak.
Now for AETM and the ELE, sponge. It is thought by many that we are in the 6th Great Extinction right now, and it started with the human killing off of mega fauna 10K years ago. The tipping point of tundra methane self release with no more human HGHG input was believed to be at in 2009. There is also the ocean warming tipping point with Arctic Polar ice loss and the darker ocean warming more rapidly on its own. It is thought by Hansen and others that if HGHGs are not reduced 90% by 2016 to 2020, that the tundra methane tipping point will most likely be crossed, followed in time by the ocean methane hydrate self releases to "turnover" similar but greater than PETM almost 55 million years ago. The rapidity being far greater is what leads biologists knowledgeable to thinking it will be up to a 90% total species extinction rate. Anything of a time range up to 10 or 20 thousand years is,to a geologist, an "event". Anything over a 50% extinction rate is considered an Extinction Level Event, or ELE. The 30% extinction rate of PETM (in 30+K years)was not considered an ELE, or at least a "Great Extinction" "event".
PS: the UN has under scored AGW with "PC" and is off by a significant margin. Things have been far beyond their worse than worst case scenario.


This sounds like the ranting of a crazy person but disturbingly it appears that some very clever people also see it this way.

http://theautomaticearth.com/Earth/terr ... lapse.html

or we could just head to the beach with our buckets and spades and build seawalls, then we will all be fine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:23 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 9:27 am
Posts: 5776
Location: USA
spot1234 wrote:
This sounds like the ranting of a crazy person


That's because it sounds crazy, in general, to most folks. As a race, we haven't a clue. As an individual, I can tell you, we're doomed.

_________________
TANG SOO!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 4:38 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
Quote:
Tim is obviously VERY ignorant. By 2050 the maximum food the Earth can produce for humans will be probably 1/3 less from AGW, maybe up to 1/3 less from lack of irrigation water and soil loss, along with world fisheries collapse, and more loss from oil depletion effects of no mechanized farming and distribution.


I could not be bothered reading any further from this utterly ignorant post so I thought I would just pick up on one point;

Quote:
and more loss from oil depletion effects of no mechanized farming and distribution.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

64 years of prooven oil reserves. Your doomsday fantasy is not going to happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:09 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Quote:
and more loss from oil depletion effects of no mechanized farming and distribution.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

64 years of prooven oil reserves. Your doomsday fantasy is not going to happen.


Or not. The reserves are given at current use levels at the time, which change. Also, if you actually read the information to which you linked, many of the reserves have as much documentation as your cost estimate for protection from sea level rise ... none. They also have an incentive to manipulate the data to fit their current situation ... which is also similar.


Many oil-producing nations do not reveal their reservoir engineering field data and instead provide unaudited claims for their oil reserves. The numbers disclosed by some national governments are suspected of being manipulated for political reasons.

<snip>

Of OPEC nations particularly, where the largest reserves are supposed to exist.

There are doubts about the reliability of official open reserves estimates, which are not provided with any form of verification that meet external reporting standards.[20]

Since a system of country production quotas was introduced in the 1980s, partly based on reserves levels, there have been dramatic increases in reported reserves among OPEC producers. In 1983, Kuwait increased its proven reserves from 67 Gbbl (10.7×10^9 m3) to 92 Gbbl (14.6×10^9 m3). In 1985–86, the UAE almost tripled its reserves from 33 Gbbl (5.2×10^9 m3) to 97 Gbbl (15.4×10^9 m3). Saudi Arabia raised its reported reserve number in 1988 by 50%. In 2001–02, Iran raised its proven reserves by some 30% to 130 Gbbl (21×10^9 m3), which advanced it to second place in reserves and ahead of Iraq. Iran denied accusations of a political motive behind the readjustment, attributing the increase instead to a combination of new discoveries and improved recovery. No details were offered of how any of the upgrades were arrived at

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:53 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:43 am
Posts: 151
Are the Canadian oil shales real?

How about the Venezwailan tar?

We are nowhere near any trouble with running out of oil.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 08, 2012 8:16 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20354
Location: Southeastern US
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Are the Canadian oil shales real?

How about the Venezwailan tar?

We are nowhere near any trouble with running out of oil.


That depends on what you use as a definition of trouble with running out of oil. I remember the days when one could fill an empty car with a $5.00 bill. Now it costs some 13 times that amount and we are not paying the same costs as many of the other industrialized countries. The cost increases are a trouble related to the running out of oil and one that will continue to get worse over time.

I may see the impact in my life, but I know my children will be living in a much different world where fuels are involved.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 09, 2012 8:10 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 67
Tim the Plumber wrote:
Currently the IPCC's worst case scenario is for a 3.2 degree c temperature rise by 2100.

From their earlier worst case scenario of a 59cm sea level rise if we got a 6.4 degree c temperature rise I expect that the current worst case is less than 40 cm.

I don't see the horror of either change.

Provided
1 That the sea level magically stops rising on 1st Jan 2101.
2 That the IPCC has not underestimated sea level rise which on current figures seems likely.
3 That there are no other impacts from climate change such as extreme rainfall events or increasing numbers of storm surges.
4 That you don't live on one of the low lying Islands.
5 That you can afford to take remedial action or move if necessary


Quote:
Also since the 6.4 number was predicted in 1998 and whilst the CO2 level has risen at their worst case rate the temperature has remaigned stable, this calls into question the whole theory that CO2 is a significant driver of climate.

No It only proves you do not understand that there are other things that effect climate, such as the huge amounts of aerosols that we are pumping into the atmosphere which we know is having a cooling effect. Nor do you seem to understand that the rate of warming is about currently around 0.2 Deg C per decade but that naturally the temperature can vary by nearly that much in a single year, which means you need a longer time period to identify the warming trend. Also you are guilty of cherry picking as 1998 was one o f the strongest El Nino events we have seen in a century and we know that kicks the temperature up. Currently the northern hemisphere is experiencing its warmest summer on record.


Quote:
This make the position one of me not being paniced about the threat of something mildly inconvienient and over all nice which is it's self unlikely to actually happen.

Believe me there is nothing nice about being flooded out of house and home
as in Manilla for example http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-09/an-philippines-flood-update-thurs-pm/4188350
I wonder if you have thought about what happens when the sea level rises and the flood water cannot get away to the sea ?

_________________
Pollution is not the solution


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 71 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group