Jump to content

The Analysis of Sea Levels.


mikegarrison
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Have air conditioning - Will travel

Some truth to this - I grew up in SoCal where the weather is always almost perfect.  My first experience in North Cackalaky was a very hot and humid summer where my body learned to sweat for the first time. Barracks was a concrete block squad bay with two loud industrial fans at either end.  Sleep in sweltering heat was elusive.  We learned to adapt. 

The final month - we got to move into brand new 3-bed BEQ rooms - with (*gasp*) air conditioning. I thought I'd died and gone to heaven 

People will do things to find comfort 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DDE said:

That said, the we're going to see coal (and oil shale, hey there Estonia) get affected first.

What we are currently seeing is that once China has intentionally reduced the coal mining and consumption, the effective EU goofs enjoy the gas price 1900 and close the fertilizer plants.

And China did it exctly in the name of decarbonization.

Also UK is not in EU anymore, partially due to the EU green dreams, afaik. Which are making production a little expensive even for them.

So, it's too early to turn Ruhr into a car parking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very little talked about time when the world was warmer:

"The Atlantic in palaeoclimatology was the warmest and moistest Blytt–Sernander period, pollen zone and chronozone of Holocene northern Europe. The climate was generally warmer than today. It was preceded by the Boreal, with a climate similar to today's, and was followed by the Subboreal, a transition to the modern. Because it was the warmest period of the Holocene, the Atlantic is often referenced more directly as the Holocene climatic optimum, or just climatic optimum

 

The Atlantic was a time of rising temperature and marine transgression on the islands of Denmark and elsewhere. The sea rose to 3 m above its present level by the end of the period. The oysters found there required lower salinity. Tides of up to 1 m were present. Inland, lake levels in all north Europe were generally higher, with fluctuations.

... 

The temperature rise had the effect of extending southern climates northward in a relatively short period"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_(period)

 

Denmark was an archipelago 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Atlantic page:

Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

What's that over on the right side?

1280px-2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg.png

The ability of species to adapt to a changing climate is not dependent on the magnitude of the graph, but the SLOPE.

This is what the second graph would look like if you normalized the X and Y scales to the first one (I used the forum image editing tools and measured with my fingers.)

1280px-2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So - acknowledging the problems of citing to Wikipedia (it's so easy, tho!) - one of the things I notice about the charts are the different zero lines. 

*.  In the 'Holocene Temperature Variations' chart the last 2,000 years are well below the zero.

*.   In the 'Global Average Temperature Change' chart, the zero line is set to the Little Ice Age. 

So I'm not sure we are getting a like presentation of data - even if the top chart puts a 2016 pointer on the right side of the chart showing current Temps elevated quite a bit above the 'optimum'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mikegarrison said:

 

No need to argue about quoting from Wikipedia.

Well - unfortunately, it doesn't really speak to the 'what zero' problem I raise above.  Take for instance this:

PowerPoint Presentation (ipcc.ch)

It's the Regional Fact Sheet for Africa.  The first 'alarm' reads:

Quote

"Mean temperatures and hot extremes have emerged above natural variability, relative to 1850–1900, in all land regions in Africa (high confidence)."

Thus - it's focusing on how Now differs from the coldest period in modern history - the Little Ice Age - and then proceeds to make predictions from there.

 I'll acknowledge that the "Little Ice Age" has been viewed as a regional event - or rather, more correctly, it happened to different regions at different times.  The Little Ice Age Wasn’t Global, but Current Climate Change Is - Eos

Quote

"For instance, during the Little Ice Age, minimum temperatures hit the eastern Pacific during the 15th century, northwestern Europe and southeastern North America during the 17th century, and most remaining regions during the mid-19th century. For the previous climate epochs, the spatial coherence is even less significant."

But I think it fair to say that the period leading up to 1850 was generally cooler throughout the world than it had been during, say the Medieval Warm Period - which if the one chart above is to be believed - was actually cooler than the 'climactic optimum' of 8,000 to 4,000 years ago.  (I'm also not certain that characterization is correct/fair, either -- was it really optimum?)

Thus setting an acknowledged 'cold' period as the 'zero' is a fraught metric.  While it ties in with the rise of industrialization, it gives a false (to me) sense of how the industrial revolution has or may be affecting climate.  Co-occurrence is not evidence of co-relation much less causality.

(I feel it proper to remind readers that I'm hardly a proponent of allowing rampant pollution to continue, and in fact am a huge fan of our efforts to solve our various energy needs through less-to-non polluting means).

The thing is - the IPCC report is a collective effort to convince lawmakers that climactic change is happening, that our industrial and commercial pollution is contributing to that and that actions need to be taken (through legislation or regulation) to stop and mitigate the harm we are causing to our environment.  It is a political document, with a purpose.  To that end, people want to present information in the most alarming way possible in order to get leaders off their duffs and actually do something.

Problem is - if they're using a particularly cold time as the zero... that's neither fair nor accurate.  It exposes the valuable efforts to rein in pollution to criticism that human activity is not the only process at work and that they're being alarmist (the dog-whistle of industry to avoid anti-pollution measures). 

It would be false to say that human activity caused the Little Ice Age period, wouldn't it?  Thus stating that human activity since that time is the sole cause of warming is likely incorrect as well.

 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A quick visit to another Wiki page shows a temperature track based upon Greenland ice cores that roughly correlates to the 'climactic optimum' chart - but lacks a 'zero' line.

Evolution_of_temperature_in_the_Post-Gla

If you were to draw a line for 'zero' - where would it be?

  • If you put it along the last 500 years... there's a whole lot of the Holocene above the zero. 
  • If you roughly average from the period before the 8.2 cold event and today... the last 500 years is quite a bit below the zero. 

You can do this with MS Paint or some other program pretty easily

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Use the zero-based absolute scale.

The span is +/- 20 K, the average is 233 K.

So, the relative variation (sorry for incorrent English terms) ~8.5%, and gets ~2% since 10 kya.

Compare to the Sun luminosity variation. It's tenths of percent or so.

So, the natural factors are significant.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

It would be false to say that human activity caused the Little Ice Age period, wouldn't it?  Thus stating that human activity since that time is the sole cause of warming is likely incorrect as well.

Joe, that's nonsense.

We all know that human beings have not caused any climate changes on Earth for the roughly 4.4 billion years before there were human beings. That has NOTHING to do with proving that we therefore can't be causing them now. It's just nonsense. This is nothing but your (fairly obvious) bias speaking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Use the zero-based absolute scale.

The span is +/- 20 K, the average is 233 K.

So, the relative variation (sorry for incorrent English terms) ~8.5%, and gets ~2% since 10 kya.

Compare to the Sun luminosity variation. It's tenths of percent or so.

So, the natural factors are significant.

I get that - but the 'zero' I'm talking about is the one that people are using within the Climate Change argument; it appears to be the average line drawn to make arguments about what will or won't happen if temperature varies from that line... i.e. what is called 'normal'.  

Example:  The recession of mountain glaciers, has been used to provide qualitative support to the rise in global temperatures since the late 19th century.

 

 

52 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

Joe, that's nonsense.

We all know that human beings have not caused any climate changes on Earth for the roughly 4.4 billion years before there were human beings. That has NOTHING to do with proving that we therefore can't be causing them now. It's just nonsense. This is nothing but your (fairly obvious) bias speaking.

Grin - my 'fairly obvious bias' should be that the arguments made need to be factual in order to not create resistance to facts.  

I've nowhere suggested that humans should be free to continue wanton pollution of our environment.  But, again, when someone says 'humans are the primary cause of global warming since the start of the industrial revolution (or 1850s, etc.)' I have to quibble.

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I get that - but the 'zero' I'm talking about is the one that people are using within the Climate Change argument; it appears to be the average line drawn to make arguments about what will or won't happen if temperature varies from that line... i.e. what is called 'normal'.  

I appreciate your calling attention to that--I missed it. Just from eyeballing the graphs, they appear to be offset by about 0.25 degC.

However, I'll make the point again that it's the rate of change that's the significant factor. Of course species can adapt to broad average temperature swings. How fast they can do that is critical to survival. In human terms, we might be looking at 2 Billion deaths and a WHOLE lot of violence. There's a subset of people that welcome that future, and I personally am not charitably disposed to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@FleshJeb points out that the rate of change seen in recent years is not only dramatic but also dangerous.  I'll not quibble with this - because I agree with him that if the predicted rate of change is correct - the real cost is unimaginably brutal. I'll also tie this in with my arguments in another thread that I'm confident that we as a species should survive our worst human-caused calamity - with the acknowledgement that society as we know it won't.  Like him - I abhor people who welcome such a potential future. 

There is a reason why I quibble with some of the interpretation of the data.  I've explained in previous pages that I perceive a danger in overselling.  But there is another problem: the canonization of the impression that the worst is already happening and inevitable. (That interpretation may be true - but it also may not be... And thus is worthy of discussion.) 

While this article does not mention Anthropomorphic Climate Change - it does speak about what happens in popular / large fields of science: https://www.pnas.org/content/118/41/e2021636118

"a deluge of papers does not lead to turnover of central ideas in a field, but rather to ossification of Canon" 

My point here being - this is a topic worthy of discussion, one with an extant risk of canonization and the concurrent risk of labeling dissenters as heretical.  I continue to hope we can get past that and discuss the data as well as differing interpretations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Anthropomorphic Climate Change

Anthropomorphic Climate Change would be like if climate change were a Marvel supervillain. I think you mean "anthropogenic" ("man-caused").

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like the troubles with low fresh dihydrogen monoxide will chase the biosphere long before the problems with excess of the carbon dioxide.

And unlike the doubtful human role in the latter, the former is exactly by humans, and nothing can be done to it except preparing for the future biosphere reconstruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mikegarrison said:

Anthropomorphic Climate Change would be like if climate change were a Marvel supervillain. I think you mean "anthropogenic" ("man-caused").

Hah!  - you are correct: whiskey and football!

Edit -- if anyone missed it, the Colts/Ravens game was fantastic.

 

56 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

It looks like the troubles with low fresh dihydrogen monoxide will chase the biosphere long before the problems with excess of the carbon dioxide.

And unlike the doubtful human role in the latter, the former is exactly by humans, and nothing can be done to it except preparing for the future biosphere reconstruction.

I dunno... many models predict quite a bit of fresh dihydrogen monoxide in unexpected places; likely those least able to accept it in high quantities and short timeframes... although in extremis, the hippos may once again squish about in the Sahara.

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

many models predict quite a bit of fresh dihydrogen monoxide in unexpected places; likely those least able to accept it in high quantities and short timeframes... although in extremis, the hippos may once again squish about in the Sahara.

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

Order the tables by the median age columns, watch the geography, and remember that everyone below 30 will likely give at least one child within a decade or two.

The "median age" is the age where a half of the population is younger, another one is older.

Can they keep doubling the water sources every 10..20 years, when the existing ones are "90%" depleted?

The water desalination requires energy and plastic, i.e. carbon dioxide production.

So, the water crysis will chase much earlier than the carbon one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

So, the water crysis will chase much earlier than the carbon one

Ah - I understand your argument now.  Yeah, water crisis is no joke.  I used to live a county over from this place:

 https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/08/05/lake-oroville-reaches-all-time-low-level-hydroelectric-plant-will-shut-down-for-first-time-ever/amp/

The changing rainfall is probably one of the most persuasive arguments for action. Some places, like Italy and the Middle East (in articles linked several posts above) are getting deluged while others are seeing long term droughts. 

 

In other news, this:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/11/world/climate-change-attribution-gap/index.html

(Research focuses on the wealthy / Northern Hemisphere countries and is missing data & repercussions from the less developed parts of the world) 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The changing rainfall is probably one of the most persuasive arguments for action

The rainfall is caused by toxic chemicals (heavy metals like silver, halogenides, etc) and affects the local bioequilibrium.

So, the artificial mass raining will make the plowlands dangerous and the food chains broken.

Also, if take a look at the globe,  between 25N and 25S (so, actually, to the South from 25 N) every land which is not flooded by water and covered by jungles, quickly turns into a desert, so the agriculture requires a lot of industrial efforts there. So, the raining may help in local places, but not widely.
And that's exactly where the countries of median age < 30 are placed.

Edited by kerbiloid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

European satellites show massive methane leaks 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL1N2DZ0KI

"early results show leaky oil and gas industry infrastructure is responsible for far more of the methane in the atmosphere than previously thought" 

Color me unsurprised 

 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

European satellites show massive methane leaks 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL1N2DZ0KI

"early results show leaky oil and gas industry infrastructure is responsible for far more of the methane in the atmosphere than previously thought" 

Color me unsurprised 

 

Yeah, the media attention has been going on for a while. From what I understand, because methane in the EU comes primarily from farming (at least, under the existing inventory rules) and farming isn't covered under "cap and trade", EU has a far less sophisticated and comprehensive approach to methane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...