Jump to content

The Analysis of Sea Levels.


mikegarrison
 Share

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

The post-Ice Age ice melting was definitely a series of temperature changes, too.

So, why expect what didn't happen at much greater climatic catastrophes?

Why expect that their strengthening/weakening isn't cyclic?

The models describe their correlation based on a 100 year long history.
The climate changes were taking from centuries to millenia.

Life adapts when  change happens over thousands of years. Not so much, when it happens over mere decades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Life adapts when  change happens over thousands of years. Not so much, when it happens over mere decades.

That's the point of the question I posed above.  How fast did DDT affect life, vs how fast do you really expect anthropogenic climate change to adversely affect us on a species wide scale?

Chemicals are decades... climate is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

That's the point of the question I posed above.  How fast did DDT affect life, vs how fast do you really expect anthropogenic climate change to adversely affect us on a species wide scale?

Chemicals are decades... climate is not.

This is where the ~20 year lag time is lethal- we have to act  5 presidential administrations before a crisis to have any hope of heading it off. 

And it's looking like the world is having a hard time meeting that kind of challange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

This is where the ~20 year lag time is lethal- we have to act  5 presidential administrations before a crisis to have any hope of heading it off. 

And it's looking like the world is having a hard time meeting that kind of challange.

I'm afraid, 20 years later the world will forget about the sea levels and carbon dioxide due to the water crysis in "median age < 30 years" countries, and caused by the starvation total extermination of equatorial to tropical flora and fauna, including the totally eaten Serengeti animals, and the jungles turned into plowlands for several years, then into a desert by sun.

A half-century later the people will return to the carbon dioxide, of course, but from absolutely different starting position.

P.S.
And of course, the plastic bags in the coffee shops are a very important part of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Rakaydos said:

Life adapts when  change happens over thousands of years. Not so much, when it happens over mere decades.

The ice age end causes an dieoff, probably way worse than we realize because at the ice age end we are interesting in the cool large mammals like mammoths and sabertooths, not frogs and butterflies.   I say for larger animals couple of thousands yeas is an short time to change. All of Americas mega-fauna outside the bison was killed off the humans arrived again probably lots more less exiting stuff to. Now being smart and adaptive helps adapting without evolving, humans is prime example here but raccoons and plenty of birds do well. Not to talk about mice and rats and their main enemy cats.
Now loads of more species would gone extinct the last 150 year has it not been for conservation. 
It raises an question do uplifting Raccoons give better recycling or just much better thieves? 
0-raccoon-bandit-cartoon-clipart.jpg
Yes they will be cuetrer and don't really need the mask.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

The ice age end causes an dieoff,

Not because of storms. Because the tundrosteppe had gone, and other climatic change.

And that wasn't a 5 cm change of the ocean level.
It was melting of 1..2 km thick ice layer and raise of ocean by from 20 to 140 meters in different places.

Compared to that, these 5 cm look somewhat overestimated.

17 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

It raises an question do uplifting Raccoons give better recycling or just much better thieves? 

Raccoons can into rockets.

Spoiler

Screen-Shot-2020-12-24-at-5.05.36-PM.png

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Chemicals are decades... climate is not.

Depends on your definition of “climate”. Regardless of its potential affects on extreme weather events and the sea levels, burning of fossil fuels is causing ocean acidification. This can have dangerous effects on the ability of shellfish to produce their shells, along with other developmental effects on different sea creatures. Eggs of certain calcifying creatures just die several days after having been laid due to the pH level.

In places where calcifying organisms form the base of the food web, the entire food web is at risk, such as in the Arctic where commercial fishing is expected to become impossible, which of course would have its own effects on human society.

I say “is” because unlike climate and sea level rise predictions, the pH value of the oceans can be measured “physically in front of you” (and based on that can then be accurately predicted several decades later based on the existing trends).

It’s sad that ocean acidification is called “the other CO2 problem”, because it is basically impossible to argue against (it is based on what die-hard climate change detractors would call “real evidence”) and if it was the primary target for climate activists, the global warming issue would theoretically be automatically solved as well, because you basically need to take the same steps to stop acidification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

if it was the primary target for climate activists, the global warming issue would theoretically be automatically solved as well, because you basically need to take the same steps to stop acidification

This touches on some of the arguments I made back at the start of this thread - when I objected to the 'sky is falling' alarmisms used by some people.  There are some really good things we can do, simple things, like pointing to air quality.  Things that people will respond to: things that are real, immediate and easily understood... not esoteric and with a range of possible outcomes from unpleasant to DeathStar.

Tell China they have to stop industrialization because they are contributing to global climate change and you get ignored.  Let the Chinese people get sick of worse than 70s LA smog and demand clean air for themselves and their children... (The easiest fix is less reliance on coal... meaning more modernization and more prestige...) And zwoop - we are moving in the right direction. 

It's like some of the consumer side demands in the US resulting in eliminating or reducing DDT, PCBs, BP-A, freon, etc. 

Realistic talk and education about consequences is powerful. 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

Ironically, China is actually doing more about their CO2 footprint than America is.

I wasn't making that comparison.

My point is that every nation views the issue through different lenses.  Some might say that Europe and America promoting ACC and calling for the developing countries to cut emissions equates to trying to slow their development and preserve the status quo.  (Forcing them to skip the intermediate, cheap and effective use of coal and fossil fuels in favor of buying more expensive, non-native low pollution technology similarly keeps them as client states). 

External pressure to places like India and China will not be effective.  Any more than trying to get Europe and the UN to pressure the US.  There are too many benefits to living in an industrial society, where so many more people than any other time in history can enjoy 'plenty' that no rational nation will ever forego those benefits. 

It's when the people want change and say they are willing to take a different approach, that they have a competing rational interest to merely 'cheap and effective' that change will occur. 

 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

My point is that every nation views the issue through different lenses.  Some might say that Europe and America promoting ACC and calling for the developing countries to cut emissions equates to trying to slow their development and preserve the status quo.  (Forcing them to skip the intermediate, cheap and effective use of coal and fossil fuels in favor of buying more expensive, non-native low pollution technology similarly keeps them as client states). 

External pressure to places like India and China will not be effective.  Any more than trying to get Europe and the UN to pressure the US.  There are too many benefits to living in an industrial society, where so many more people than any other time in history can enjoy 'plenty' that no rational nation will ever forego those benefits. 

Problem is, the accepted approach of a sustainability omerta of sorts seems to get results, whereas leaving it to individual states to get onboard opens up the potential for regulatory arbitrage and a race to the bottom.

Meme all you want about this autumn's energy crisis in Europe, but EU's planned carbon levies on imports (despite being somewhat dubious from the standpoint of WTO regulations, if not an explicit violation) have Russia bum-rushing to introduce its own cap-and-trade system and get it EU-certified. Dunno how it's going to go with China or the US - I hear the remnants of the Green New Deal are getting shafted in order to preserve the other big spending initiatuves - but this sets a precedent.

Besides, much of the developing world shouldn't be a problem when the two big global hegemons - US and China - are both loudly in favor of emissions control. If anything, the local elites are more receptive to such rhetoric and will only be more zealous in promoting the agenda, to the detriment of their subjects if need be - especially with all the trillions in cheap funding that the Adepts of the Green talk about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

(Forcing them to skip the intermediate, cheap and effective use of coal and fossil fuels in favor of buying more expensive, non-native low pollution technology similarly keeps them as client states). 

If a country doesn't have its own fossil fuel reserves, it's also functionally a client state. I think wind and solar are cheaper than coal now anyway--and that's before you factor in the negative externalities like air pollution causing respiratory illnesses.

I'll grant that they won't be doing steel smelting on wind and solar.

I think the real issue is that the extracted resources of developing countries have traditionally been sold for far too cheaply, and whatever proceeds are left go to a small controlling group, rather than benefitting that country as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/china-cop26-beijings-coal-addiction-key-climate-summit-rcna3277

Couple of interesting lines in the article that explicate spin

"And while China is the world’s No. 1 carbon dioxide emitter, it isn’t even in the top 40 when those emissions are broken down per person. The worst large countries in terms of pollution per capita are Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada and the U.S.

Many international experts say there is also an inherent unfairness in global emissions calculations, which are based on what countries produce rather than what they consume. Put simply, the U.S. and others outsource much of their cheap and dirty manufacturing to China, allowing Americans to buy iPhones and Nike sneakers without taking responsibility for the carbon... "

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The worst large countries in terms of pollution per capita are Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada and the U.S.

Saudi Arabia and US could use the soot to make some clouds and cool the desert.

Canada to cover the snow and melt it.

Australia for both cooling the desert and melting Antarctica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Earlier today I was thinking about a book I read months ago about how humanity goes into different "phases" when introduced to their ultimate demise. In the book it was essentially overwhelming alien annihilation beyond imagination. (slight spoilers for the Three Body series will follow)

 

Essentially the phases go:

"Yay aliens we aren't alone".

To "Oh crap, they wanna fight, LETS GO"

To "Wait... what is that, OH NO THEY ARE BASICALLY GODS WE HAVE NO CHANCE!"

 

At that point, humanity essentially spirals into a tailspin of chaos, with a rough timeline of 400 years before the aliens show up and end humanity. 

There's hibernation technology that was originally outlawed, as people were scared too many people would use it to "travel to the future". However, after the news of future annihilation no one wants to do that, as everyone realizes right now is the best time to be alive, as the future is incredible bleak. People change their wills, stop having kids, and others prepare finances for their existing offspring to pass to their great-great-* grand children, who will meet their demise as they realize things are going to really suck. I think its rather far fetched people would think that far ahead, but if timelines where shorter I think real-world people would take things into account. 

 

The book is fiction, but such ideas got me thinking about all the stuff we have right now, just not existing in 150+ years. Obviously god-like alien annihilation is different than the worse affects of climate change, but it is gonna suck for a lot of people. In the book once the bleakness sets in, humanity essentially turns to authoritarianism to basically force humanity to prepare for that bleak future. It got me thinking of such stresses on humanity possibly leading toward such actions in the real world, at least at some scale. Its one thing to tell industries to stop screwing up the environment, its another to give power to a government, or entity to force them to stop.

 

Its at least an intriguing and frightening idea that is a little to "real" for my liking and I honestly don't like thinking to much about such events transpiring in my lifetime...

 

 

 

Edited by MKI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MKI said:

Obviously god-like alien annihilation is different than the worse affects of climate change, but it is gonna suck for a lot of people. In the book once the bleakness sets in, humanity essentially turns to authoritarianism to basically force humanity to prepare for that bleak future. It got me thinking of such stresses on humanity possibly leading toward such actions in the real world, at least at some scale. Its one thing to tell industries to stop screwing up the environment, its another to give power to a government, or entity to force them to stop.

Everyone flirts with enlightened authoritarianism at some point when they have a pet cause. It's only natural to pass through a phase where you think the world could be perfect if everyone just listened to you and obeyed (and agreed... at which point we're in the waters of full-fledged totalitarianism).

Indeed, a flavor for an enlightened authoritarianism or epistocracy is the strawman version of the, for the lack of a better generic label, global Greens. I do believe a lot of people with a preachy and crusading inclination have found the climate agenda a good excuse to be insufferable and vile - the alarmist version provides an absolute and urgent moral imperative, an end go justify any means.

However, I don't thing a nefarious New Green World Order is plausible, first and foremost because it's a dead horse trope that has already been kicked to death.

Besides, Liu Cixin is a very interesting (by Western standards) character that's probably letting his political views seep into his books. Do look up his WaPo interview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DDE said:

Besides, Liu Cixin is a very interesting (by Western standards) character that's probably letting his political views seep into his books. Do look up his WaPo interview.

All writers have an element of this, which is made very clear with the overall end of the series. (which I wont spoil ;D)

 

3 minutes ago, DDE said:

Everyone flirts with enlightened authoritarianism at some point when they have a pet cause. It's only natural to pass through a phase where you think the world could be perfect if everyone just listened to you and obeyed (and agreed... at which point we're in the waters of full-fledged totalitarianism).

I don't think the goal would be "perfection", but rather desperation. As some point some people somewhere will get fed up and do something beyond sticking to the norm. At that point humanity is too far gone as they are seeing 200+ years of it building up to really reverse the effects. But stress creates opportunities for those that would like to flirt with those ideas, and I'm sure there will be takers, as there always is.

I do think right now conditions aren't anywhere near the extremes. Sure places catch on fire more often, things are a little hotter, and there seems to be more heat waves and weird weather. I'm thinking of the long term worse case scenarios, where large portions of the Earth are dealing with severe weather events affecting them 24/7. Something as extreme, but as simple as 1 really bad heat wave in a condense area with a failed power grid could kill millions. Such sorta scenarios aren't exactly totally fiction, they just haven't happened at that scale yet.

Obviously I wouldn't want it to ever get that bad, but then I wont be around when it is that bad, if it were to get that bad.

Hopefully by then we can go over and screw up Mars instead ;D

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DDE said:

India

There is literally no chance of India becoming anything but a failed state and possibly a number of states after a brutal season of Civil War without an inexpensive way to catch up. 

Trying to force them to cut emissions looks like a death sentence from their perspective with far more certain and immediate casualties than the possibility of a changed climate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should be building and handing out Small Modular Reactors like Halloween candy. In the long run, GIVING them away would be cheaper than dealing with the economic fallout of runaway climate change. The defense spending ALONE necessary to deal with that world would justify the cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

There is literally no chance of India becoming anything but a failed state and possibly a number of states after a brutal season of Civil War without an inexpensive way to catch up. 

Trying to force them to cut emissions looks like a death sentence from their perspective with far more certain and immediate casualties than the possibility of a changed climate. 

Pick your poison.

This seems to make sense. The desertification of the Middle East and the Levant is a major factor feeding the conflicts there. It's accelerated by the gradual decay of the ancient canal systems, so the region is essentially post-apocalyptic already, thousands of years of artifice being done.

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...