Jump to content

The Analysis of Sea Levels.


Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, sevenperforce said:

hear scientists say "we are already in the worst-case scenario" and assume the scientists are talking about the timing of it rather than the overall endpoint. Thus it suggests a higher level of alarmism on the part of the scientists than is actually there, which leads to people ignoring the realities of it all.

A lot of truth here.  I don't think that the distinction is well made or communicated well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

That challenge is the biggest problem I've read re CO2 scrubbing is the follow on carbon sequestration issue - once you have captured it... Where does it go? I've seen proposals for everything from making rocks to pumping it into oceanic mud / crusts. 

Nothing is ever easy 

I totally agree, that is why its would only work near the gas fields as you are pumping down water to create an back pressure, however I guess co2 don't work well for this or it would be pretty obvious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the full thread, and honestly I don't care to. So, pardon me if someone else already brought this up, or if I sound stupid.

So, first, shouldn't more CO2 be absorbed by increased plant growth? I mean, CO2 is literal plant food. Can't our current greenery soak it up? And if not, is planting new green areas an option? I haven't really heard this suggested. Then again, I personally spend exactly zero minutes a year worrying about climate change, so I may have missed something.

And second, sevenperforce's graphs of solar activity and temperatures back on page two are really interesting. There's a correlation, which is logical, since the single biggest factor in climate is the sun. My other question is what percentage of our current global warming is due to the sun and which percentage is anthropogenic?

Edited by SOXBLOX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

My other question is what percentage of our current global warming is due to the sun and which percentage is anthropogenic

No one knows.  This is why it is so hard.  Yet of all the processes, we can only influence one - so that's the one we should address. 

14 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

So, first, shouldn't more CO2 be absorbed by increased plant growth

Logically, yes... But we don't have a good idea on how this actually works.  Plus there is some concern that once sequestered in plants, what happens when they burn or decay?  The other ecological problem is that some places are good for trees and others are not.  Blanket tree planting in the wrong areas can have adverse ecological effects. 

 

Again - nothing is easy 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SOXBLOX said:

So, first, shouldn't more CO2 be absorbed by increased plant growth? I mean, CO2 is literal plant food. Can't our current greenery soak it up? And if not, is planting new green areas an option? I haven't really heard this suggested. Then again, I personally spend exactly zero minutes a year worrying about climate change, so I may have missed something.

Good question.

What we know from our study of the carbon cycle over the last billion years or so is that plant growth has difficulty catching up with increased CO2 levels. Plant growth levels are more limited by access to light and fresh water than they are to CO2, and with global temperatures rising and droughts becoming more common, access to fresh water is going to be the biggest problem with that approach.

Moreover, most CO2-scrubbing activity is done not by plants, but by marine life -- algae, seaweed, and the like. The oceans are already full of carbon-scrubbing organisms, and here the limiting factor is access to sunlight (since the algae, phytoplankton, etc. needs to be close to the surface in order to get light). This is actually one of the biggest concerns for a runaway feedback loop. Marine life that provides CO2 scrubbing is sensitive to temperature. If the ocean temperature rose too high, it might be curtail the life cycle of that marine life, leading to dramatically decreased ocean CO2 scrubbing capacity, leading to higher temperatures and a runaway loop that could cause a major extinction event within mere decades.

Granted, that particular outcome doesn't seem terribly likely right now, but it's still worrisome.

There is some good news, though. The most promising carbon capture technology uses marine algae kept in tanks, and it works very well. It's just not being done on a broad enough scale to make much of a difference.

11 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

sevenperforce's graphs of solar activity and temperatures back on page two are really interesting. There's a correlation, which is logical, since the single biggest factor in climate is the sun. My other question is what percentage of our current global warming is due to the sun and which percentage is anthropogenic?

The answer is that the current warming is entirely anthropogenic. Solar activity went up in the 1780s, down in the early 1800s, back up slightly, down a little around 1900, up between 1940 and 1990, and is now on its way back down to its lowest levels since the 1840s. Our planet's temperature is increasing due to the increase in carbon dioxide, not due to solar activity.

Just now, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

No one knows.  This is why it is so hard.  Yet of all the processes, we can only influence one - so that's the one we should address.

I would argue that we do know. Solar activity has been steadily dropping since the 1990s and the temperature has been steadily rising. It ain't the sun; it's us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

So, first, shouldn't more CO2 be absorbed by increased plant growth? I mean, CO2 is literal plant food. Can't our current greenery soak it up? And if not, is planting new green areas an option? I haven't really heard this suggested. Then again, I personally spend exactly zero minutes a year worrying about climate change, so I may have missed something.

So first, adding more trees/plants/algae to the equation is on the table to help mitigate the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere as you are correct, CO2 is plant food. (Yummy)

Lets assume we will try to plant enough trees/greenery to limit warming to just 1.5 pre-industrial levels by 2050. This will require roughly 1 billion hectares, or 2.4 billion acres. As a real world comparison this is the size of the United States. This obviously is an estimation, that I'm taking directly from this article: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/examining-the-viability-of-planting-trees-to-help-mitigate-climate-change/but those numbers aren't exactly rosy. Nor does this even consider existing deforestation efforts or consider if you can even grow plants/trees where you plant them during the time it takes to grow and start seeing enough effects. 

 

post with graphs as a reference ^

 

14 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

And second, sevenperforce's graphs of solar activity and temperatures back on page two are really interesting. There's a correlation, which is logical, since the single biggest factor in climate is the sun. My other question is what percentage of our current global warming is due to the sun and which percentage is anthropogenic?

The 2nd graph in question is somewhat misleading in its relation to earth's climate. In the sense the graph's Y axis represents sunspots per year. Indirectly, more sunspots = cooler sun, as sunspots are "cool spots" on the sun, so more sunspots = less energy from the sun on Earth. 

A more clear example is taking the overall energy coming from the sun and plotting it against Earth's temperature as seen here:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

2167

 

This generally means the Earth is getting hotter, while the sun has actually gotten cooler, relative to how much energy it is sending our way. Because of this, we can't directly blame the sun for increased temperatures on Earth.   

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MKI said:

This generally means the Earth is getting hotter, while the sun has actually gotten cooler, relative to how much energy it is sending our way. Because of this, we can't directly blame the sun for increased temperatures on Earth.   

This is also probably stupid, but I'm just thinking out loud here...

Is there any possibility of a weird, counterintuitive mechanism that would increase the surface temperature when yearly insolation decreases? Maybe, something to do with evaporation from oceans decreasing and lower water vapor levels letting more sunlight through? That sounds like it would undo itself, though, but maybe some other factor contributes? IDK, just wondering.

Surely this idea isn't so ridiculous that it's never been considered before...right?

Edited by SOXBLOX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The IPCC discusses the role of anthropogenic (human) forcings versus natural forcings. See: Summary for Policymakers (SPM), pages 5 and 6.

Quote

The evidence for human influence on the climate system has grown since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3). Anthropogenic forcings have likely made a substantial contribution to surface temperature increases since the mid-20th century over every continental region except Antarctica4 . Anthropogenic influences have likely affected the global water cycle since 1960 and contributed to the retreat of glaciers since the 1960s and to the increased surface melting of the Greenland ice sheet since 1993. Anthropogenic influences have very likely contributed to Arctic sea-ice loss since 1979 and have very likely made a substantial contribution to increases in global upper ocean heat content (0–700 m) and to global mean sea level rise observed since the 1970s.

igdz2r9.png

Spoiler

Assessed likely ranges (whiskers) and their mid-points (bars) for warming trends over the 1951–2010 period from well-mixed greenhouse gases, other anthropogenic forcings (including the cooling effect of aerosols and the effect of land use change), combined anthropogenic forcings, natural forcings and natural internal climate variability (which is the element of climate variability that arises spontaneously within the climate system even in the absence of forcings). The observed surface temperature change is shown in black, with the 5 to 95% uncertainty range due to observational uncertainty. The attributed warming ranges (colours) are based on observations combined with climate model simulations, in order to estimate the contribution of an individual external forcing to the observed warming. The contribution from the combined anthropogenic forcings can be estimated with less uncertainty than the contributions from greenhouse gases and from other anthropogenic forcings separately. This is because these two contributions partially compensate, resulting in a combined signal that is better constrained by observations.

The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood of an outcome or a result: virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%, likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, more unlikely than likely 0–<50%, extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SOXBLOX said:

This is also probably stupid, but I'm just thinking out loud here...

Is there any possibility of a weird, counterintuitive mechanism that would increase the surface temperature when yearly insolation decreases? Maybe, something to do with evaporation from oceans decreasing and lower water vapor levels letting more sunlight through? That sounds like it would undo itself, though, but maybe some other factor contributes? IDK, just wondering.

Not stupid, but also not a new idea. This is something that climate scientists have been studying very closely for a very long time.

The good news is that we have a LOT of data to work with. We can go back in ice cores and fossil layers and coral reef samples and determine the CO2 levels and global temperatures at any time. We can also look at Earth's position relative to the sun over millions of years to see when the Earth was getting more or less solar irradiance. As you might expect, these numbers line up:

800px-MilankovitchCyclesOrbitandCores.pn

This is just the data for approximately the last million years. You can see that there are global cycles in temperature; those cycles line up with the solar cycles resulting from changes in Earth's orbit. The more energy the Earth gets from the sun, the hotter the Earth gets. It's a fairly complex set of variables, of course, but we have enough data to resolve it very, very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@sevenperforce I have no clue what that data represents. Do you have a clearer example (there's gotta be a more user friendly version out there), or can explain it more?

The last thing I'd want on my graph is like 20+ math notations and someone saying "See here's the data, believe me!"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, SOXBLOX said:

Is there any possibility of a weird, counterintuitive mechanism that would increase the surface temperature when yearly insolation decreases? Maybe, something to do with evaporation from oceans decreasing and lower water vapor levels letting more sunlight through? That sounds like it would undo itself, though, but maybe some other factor contributes? IDK, just wondering.

Its possible there is some insane convoluted not understood reason average temperatures are rising that isn't due to increased greenhouse gases from human activity. For the sake of the argument lets assume we are in the matrix and the "player" increased climate difficulty by editing the save file. Sure we could try to prove all of that, or take what we do know, which is increased greenhouses gasses = higher temperatures due to the greenhouse effect. 

Its easier to take Occam's razor to this one and just blame the humans. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MKI said:

@sevenperforce I have no clue what that data represents. Do you have a clearer example (there's gotta be a more user friendly version out there), or can explain it more?

The last thing I'd want on my graph is like 20+ math notations and someone saying "See here's the data, believe me!"

Sorry, haha. Let me cut it down to size.

Milankovitch.png

The green line up top, e, represents the eccentricity of Earth's orbit. KSP players will be very familiar with eccentricity, but for those who haven't actually played, it represents the circularity (or lack thereof) of a particular orbit. When the eccentricity is close to zero the orbit is very circular, and so the heat from the sun is fairly constant over the course of the year. When the eccentricity is higher (up to 0.05 on this graph), the orbit is less circular, and so there is much higher solar insolation during part of the year. This is the biggest climate forcing function for our planet.

Thanks to resonances between Saturn and Jupiter, the eccentricity of Earth's orbit is on a cycle of approximately 100,000 years.

The red and green lines at the bottom represent global temperature (red comes from sedimentary isotope analysis and green comes from ice core analysis). Using these different datasets, scientists are able to reconstruct how insolation impacts global temperature.

Here's basically what happens. During periods of low eccentricity, the oceans are cooler, and so they are able to directly absorb a higher amount of carbon dioxide (yes, gases can be dissolved into liquids; that's how fish get their oxygen, after all). Once the eccentricity of Earth's orbit starts to increase and solar insolation starts to spike at certain times of the year, the oceans warm rapidly, releasing their absorbed carbon dioxide and causing a surge in global temperature. However, once the oceans run out of carbon dioxide and the eccentricity of Earth's orbit starts to decline again, the ocean temperatures begin to cool, slowly absorbing more and more carbon dioxide.

The last of these surges was in the Medieval Warm Period, so we should be in the cooling-down part of the cycle. Unfortunately, we've been releasing millions of tonnes of carbon that was buried deep underground in oil reserves, and so even though the eccentricity of Earth's orbit is decreasing and we SHOULD be cooling down, there is simply too much carbon being released for the oceans to absorb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So essentially, the oceans normally soak up CO2  when they are colder due to being further from the Sun due to Earth's eccentricity. Later when Earth gets closer, the oceans warm up and released the absorbed CO2. 

Currently we are actually at the point in eccentricity where the ocean's should be soaking up the CO2, but we aren't seeing that due to increased CO2 being released.

 

So this is at least a hit against Earth's orbit eccentricity being a factor in Earth getting warmer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, MKI said:

So essentially, the oceans normally soak up CO2  when they are colder due to being further from the Sun due to Earth's eccentricity. Later when Earth gets closer, the oceans warm up and released the absorbed CO2. 

Currently we are actually at the point in eccentricity where the ocean's should be soaking up the CO2, but we aren't seeing that due to increased CO2 being released.

 

So this is at least a hit against Earth's orbit eccentricity being a factor in Earth getting warmer. 

The oceans *are* "soaking up" CO2. This is measurable. They just can't keep up. Also, they can't keep doing it forever.

(It's also really bad for certain forms of sea life. Anything that uses calcium to make shells is weakened by the increased acidity of the ocean due to all the carbonic acid.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I should add that plankton is one of those types of sea life that is affected by rising acidity. Unfortunately it is also one of the major bases for the ocean food pyramid. Which means we could be seeing some problems with our ocean-based food supply.

https://news.mit.edu/2015/ocean-acidification-phytoplankton-0720

Edited by mikegarrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

we are already in the worst-case scenario, and that will not change unless we take drastic action

I'm going to quibble again. Because this is false.

I tried to express this earlier and we agreed that you are not suggesting it is imminent - but there is a flavor to how these arguments are presented that are counterproductive. 

It's impossible to read that sentence without thinking you are being alarmist.  I know you have thought more deeply about it than many, but I perceive a danger in overstating the problem.

Just as I perceive a danger from overstating the solution - demanding 'drastic action' is counterproductive towards finding real and permanent solutions. 

Let's be frank.  The situation could be a whole lot worse.  It does not take much imagination to know this - but beyond that it is kind of (insulting is the wrong word - let's use ignoring ) ignoring the good things and efforts that people are making. 

I've mentioned personal choice as shifting demand - but let's look at the bogeyman. Take oil and gas.  Easy to demonize in the whole 'climate change is going to kill us all' feedback loop... But I know quite a few people in the industry - and not one who twists his mustache and cackles as he knowingly poisons the world.  Instead, they are caught in a balancing act of fulfilling a need, efficiently, profitably and as responsibly as possible.  The problem is that the world has a voracious appetite for energy.  There are many costs associated with this, and people who previously only wanted cheap and abundant are now saying that they do not want to bear all of the costs that made it economically cheap - we are paying attention to the hidden costs and putting value on more complex issues.  Engineers and managers are reacting to the desires of the market and working to clean up their products. 

As mentioned previously - were your 'drastic action' the immediate global cessation of all use of petrochemicals - you have to know that the cost in human life would be catastrophic, not on a timescale of decades - but rather months.  I presume that you recognize this. 

We don't need a drastic solution to a gradually occurring potentiality if it causes massive harm to people in the short term - we need a mature, reasoned, informed response to what is happening now in light of what we know and project could occur along with a concerted effort to transition off of polluting energy sources in favor of renewable, non polluting sources.  This is actually happening.  Except for the fact that it is not easy and there is no magic solution waiting in the wings. 

 

Edited by JoeSchmuckatelli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I'm going to quibble again. Because this is false.

I tried to express this earlier and we agreed that you are not suggesting it is imminent - but there is a flavor to how these arguments are presented that are counterproductive. 

It's impossible to read that sentence without thinking you are being alarmist.  I know you have thought more deeply about it than many, but I perceive a danger in overstating the problem.

Just as I perceive a danger from overstating the solution - demanding 'drastic action' is counterproductive towards finding real and permanent solutions. 

Let's be frank.  The situation could be a whole lot worse.  It does not take much imagination to know this - but beyond that it is kind of (insulting is the wrong word - let's use ignoring ) ignoring the good things and efforts that people are making. 

I've mentioned personal choice as shifting demand - but let's look at the bogeyman. Take oil and gas.  Easy to demonize in the whole 'climate change is going to kill us all' feedback loop... But I know quite a few people in the industry - and not one who twists his mustache and cackles as he knowingly poisons the world.  Instead, they are caught in a balancing act of fulfilling a need, efficiently, profitably and as responsibly as possible.  The problem is that the world has a voracious appetite for energy.  There are many costs associated with this, and people who previously only wanted cheap and abundant are now saying that they do not want to bear all of the costs that made it economically cheap - we are paying attention to the hidden costs and putting value on more complex issues.  Engineers and managers are reacting to the desires of the market and working to clean up their products. 

As mentioned previously - were your 'drastic action' the immediate global cessation of all use of petrochemicals - you have to know that the cost in human life would be catastrophic, not on a timescale of decades - but rather months.  I presume that you recognize this. 

We don't need a drastic solution to a gradually occurring potentiality if it causes massive harm to people in the short term - we need a mature, reasoned, informed response to what is happening now in light of what we know and project could occur along with a concerted effort to transition off of polluting energy sources in favor of renewable, non polluting sources.  This is actually happening.  Except for the fact that it is not easy and there is no magic solution waiting in the wings.

Remember please, that I work for industry. Not an NGO. Not Greenpeace. Industry.

And I'm worried as hell. (Not that I expect to personally live long enough to see the absolute mess that we are locking ourselves into.)

The real problem here is twofold. 1) Everything integrates, and most of it does so over timescales that are up to 1000 years long. People just don't think in those timescales. You can't convince someone to make real sacrifices now in order to help people in 3021. 2) The feedback loops are uncertain. There really are potential feedback loops that are way more disastrous than the things you are dismissing as "extreme" and counterproductive.

As someone else said earlier -- if the sky really is falling, it's not alarmist to scream that the sky is falling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I'm going to quibble again. Because this is false.

I tried to express this earlier and we agreed that you are not suggesting it is imminent - but there is a flavor to how these arguments are presented that are counterproductive. 

It's impossible to read that sentence without thinking you are being alarmist.  I know you have thought more deeply about it than many, but I perceive a danger in overstating the problem.

Just as I perceive a danger from overstating the solution - demanding 'drastic action' is counterproductive towards finding real and permanent solutions. 

Let's be frank.  The situation could be a whole lot worse.  It does not take much imagination to know this - but beyond that it is kind of (insulting is the wrong word - let's use ignoring ) ignoring the good things and efforts that people are making. 

I think you are misinterpreting @sevenperforce's statement.

While it would be nice if both sides could present their arguments devoid of emotion, it is hard to do that because of... well, emotion. Rather than requesting "alarmists" to stop being alarmist, and "deniers" to stop denying, I think the only solution is to read through that and take a look at the facts, despite the presence of emotion. I understand your opinion on the subject of emotion in discussion of scientific-political-economic problems but requesting the participants to cease such emotion is kind of "outrageous*". One can listen to both the emotion and facts while only registering/using the facts as the discussion continues. Despite their emotion, the "emotional one's" point is indeed worth looking at.

No one is saying no one is doing anything at all to stop/alleviate damage from climate change. It is just that more needs to be done.

*"無茶振り" ("mucha-buri") is what I intend to mean, it can't be perfectly translated as is such with all languages, but I do not mean "outrageous" in an offensive manner towards your request/opinion as the word is often used in English. "Impossible request" might be a better way of putting it, not so much as in literally, physically impossible, but more so impossible within the realities of human behavior. Again, I do not mean that it is outrageous in an offensive manner. But I believe such is the reality of human behavior, and so wish to inform you to perhaps aid in better transaction of ideas and problem solving in the future

14 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I've mentioned personal choice as shifting demand - but let's look at the bogeyman. Take oil and gas.  Easy to demonize in the whole 'climate change is going to kill us all' feedback loop... But I know quite a few people in the industry - and not one who twists his mustache and cackles as he knowingly poisons the world.  Instead, they are caught in a balancing act of fulfilling a need, efficiently, profitably and as responsibly as possible.  The problem is that the world has a voracious appetite for energy.  There are many costs associated with this, and people who previously only wanted cheap and abundant are now saying that they do not want to bear all of the costs that made it economically cheap - we are paying attention to the hidden costs and putting value on more complex issues.  Engineers and managers are reacting to the desires of the market and working to clean up their products. 

As mentioned previously - were your 'drastic action' the immediate global cessation of all use of petrochemicals - you have to know that the cost in human life would be catastrophic, not on a timescale of decades - but rather months.  I presume that you recognize this. 

We don't need a drastic solution to a gradually occurring potentiality if it causes massive harm to people in the short term - we need a mature, reasoned, informed response to what is happening now in light of what we know and project could occur along with a concerted effort to transition off of polluting energy sources in favor of renewable, non polluting sources.  This is actually happening.  Except for the fact that it is not easy and there is no magic solution waiting in the wings. 

I agree that those in the dirty energy industry, even the CEOs, are not literally evil people who want to destroy the world. They are simply trying to survive in their own way, much as a lion is not evil because it attacks a human wandering through a safari park- it is just eating food.

But nonetheless there comes a time when people need to change. I'm sure plantations in the South suffered economically- perhaps some families ultimately lost everything in the long run- when slavery was abolished in the US. Not to mention the fate of those who were employed by the But it had to happen.

Although some action can be taken to ensure security for those who depend on the dirty energy industry (those employed by the industry) I think unfortunately it is inevitable that some will suffer greatly as a result of such action. We don't live in a fairy tale world, after all. But even with such damage further action must be taken to address climate change. Now that's not to say completely stop use of oil tomorrow, everywhere- I'm sure there is a member of this forum who can better explain what the ideal course of action would be- but whatever needs to be done needs to be done. And if it is drastic, then it is drastic.

Again, I don't think "let's do the most drastic thing possible cause of how bad it will be" is a good choice, but if the action needed to *stop* climate change does turn out to be drastic, following examination based on facts and not emotion, then so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I am having a hard time doing this over text.  As @sevenperforce wrote earlier, this is easier over a beer.

@mikegarrisonand @SunlitZelkova I do not disagree with either of you.  Your criticism of my post is valid. 

I constantly struggle with the fact that it's easier to motivate people with fear and hyperbole than simple factual arguments.  I understand this - but I don't like it. 

This forum however is a place where educated and inquisitive people come together.  I've enjoyed the benefits of this in other arenas (like my physics and cosmology questions). 

While I'm not a scientist or engineer - my professional background required me to be able to take information from experts and translate it to non science minded people.  Thus I'm keenly aware of the problem with communicating with the unsophisticated and know that if they smell BS... They are suspicious of any suggestions if the underlying problem is overstated. 

My pushback is against overstated alarm is based on a few things.  First off - I firmly believe that the Earth and humanity are a heck of a lot more resilient than some are giving credit for.  I also have faith that people who are given truth are willing to do monumental things to do the right thing.  But I also know that if they think you are *fleecing* with them - they will resist you. 

There is a test in both the military and the law - the 'sniff test'.  If something passes the sniff test it's probably true.  If it doesn't - its probably false. 

Overstated alarm and calls for drastic action don't pass the sniff test. 

Recognizing that we have one planet and that wontonly polluting it is stupid does. 

 

Ultimately I'm supporting what you and @sevenperforceare saying - I'm just cautioning against being too dramatic about it 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

First off - I firmly believe that the Earth (...) are a heck of a lot more resilient than some are giving credit for.

Sure, and what's there to stop it from destroying human lives ? XD

Re. the problem at hand, esp. concerning how fast the sea level can rise - I think there were some analysis that given some antarctic ice sheet have their base rock lower than sea level, that means that the ice might start to float up rather than merely calving on the front. While that ice isn't melting yet it's still like suddenly dropping a giant ship onto a basin - the water level would rise up too.

Edited by YNM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

Last night I watched Master and Command, one of my favourite films. At one point a damaged mast gives way in a storm, dropping a sailor into the sea. Though he could reach the wreckage and get back to the ship, the wreckage was causing the ship to broach sideways and inevitably be capsized by the storm. His best friend and his captain together cut the wreckage loose to his certain death because not to do so was would have doomed the whole ship.

Similar situation.

Sucks to be in the oil and gas industry, really. I grew up in it. My father worked for Shell his entire career. Ideally we'll compensate workers and retrain them for new industries. There's going to be plenty of work building the necessary mitigating infrastructure. Not all countries are that fair. Even so almost total closure of the industry is absolutely necessary.

And I'd prosecute those industry individuals who knowingly lobbied against earlier climate action and spread disinformation despite knowing the effect was real.

 

When we say we're headed for the worst case scenario where all the ice is gone, that doesn't mean it couldn't be worse. It can always be sooner and more severe.

 

As I said earlier, I genuinely don't think it's possible to be too alarmist about the effects.

 

I'll admit I'm less sure on how to effectively communicate the urgency of static action. Te Paris Climate Agreement isn't going to be enough. A ban on the sale of new ICE vehicles by 2030 is not going to be enough.

I'm not seeing the new nuclear stations being built. I'm not seeing the 10x more renewables that are going to be needed being built. I'm not seeing has central heating being ripped out in favour of electric. I'm not seeing widescale trials of carbon capture and sequestering ready for imminent full scale roll out.

Until those things start happening at a serious rate we'll know this isn't being taken as seriously as needs be at the top.

Edited by RCgothic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RCgothic said:

As I said earlier, I genuinely don't think it's possible to be too alarmist about the effects.

I mean, noone here is making comparisons to Noah's ark- there just isnt enough ice on the planet to make that fable real. But there are folks who make that connection and repeat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well no, Waterworld isn't a thing, RIP Kevin Costner's career.

But up to 70m sea level rise could be, and that's only one of the adverse effects of rising temperatures.

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...