The Forum > Article Comments > It ain't necessarily so on sea rise > Comments
It ain't necessarily so on sea rise : Comments
By Mike Pope, published 16/8/2016Given the amount of new CO2 and CH4 entering the atmosphere, heat, and therefore sea level, is likely to be higher than official estimates.
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
-
- All
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 8:52:42 AM
| |
Peter Lang ...sea levels have steadily risen 120 meters since the major glacial melts. Halted by the Holocene period which (at its end 8k years ago), began a precipitous rise of fifty feet in a period of one hundred years. I think a cautious alarm concerning sea level rise is appropriate.
Posted by diver dan, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 9:15:48 AM
| |
Peter,
U R a breath of enlightened fresh air. U R right on the money about earth entering a Global Cooling phase caused by the low sunspot activity in the sun. Just HOW cool is the worrying question ? Global warming and cooling have been occurring for thousands of years and is perfectly normal. Once the Thames froze over and Greenland was once temperate. The current Global Warming hysteria is a fabricated fraud by the United Nations to try to get money from fear stuff like the carbon tax and ETS scams. Posted by PollyFolly, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 9:28:19 AM
| |
This article is another history in what is now a 30 year history of modern climate alarmism, but there is no need to argue about it. The actual present trend of increasing sea levels can be seen by everyone at http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/SeaLevel/ over the last 22 years the satellite measurements analysed by Columbia Uni show that sea level increases have been running at about 3.4 mm a year. There has been an above trend increase in the past year due to the El Nino, just as there was a sharp cut back around 2010 due to the La Ninas of the time.
If there is an obvious, long-term increase above the line then we should react to it, but there would still be time - foreshore structures have a lifespan of maybe 50-60 years, tops? How long would it take to build sea walls if and when any are needed? Never mind the forecasts, just watch the sea level increases as they happen. Existing increases work out to about one third of a metre over a century (yes, check the units). Come back in about 10 years and we'll discuss if planning guidelines for the foreshores need to change. Posted by curmudgeonathome, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 11:57:52 AM
| |
Only massive economic improvement beckons if we, #1 convert our economy to a carbon free one! #2 End our breathtakingly stupid reliance on ever increasingly expensive fossil fuels! #3 Start to produce our own oil via an algae based large scale algae farming industry.
Algae absorb 2.5 times their bodyweight in atmospheric carbon and under optimized growing conditions, literally double that body weight, absorption capacity/oil production every 24 hours! A million tons of recoverable oil becomes 2 million tons overnight, exploiting effluent! The ex-crush material, the basis of an equally viable, ethanol industry? Where the resultant sludge fed into digesters creates several resalable products including storable methane. Used as scrubbed gas in ceramic fuel cells, as a combination, have a world beating 80% energy coefficient, the exhaust product, mostly pristine water vapor! None of this will harm our economy or environment! Just the very opposite! Some algae types are 60 % oil, and recovery is as simple as filtering some of the material, sun drying it, then crushing it to recover ready to use biodiesel! Why aren't we already doing this? Some of us are! Sadly, that seems to be limited to foreigners with vision, not ruled by fear or the usual fossil fuel hype and propaganda? Farmed algae only need around 1-2% of the water of traditional irrigation and can be farmed in clear plastic pipes on ground that is no good for much else! Moreover, they thrive on effluent, which they as mop crops, clean of problematic nutrient in the process. Simple activated carbon filters, all that's needed to make the "borrowed water" suitable for other purposes, wetland regeneration and revival? We will need to be government involvement as the financier and facilitator! Given that requirement, the complete regeneration of the murray darling as a truly massive income earning area! And a rescued river system that still produces environmental flows, even in the depth of even worse more enduring drought than we've experienced to date! None of this will harm our economy, just the very opposite! TBC Alan B. Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 16 August 2016 12:10:41 PM
| |
Just keep telling yourselves it is all a lefty conspiracy.
Keep your minds closed, your bigotry strong and it will all be ok. Or is it "Ill be dead by then so I dont care". Either way you are fools who should be made to pay when you are shown to be wrong and made to suffer for the harm you are causing. Gaol, bankruptcy and humiliation should be your future. You should also be denied any sort of "expert" assistance in any way shape or form. Should make you lot happy given your hatred of anyone smarter than you. The age of the dumb f... is in full swing and we are all going to end up paying a heavy price for the idiocy and greed of a few scumbags who refuse to see anything other than their own selfish ideology of "Im alright screw everybody else". Including their own kids and grandkids. What dogs. Posted by mikk, Tuesday, 16 August 2016 12:19:43 PM
|
IPCC and the contributing authors are not conservative. They are alarmist. They are participating in group think and herd mentality.
RCP8.5 is a worst case scenario. It is highly improbable.
Furthermore, the planet is in a deep ice age - only the second in the past 540 million years - i.e. the entire period that multi-cell animal life has thrived. We are unlikely to get out of this ice age until North and South America separate again so warm waters can circulate the globe in low to mid latitudes.
Look at these three figures:
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/9mhexie60w4ho2f2/images/1-9fa3d55a6c.jpg
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/235ko6pvuo4jol5p/images/21-975a2df8d8.png
https://html2-f.scribdassets.com/235ko6pvuo4jol5p/images/22-20227bbb57.jpg
Source: https://www.academia.edu/12082909/Some_thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_from_Icehouse_to_Hothouse
Interpretation: even a 3C increase in global average temperature would get the planet up to only the middle of its temperature range over the past half billion years.
My interpretation of these three charts is as follows:
The 2nd chart – ‘Tropic to poles temperature gradient – Icehouse to Hothouse’ shows that if the global average temperature increases by 3C, from the current ~15C to 18C, the temperature at the poles would increase from -36C to -7C, and the temperature gradient from tropics to poles would decrease from 0.82C to 0.44C per degree latitude. That’s likely to be a massive net-benefit for the mid and higher latitudes.
The 1st chart shows that if the global average temperature increased by 3C, the temperatures would be similar to what they were about 35 million years ago. The 3rd chart shows that the temperature in the tropics 35 million years ago was about 1C higher than now.
This suggests even a 3C rise in global average temperatures means only a small (~1C) change in average temperature of the tropics and a huge benefit in warming of the mid and higher latitudes.
Given this, I am not persuaded there is valid justification for the Alarmists’ scaremongering.
Lastly, sea level rise this century is likely to be less than 0.5 m. Even the net damages of a 1 m sea level rise is inconsequential – about $1 trillion in about $20 trillion cum global GDP to 2100 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11027-010-9220-