March 10, 2016
How about reducing rising ocean levels by pumping seawater up onto Antarctica where it can freeze?
The difficulty is you'd have to pump 360 billion tons of water for each millimeter of seawater, and the oceans are said to be rising 3 millimeters per year. The energy it would take to shoot the water inland and up 2 miles would be 7 percent the energy generated worldwide. You could use wind turbines — and it is very windy in Antarctica — but you'd need 850,000 of them. And it would be screwing with the ecosystem of Antarctica, in violation of the Antarctic treaty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
98 comments:
How about not coming up with crackpot schemes to try and reverse natural processes?
That'd be great.
Take 2 steps towards the dunes works, too.
Yeah, that's the thing about the ocean - its fairly large.
First the earth will start to spin faster, like an ice skater starting a spin. That will cause an onslaught of earthquakes, and ultimately, the earth flips upside down.
rcocean said...
Yeah, that's the thing the ocean - its fairly large.
Depends how you look at it.
I put this as a comment in the article itself but this is a ridiculous idea. All they have to do is stop the ice from melting in the first place by preventing or reflecting sun energy from hitting the ice. Far easier and less effort required to achieve.
If the liberals really cared they'd form a bucket brigade.
If they spent half the time they spent working the numbers on this scheme looking at the foundational science behind the whole alarmist scare, they would just end up having a chuckle about the whole misunderstanding and sleep better at night.
Insanity squared presented as educated experts doing something real. The world of Science has self destructed, and nobody gives a damn. Money IS GOD.
I thought Antarctic ice has expanded in recent years? I.e, there's more ice in the Antarctic ... the ice pack, or whatever it's called, is growing ...???
If everyone would just open their refrigerator doors and turn their air conditioners to lowest setting, that would stop the global warming problem.
So, 100 years to rise a foot. 300 years to a yard. NY safe for a while. Even Miami.
I'm beginning to get the impression that the AGW hysteria is coming to an end....you can only cry wolf so many times before people catch on...especially when you don't act very scared of the wolf.
Much less costly to just pretend there is no problem.
Mix a gallon of science with a teaspoon of shit and you get shit.
Mix a gallon of science with a teaspoon of politics and you get politics.
Roughcoat:
Correct.
Yeah, the extra weight would cause the shelf to sink. This would either cause plates to catch and bring about massive earthquakes if, you know, IT IS NEAR A COASTAL FAULT!, or would push magma sideways and likely cause volcanic eruptions.
It's a progressive program it seems.
Why not? Someone else will be footing the bill and it is infrastructure spending. The world must be saved!!
Much less costly to just pretend there is no problem
Or recognize there is no problem. That works too.
Much less costly to just pretend there is no problem.
What problem? There are more people living, with a higher standard of living, and the lowest levels of abject poverty, than at any other point in history. All of human history and civilization has taken place in an interglacial (warm interval) of the current ice age. I would argue that civilization would never have risen without global warming.
> You could use wind turbines <
you could be an engineering idiot too if that's your energy choice.
If we could build wind turbines that were reliable in that environment, would could probably build spacecraft to get us to a new planet to despoil.
We have sea walls and stone ports that have been there for thousands of years. Only people who know nothing are convinced of rising sea levels.
Ancient Ostia, the port of Rome 2000 years ago, has not been flooded. To the contrary the sediments of the Tiber have shifted it inland.
At its peak in the second century, Ostia sat at the mouth of the Tiber and served as the main shipping point for goods traveling to and from Rome. (Over the centuries deposited sediment has caused the ancient town to recede several miles inland.) Prosperous Ostians liked to embellish their homes, and traces of art have emerged on crumbling walls around the site. But the frescoes in the insulae are among the best preserved, officials say.
Ephesus is also an ancient port and has moved inland with the sediments that filled its ancient harbor.
The story of rising sea levels is bullshit.
Not sure what the huge risk of a nuclear plant there would be? I mean we are saving the planet right? Right?
Effing idiots. It's been rising 2 mm a century since 1900. Well before any hint of "global warming" .
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8574680
(yes, I'm correcting for 1mm/year of settlement in Baltimore)
No hint of acceleration:
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/residual.htm?stnid=8574680
I'm so tired of the angst.
On the other hand, I love the idea of drafting liberals to install wind turbines in Antarctica.
My God. We had to destroy the planet in order to save it.
Don't you have a 'things that won't work' tag?
Then there is the inconvenient Stanford Study.
"Are said to be." Key words. Many things are said, not all of them are true.
Heh. I just saw an article a few weeks ago where climatologists were trying to explain why the MSL isn't actually rising.
Actually, "The difficulty" is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But if Obama would appoint Algore to the SCOTUS, he could repeal that.
How about not worrying about sea level rise that has been rising for thousands of years since the last ice age?
In regards to rising sea levels how about building levees? It would be a lot easier AND CHEAPER to deal with the potential effects of global warming than try to reverse them. Even assuming they are even happening.
"The difficulty is you'd have to pump 360 billion tons of water for each millimeter of seawater, and the oceans are said to be rising 3 millimeters per year. The energy it would take to shoot the water inland and up 2 miles would be 7 percent the energy generated worldwide. You could use wind turbines — and it is very windy in Antarctica — but you'd need 850,000 of them. And it would be screwing with the ecosystem of Antarctica, in violation of the Antarctic treaty"
Yes, they are suggesting we do things that are so extreme, costly and difficult to implement. Were they able to do this would it even make a noticeable impact? And considering the difficulty in implementation is it even remotely possible?
If not, then address the issues don't try to change the climate.
The next step will be repealing the law of entropy.
So despite all evidence to the contrary, we're still believing these predictions?
Dumb idea. Are they trying to convince us to worry about global warming by claiming that the only alternative to disaster is this stupid one? There are plenty of other alternatives. Not building in places at risk is one, building levies where needed is another. Humanity has a lot of experience dealing with high tides, and this is happening very slowly - something like a meter over the next century. Just think about that and tell me with a straight face that that's a terrifying issue.
Maybe if we just stopped peeing in the ocean
An outstanding feature of the Antarctic climate is katabatic wind, meaning strong cold winds that flow downhill from Antarctica's elevated central plateau. This type of wind in called williwaw in Alaska, where sudden hurricane-force frigid winds rush down valleys to the sea. These winds would make short work of any climate-engineering efforts by greens.
Antarctica's Katabatic Winds
The only solution to global warming is taxing the shit out of everything.
Oh and legalizing pot.
Just pass a law forbidding the sun from being so hot.
Or they can outlaw fire! Yea, that's the ticket. Or make cow farting illegal.
Or tax all rich people who use more than car or home. And no carbon credits allowed. You think Al Gore would go along with that?
The latent heat released when water freezes (equal and opposite to the energy required to melt ice)* has to go somewhere. And what about the potential energy stored in all that elevated H2O -- the pumping worked uphill against something. Gravity is the driving force of glaciers. Without fast and efficient heat dissipation, the whole glacial edifice could actually accelerate melting. But hey, the geniuses get to tilt their windmills.
Why fight gravity? Run a pipe from the ocean to all major areas that are below sea level. The water flowing downhill could also go through turbines to generate electricity.
Israel and Jordan have been considering this for the Dead Sea which is receding. The Caspian Sea, which is also below sea level needs replenishing. And think of the economic possibilities of turning the Death Valley/Badwater Basin into a large inland ocean.
Blogger Eric said...
Heh. I just saw an article a few weeks ago where climatologists were trying to explain why the MSL isn't actually rising.
Republicans!
Or Trump. Something. Listren you people are insufficiently concerned about this problem. I'm sure that if we get the right people and the right funding we can convince the ocean levels to rise. So write your congressman,...er, congressperson.
You want to stop those oceans from rising? Free college!
Seems there are scars on the mile high Antarctic plateau that could only have been caused by mile high glaciation. Amazing what the sun can do. Nothing like the energy of a sun caused humidity to lift water a mile and snow-snow-snow to lower the ocean by many meters everywhere. The signs are all around us. Like we were certain continents could not drift. "you mean the continental shelves were once above sea levl? Yes" There are none so blind. Then again, human's are pests, be good when that asteroid with our name on it ends us all in 100 years (or Yellowstone cooks off) just because we were to stupid to consume every resource we could lay our hands on, creating as many great minds as we could, so the 100 geniuses that a population of 500 billon that would / could have created and which we could easily have supported given next geration tools and GM foods could either have moved the asteroid, or even us. educated, Human intellect, free to imagine and build, integrated over time, is he only measure of value.
"How about not coming up with crackpot schemes to try and reverse natural processes?"
When natural processes--or "natural processes"--threaten devastation to much of the inhabited world by flood and severe weather, the natural inclination is to try to devise a means to halt or mitigate those processes.
"But hey, the geniuses get to tilt their windmills."
That's "tilt at windmills."
I favor breaking the earth into two smaller planets.
RC3 wrote:
Millions of good American jobs will be paid for by the Europeans. They'll be happy to pay, this is science.
This will be payed for with the treasure Trump takes from King Solomon's Mines, once he finds them. Of course, every schoolboy knows that King Solomon's Mines are located in the mythical Mountains of the Moon in Ethiopia. Some will use the Trumpvasion of Ethiopia to compare Trump, again, to Mussolini, but fantasticness has a cost, and that is a cost Trump is willing to bear.
For us.
I know a simple way to reverse the greenhouse effect, and the cost would be miniscule compared to the rest of the Pentagon budget:
Simply arrange for above-ground test detonations of H-bombs at regular intervals.
Say that we and the Russians agreed to each detonate one H-bomb above ground in a remote part of the globe, every other week.
That would kick up enough fallout into the stratosphere to shade the Earth and cancel the greenhouse effect.
Our scientists know how to design "clean" H-bombs whose detonation would produce relatively little radioactivity. That is, 90% or more of the yield comes from fusion and only a tiny fraction comes from the fissionable trigger (which causes the most radioactivity).
"Irish Americans are great, a really great people. Gift of gab, they make great writers. One of them, Scott Fitzgerald, wrote about a diamond as big as the Ritz, out west somewhere in America, and it was actually way bigger than the Ritz, it was a mountain, bigger than Trump Resort and Casino, even, and let me tell you, that is a big place. Huge.
So we've got this mountain, a big mountain, made of diamond, just sitting there in Montana or Idaho, and because of the environmentalists it's going to waste, no one has touched it since the twenties, and you are asking me ow I will pay to keep social security from going bankrupt? Tapping that mountain is how we'll pay for social security AND the Trump Moon Colony and Resort."
Ummmm... 35 years ago I marked the high tide on a bulkhead close to where I surf and keep my sailboats. ZERO change in the high water level over the decades. If the oceans were indeed rising then the mark would have been immersed on a twice a day basis. That hasn't happened. Ipso facto no rising sea levels. Now I'm just a surfer and living proof that salt water kills brain cells but still - NO change.
850,000 Windmills. Each one requires at least an acre of land. If you have big blades, maybe 2 acres. That's 1.7M acres, about half the size of the state of Connecticut, completely crammed full of windmills (as if there's a flat-tish region that size ringing the Antarctic glaciers). Transporting the materials to Antarctica is another story.
IOW: This is a stupid idea.
Roughcoat said...
I thought Antarctic ice has expanded in recent years? I.e, there's more ice in the Antarctic ... the ice pack, or whatever it's called, is growing ...???
Blogger Birkel said...
Correct.
Incorrect. Antarctic ice has not expanded ( in volume ). Antarctic sea ice has expanded. Not because more of the ocean has frozen, but because the ice is sliding off the land.
There is plenty to criticize about the global warming science, and the people, processes, and politics behind it. But when you get the basic, known facts wrong you undercut the valid complaints.
This is Boston.
This is Boston after 200 years of global warming.
Another look.
Just pass a law forbidding the sun from being so hot.
We had one, then that commie shot Kennedy!
It's true! It's true! The crown has made it clear.
The climate must be perfect all the year.
A law was made a distant moon ago here:
July and August cannot be too hot.
And there's a legal limit to the snow here
In Camelot.
The winter is forbidden till December
And exits March the second on the dot.
By order, summer lingers through September
In Camelot.
Camelot! Camelot!
I know it sounds a bit bizarre,
But in Camelot, Camelot
That's how conditions are.
The rain may never fall till after sundown.
By eight, the morning fog must disappear.
In short, there's simply not
A more congenial spot
For happily-ever-aftering than here
In Camelot.
"Henry said...
This is Boston.
This is Boston after 200 years of global warming."
AIYEE! THE WATERWORLD SCENARIO!! We can only hope that people will evolve into mermen and mermaids faster than the water will rise.
Train penguins to carry buckets....energy problem solved.
@Henry: Thanks for posting those comparative maps. I've seen similar ones for the Manhattan shoreline.
But the real question is whether NYC and Boston could produce enough landfill and construction waste these days to keep up with the rising tides. Remember that trash is becoming an endangered species.
'When natural processes--or "natural processes"--threaten devastation to much of the inhabited world by flood and severe weather' They don't. Read the IPCC report. There are costs to global warming, but "devastation" is very unlikely to extremely unlikely. Less than one meter sea level rise - a problem, costly, but not devastating. Extreme weather will probably increased, but hasn't yet, and again is very unlikely to be devastating in any sense. Read the IPCC SREX report, Special Report on EXtreme weather.
That's the consensus science.
People are very critical of the anti-science Republicans who think the problem will be smaller than the consensus, but are not as critical of the anti-science Democrats who insist that the problem will be much worse.
When natural processes--or "natural processes"--threaten devastation to much of the inhabited world by flood and severe weather, the natural inclination is to try to devise a means to halt or mitigate those processes.
The reality is that if the ocean is rising (which, in itself, is debatable), it isn't doing so at a rate that is going to cause much in the way of flooding. We are, at most, talking an inch or two a century. The thing to keep in mind is that in the First World, the economic lifespan of a building is less than that - for many of our buildings, maybe less than half. That means that buildings need to be rebuilt at least once or twice a century. Trivial matter to just move up hill a couple inches every time you rebuild the buildings. 3rd World buildings are less permanent, and, thus become economically obsolete even quicker.
Of course, we all know that it is a hoax, with AlGore spending some of his millions on beachfront property.
Watch sea level rise on Manhattan Island for 200 years
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AGTD3vcwKVw/UWc7ZAZEtPI/AAAAAAAAWNs/ekHVANcKUTA/s400/nyc_manhattan_sl_animation.gif
and
Incorrect. Antarctic ice has not expanded ( in volume ). Antarctic sea ice has expanded. Not because more of the ocean has frozen, but because the ice is sliding off the land.
There is plenty to criticize about the global warming science, and the people, processes, and politics behind it. But when you get the basic, known facts wrong you undercut the valid complaints.
Current science suggests that the continent is accumulating ice mass over most of it's surface, while West Antarctica is losing it. When you look hard at the numbers it's difficult to conclude they actually know whether the net is positive or negative. I'm very suspicious of the accuracy of huge numbers made by adding up infinitesimal gains and losses.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616356/What-global-warming-Nasa-Antarctic-ice-INCREASING-135BILLION-TONNES-year
The reality is that if the ocean is rising (which, in itself, is debatable), it isn't doing so at a rate that is going to cause much in the way of flooding. We are, at most, talking an inch or two a century.
So many demonstrably false statements in two sentences. Sea level rise varies from place to place. And in many it is much more than an inch or two a century. Look at southern Louisiana or Florida if you want to see the effects of sea level rise. Miami Beach is already in deep trouble and will probably be unlivable in fifty years or so.
MikeR wrote;
. . but are not as critical of the anti-science Democrats who insist that the problem will be much worse.
Yes, MikeR, where were those science-loving libs when nutball Sanders said:
"If we do not act boldly on climate change, the planet we leave to our grandchildren may be uninhabitable.”
http://inhabitat.com/is-bernie-sanders-our-best-defense-against-climate-change/
Why is it foolish to worry more about man-made climate change than about what evil men may do to the US? From Burton's The Anatomy of Melancholy:
Dearths, tempests, plagues, our astrologers foretell us; Earthquakes, inundations, ruins of houses, consuming fires, come by little and little, or make some noise beforehand; but the knaveries, impostures, injuries and villainies of men no art can avoid. We can keep our professed enemies from our cities, by gates, walls and towers, defend ourselves from thieves and robbers by watchfulness and weapons; but this malice of men, and their pernicious endeavours, no caution can divert, no vigilancy foresee, we have so many secret plots and devices to mischief one another.
So many demonstrably false statements in two sentences. Sea level rise varies from place to place. And in many it is much more than an inch or two a century. Look at southern Louisiana or Florida if you want to see the effects of sea level rise. Miami Beach is already in deep trouble and will probably be unlivable in fifty years or so.
You have made an assertion. You haven't demonstrated anything other than that you believe whatever you read in the New York Times.
If you want to fight global warming have environmentalists stop using so many resources spreading the word about global warming. All of these forums requiring people to fly all over the place, all this advocacy on the internet requiring a huge amount of fuel. All these books requiring the cutting down of trees.
Stop driving, stop going on the Internet, turn off the power in your house. And maybe go live in a cave. No more Leo Dicaprio movies, Leo. Your work is done. You've won the Oscar. You are a millionaire. Why should the world die so that we can have more projects that glorify your vanity? And take all your Hollywood chums with you, Leo.
@Freder: Your argument implies that we must stop sea level rise so we can continue to build resort hotels in ecologically fragile dunes and wetlands. Always, the impossible premise of anti-global-warming politics is the belief the everything must stay exactly as it is, the climate trapped in amber.
I don't know Miami Beach, but I know Cape Code and if you build on the sand in Cape Code you're a fool.
Here's Henry David Thoreau, in 1865:
Perhaps what the Ocean takes from one part of the Cape it gives to another, — robs Peter to pay Paul. On the eastern side the sea appears to be everywhere encroaching on the land. Not only the land is undermined, and its ruins carried off by currents, but the sand is blown from the beach directly up the steep bank where it is one hundred and fifty feet high, and covers the original surface there many feet deep. If you sit on the edge you will have ocular demonstration of this by soon getting your eyes full. Thus the bank preserves its height as fast as it is worn away. This sand is steadily travelling westward at a rapid rate, "more than a hundred yards," says one writer, within the memory of inhabitants now living; so that in some places peat-meadows are buried deep under the sand, and the peat is cut through it; and in one place a large peat-meadow has made its appearance on the shore in the bank covered many feet deep, and peat has been cut there. This accounts for that great pebble of peat which we saw in the surf. The old oysterman had told us that many years ago he lost a "crittur" by her being mired in a swamp near the Atlantic side east of his house, and twenty years ago he lost the swamp itself entirely, but has since seen signs of it appearing on the beach. He also said that he had seen cedar stumps "as big as cart-wheels" (!) on the bottom of the Bay, three miles off Billingsgate Point, when leaning over the side of his boat in pleasant weather, and that that was dry land not long ago. Another told us that a log canoe known to have been buried many years before on the Bay side at East Harbor in Truro, where the Cape is extremely narrow, appeared at length on the Atlantic side, the Cape having rolled over it, and an old woman said, — "Now, you see, it is true what I told you, that the Cape is moving."
You have made an assertion. You haven't demonstrated anything other than that you believe whatever you read in the New York Times.
Do you believe <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/>NASA?</a> Notice that the current rate is 3.41 mm a year. Even assuming that the rate is not increasing (which is a bad assumption), that is over 13 inches a century--an order of magnitude greater than the "inch or two" claimed by Hayden.
I'm curious. Why is it only me who is asked to back up factual statements.
Let's fix theNASA? link
@ Terry - I wasn't criticizing Trump, I was criticizing lefty Keynesians who argue we should spend a trillion dollars, even "dig holes and fill them in," to stimulate the economy, but then say geo-engineering is too "massive."
Also, I was criticizing the premise that we'd use pricey "green energy," like Antarctic wind turbines, for a project that purportedly neutralizes the effects of carbon emissions. Why not use cheap fossil fuels to make the world safe for fossil fuels? The authors are so trapped in their prior assumptions that their study lacks internal logical consistency. Make the Antarctic "ice crown" 7% larger to account for the extra carbon emitted to make the ice crown.
Your argument implies that we must stop sea level rise so we can continue to build resort hotels in ecologically fragile dunes and wetlands.
No it doesn't.
The chart at Freder's NASA link shows the sea level rising from the beginning of the presented data series: 1870. Global warming supposedly was not a factor back then.
The current or recent sea level is the correct sea level, and the solution to fluctuating sea levels is to move the continents back to where they're supposed to be, thereby greatly reducing the amount of coastline.
Miami Beach is already in deep trouble and will probably be unlivable in fifty years or so.
Then again, probably not. it could go either way. Because, weather!
JHapp said...
First the earth will start to spin faster, like an ice skater starting a spin. That will cause an onslaught of earthquakes, and ultimately, the earth flips upside down.
Funny you should mention that. We're overdue for a pole flip.
We're overdue for a pole flip.
We're getting a political pole flip first.
How the hell did NASA measure sea levels 100 years ago? The agency wasn't formed for a half a century or so after that, and even then, didn't have satellite capabilities in this area for probably the first 80 or so years there. And, without satellite measurements, they really can't determine whether the sea is rising overall, or just sand from one beach is moving to another beach (which happens all the time, but esp. in places where man has built along the shore). And, tectonic plates are rising one place and falling elsewhere. That is assuming that the data is from satellites (and, isn't fudged like much of the NOAA temperature data).
But, then you get to my point. Let us assume about a foot a century rise for argumentation sake (I don't). That is about a half a foot during the economic lifetime of almost any building (let's ignore historical NOLA). That means that by the time that the ocean has risen enough to threaten buildings built too low, they have mostly had to have been replaced a couple times.
Miami Beach is already in deep trouble and will probably be unlivable in fifty years or so.
Maybe so, but much of that is because people built on the beaches, and has little, if anything to do with AGW/AGCC. In any case, why should the rest of us bail out the zillionaires who own all the expensive property on that beach? Currently, I am sitting a bit above a mile above sea level, and find the threat of the oceans rising to be personally nonexistent. There isn't enough water anywhere around the earth to come within probably a mile of my current elevation. And, even last week when we were in AZ, we were never closer than 1,000 feet of sea level. Very few Americans are threatened by rising seas, and of those, most would be saved through the natural rebuilding of economic obsolescence (and, I see no reason to bail out most of the zillionaire owners along Miami beach).
Accepting the NASA link at face value, Miami will become "unlivable" after a 6 inch rise in sea level? Well, since sea level as been rising since the last ice age ended, what were you hoping for? To get an additional fifty years before it has to be abandoned due to a six inch rise? Is that what all of this is about, another fifty years for Miami and New Orleans before they have to adapt to the inevitable?
I guess if you believe that God made the planet to be exactly as it existed in 1850, then you might be shocked that it changed. But here is a city that was drowned by rising sea levels long before "Global Warming" Bronze Age city discovered underwater
Sea Levels were much higher in the Eemian, when mankind lived in small bands and had barely discovered fire. It was much warmer too. There is no way to say with any conviction that it is hotter today than it was a thousand years ago. And it was warm a thousand years ago, globally.
During 2003 to 2008, the mass gain of the Antarctic ice sheet from snow accumulation exceeded the mass loss from ice discharge by 49 Gt/yr (2.5% of input), as derived from ICESat laser measurements of elevation change. The net gain (86 Gt/yr) over the West Antarctic (WA) and East Antarctic ice sheets (WA and EA) is essentially unchanged from revised results for 1992 to 2001 from ERS radar altimetry.
Imbalances in individual drainage systems (DS) are large (-68% to +103% of input), as are temporal changes (-39% to +44%). The recent 90 Gt/yr loss from three DS (Pine Island, Thwaites-Smith, and Marie-Bryd Coast) of WA exceeds the earlier 61 Gt/yr loss, consistent with reports of accelerating ice flow and dynamic thinning. Similarly, the recent 24 Gt/yr loss from three DS in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is consistent with glacier accelerations following breakup of the Larsen B and other ice shelves. In contrast, net increases in the five other DS of WA and AP and three of the 16 DS in East Antarctica (EA) exceed the increased losses.
Alternate interpretations of the mass changes driven by accumulation variations are given using results from atmospheric-model re-analysis and a parameterization based on 5% change in accumulation per degree of observed surface temperature change. A slow increase in snowfall with climate warming, consistent with model predictions, may be offsetting increased dynamic losses.
Please not that both losses in ice mass and increases in ice mass are "consistent with model predictions."
The point of the Boston maps is to show that human construction impacts coastlines much more dramatically than seas-level rise. That human impact works both ways. Why are Florida Beaches running out of sand?
Even the material offshore has to come from somewhere, and that source is inland erosion. Rivers carry the sediments and deposit it off the coast. The problem is we’ve dammed up rivers and built up harbors, so there’s less sediment replenishing the material offshore these days. Humans are now the greatest shapers of landscapes, moving much more Earth than wind or water.
Humans are also the greatest shapers of their own migration. In the next century, billions more humans will migrate because of economics than because of sea-level rise.
Freder's Miami Beach callout thus sums up the political fantasy that surrounds climate change. Global solutions are demanded! Despite the fact that the tangible, local impact of human habitation is far more relevant.
"I'm curious. Why is it only me who is asked to back up factual statements."
In order to eliminate the possibility of heat pollution skewing their results the NOAA position hundreds of sensing stations in places in the U.S. that were far away from human sources of heat pollution.
That was over ten years ago.
Those stations have yet to record any increase in temperature. In fact they record a trend of decreasing temps in the U.S.
It's not just you. You're just not allowed to have your own facts.
Pumping seawater into Antarctica?
Nah - that would be geo-engineering.
They only want to do geo-engineering which nobody ever would follow through on to the point they want to go, and which would disrupt life, and that's guaranteed not to work even if all countries did the things they want.
Bruce Hayden said...
How the hell did NASA measure sea levels 100 years ago? The agency wasn't formed for a half a century or so after that, and even then, didn't have satellite capabilities in this area for probably the first 80 or so years there. And, without satellite measurements, they really can't determine whether the sea is rising overall, or just sand from one beach is moving to another beach (which happens all the time, but esp. in places where man has built along the shore). And, tectonic plates are rising one place and falling elsewhere. That is assuming that the data is from satellites (and, isn't fudged like much of the NOAA temperature data).
NASA didn't, but tides have been economically important for shipping for a long time, and as soon as mathematicians figured out how to disentangle the various forces that cause tides, and allowed them to predict tides well in advance, tide measuring stations common around ports, and records were kept.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/predhist.html
Yes, land moves. Most of the Mid Atlantic where I live is settling, due to glacial rebound (we're on the edges of the water bed) and because of ground water withdrawl. Other places, notably on the West Coast, where tectonics are more active, are rising and apparent sea level is falling.
When it's all averaged out, the volume of the ocean is increasing at a rate that causes sea level to rise about 2 mm per year, and there's no evidence (yet?) for any increase as a function of global warming, although alarmist scientists are now trying to argue that sea level started rising due to human influences more than 100 years ago, conveniently before good numbers. That number is composed of myriad parts, including glacial melting, water storage (humans put enough water behind dams to matter), subsurface withdrawal, and even ocean volume changes due to tectonics. Scientists are still arguing about the size, and in some cases even the sign of some those numbers.
Please not that both losses in ice mass and increases in ice mass are "consistent with model predictions."
Oh goodie. Supporting massive wealth redistribution through models that are built to give the appropriate answers. And, likely paid for with government funding. Which probably means increasing govt. spending in these areas through use of studies and models funded by govt. spending. What could go wrong there?
IF Occam's razor were to be applied, one might surmise that the increase in Antarctic ice mass and sea ice extent could both be caused by an increase in snowfall, and since there really isn't any temperature increase going on down there, everybody admits that one, one might conclude it is some kind of natural cycle. Naah!
I, for one, always like the mountains more than the beach. I'll be ok.
If it froze in curlicues and was hollowed out the right way, it'd make a great ice slide and you could sell tickets. But it couldn't be too high, 'cuz once enough butts melted it, well, liability insurance is a bitch.
{Beavis and Butthead voice}:
Laura said "butt friction" uh-huh-huh-huh-huh
"Scientists are still arguing about the size, and in some cases even the sign of some those numbers."
Nah, man. The science is settled. Get with the program.
Screwing with the ecosystem of Antarctica? I'm looking really hard, but I don't see anything growing or feeding on that ice in the interior. Am I blind?
You can't pump that much water that quickly without sucking up a lot of phytoplankton zooplankton, jellyfish and fish.
#phytoplanktonlivesmatter
Blogger Original Mike said...
"Scientists are still arguing about the size, and in some cases even the sign of some those numbers."
Nah, man. The science is settled. Get with the program.
I quit the program.
"All of human history and civilization has taken place in an interglacial (warm interval) of the current ice age. I would argue that civilization would never have risen without global warming."
And I would agree. Now, it turns out the average length of an interglacial is about 11,000 years, and that's about how long this one has been going on. So guess what comes next? I think these guys are worrying about the wrong problem.
Post a Comment