Fear Not, Rising Temperatures or Ocean Levels

[ronwagn + 6,290]

https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2020/12/10/fear-not-rising-temperatures-or-ocean-levels/

Green hysteria is driving us to foolish decisions that will make them richer as the average person gets poorer. RCW

Fear Not Rising Temperatures or Ocean Levels

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Thanks Ronwagan for this thread. We need a break from election* and covid* denialism, lets get back to some old fashioned climate change denialism.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Selva
Provocative and unnecessary comment

[Boat + 1,323]

Hysteria aside greener measures usually happen in scale because their cheaper. Wind and solar, only in areas, are beginning to capture market share. Will new battery advances add that tech to the list? It appears so. Battery plants are popping up everywhere now. 
All of this tech is decades old, it’s just the last few years that this “tech” has matured enough for much faster growth. It’s not conspiracy, it’s science, it’s reality. 
 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

In the last 100 years sea levels have risen a staggering (sarc) 6-8 inches approx 4 inches in the last 30 years or so.

Sea level fluctuation is normal as is variation in the planet's average temperature mainly due to that big yellow thing in the sky a long way away and also to the amount of particles in our atmosphere.

That is hardly catastrophic to the worlds current coastlines IMHO

OK so in 500-1000 years time at current levels we may have a problem, but we'll all be dead by then.

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how-long-have-sea-levels-been-rising-how-does-recent-sea-level-rise-compare-to-that-over-the-previous/

[NickW + 2,714]

6 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

In the last 100 years sea levels have risen a staggering (sarc) 6-8 inches approx 4 inches in the last 30 years or so.

Sea level fluctuation is normal as is variation in the planet's average temperature mainly due to that big yellow thing in the sky a long way away and also to the amount of particles in our atmosphere.

That is hardly catastrophic to the worlds current coastlines IMHO

OK so in 500-1000 years time at current levels we may have a problem, but we'll all be dead by then.

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how-long-have-sea-levels-been-rising-how-does-recent-sea-level-rise-compare-to-that-over-the-previous/

Sea level rises in the 20th Century were partly curtailed by dam building and looking backwards can be misleading as to whats going to happen in the future. 

The rate of sea level rises are increasing

Sea level rises will be worse the nearer you get to the equator. Seen how many people live in Bangladesh? 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

In the last 100 years sea levels have risen a staggering (sarc) 6-8 inches approx 4 inches in the last 30 years or so.

Sea level fluctuation is normal as is variation in the planet's average temperature mainly due to that big yellow thing in the sky a long way away and also to the amount of particles in our atmosphere.

That is hardly catastrophic to the worlds current coastlines IMHO

OK so in 500-1000 years time at current levels we may have a problem, but we'll all be dead by then.

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/13/how-long-have-sea-levels-been-rising-how-does-recent-sea-level-rise-compare-to-that-over-the-previous/

The link you post contradicts what you are saying

Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches. And the current rate of sea level rise is unprecedented over the past several millennia.

[specinho + 467]

20 hours ago, NickW said:

The link you post contradicts what you are saying

Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches. And the current rate of sea level rise is unprecedented over the past several millennia.

When we are mentioning the rise of 1 degree celcius in temperature and 2 cm of sea water over more than 100 years, not sure if anyone notices also the lower temperature at times during the day and the further regress sea line during low tide? What happens to the heat and the water?? Where would they go?

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, specinho said:

When we are mentioning the rise of 1 degree celcius in temperature and 2 cm of sea water over more than 100 years, not sure if anyone notices also the lower temperature at times during the day and the further regress sea line during low tide? What happens to the heat and the water?? Where would they go?

Perhaps go and learn metric scales

[markslawson + 1,057]

On 12/11/2020 at 3:50 PM, ronwagn said:

Green hysteria is driving us to foolish decisions that will make them richer as the average person gets poorer. RCW

Fear Not Rising Temperatures or Ocean Levels

 

On 12/11/2020 at 4:08 PM, Enthalpic said:

Thanks Ronwagan for this thread. We need a break from election* and covid* denialism, lets get back to some old fashioned climate change denialism.

Enthalpic - in fact ronwagn is not denying anything. The link doesn't say anything about the theory, just points to more recent changes asking where the concern is. The forecasts derived from the theory has a wide range of outcomes and nothing much happening - basically the last 20 years or so - fits within the theory. In fact, world-wide, there has been mild warming in that period.. maybe 0.1-0.2 degrees centigrade (no-one is disagreeing with that figure). In sea levels the increase as measured by satellites by a group at the Uni of Colorado, is running well under what is required for the official IPCC forecast (one metre by the end of the century). In other words, irrespective of what anything thinks of the theory, there is no need for panic measures and the broader climate movement should sit heavily on the likes of Extinction Rebellion. Those guys make the broader climate movement a laughing stock.  

[markslawson + 1,057]

On 12/12/2020 at 9:34 AM, NickW said:

Over the past 100 years, global temperatures have risen about 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F), with sea level response to that warming totaling about 160 to 210 mm (with about half of that amount occurring since 1993), or about 6 to 8 inches. And the current rate of sea level rise is unprecedented over the past several millennia.

Actually Nick the last part is just a statement activists make.. its known that the rate of sea level increases vary quite a bit even between decades, and even assessing sea level changes back a few decades presents all sorts of problems, let alone over thousands of years. You can see them in broad outline, just not the detail that would permit the last statement. I might also point out, in passing, that the sea level increases you note, if continued over a century, work out to less than a half the IPCC official forecast of about one metre by 2100.

In chapter three of its 2013 report the IPCC admitted that similar increases in sea levels occurred between 1920 and 1950 (chapter three, oceans).

[NickW + 2,714]

18 hours ago, markslawson said:

Actually Nick the last part is just a statement activists make.. its known that the rate of sea level increases vary quite a bit even between decades, and even assessing sea level changes back a few decades presents all sorts of problems, let alone over thousands of years. You can see them in broad outline, just not the detail that would permit the last statement. I might also point out, in passing, that the sea level increases you note, if continued over a century, work out to less than a half the IPCC official forecast of about one metre by 2100.

In chapter three of its 2013 report the IPCC admitted that similar increases in sea levels occurred between 1920 and 1950 (chapter three, oceans).

NASA are responsible for the 3.3mm per year figure

Sea levels did rise rapidly between 1920 and 1950 and then tailed off until the late 1980's. It tailed off, partly  due to the second massive post war dam building programme (the 1st was for drinking water in the late 19C) which impounded huge volumes of water. Other factor may have been aerosol cooling from particulates  during this period and the fact it got colder over the poles due to CFC ozone depletion. 

Maybe another mass programme in the Himalayas as the Glaciers melt will help impound some of that water. 

 

 

 

[markslawson + 1,057]

4 hours ago, NickW said:

NASA are responsible for the 3.3mm per year figure

Sea levels did rise rapidly between 1920 and 1950 and then tailed off until the late 1980's. It tailed off, partly  due to the second massive post war dam building programme

Nick - you'll find that NASA is just repeating the 3.3 mm figure from the Uni of Colorado. Here is the link if you care to look for yourself. As noted the increase is far below anything required to meet even the minimum IPCC forecast. As for your statement about dams it is obviously absurd. No one has ever made such a statement nor is it possible for dams to affect sea levels.. If you doubt this then I recommend you get out a map of the world and look at it. Note size of oceans and land and then remember that dam areas are an infinitesimal fraction of the land area. Probably not a good idea to make stuff up.

[NickW + 2,714]

12 hours ago, markslawson said:

Nick - you'll find that NASA is just repeating the 3.3 mm figure from the Uni of Colorado. Here is the link if you care to look for yourself. As noted the increase is far below anything required to meet even the minimum IPCC forecast. As for your statement about dams it is obviously absurd. No one has ever made such a statement nor is it possible for dams to affect sea levels.. If you doubt this then I recommend you get out a map of the world and look at it. Note size of oceans and land and then remember that dam areas are an infinitesimal fraction of the land area. Probably not a good idea to make stuff up.

Of course mark 🙄

meanwhile in the real world.............

20th century dam building found to have offset sea level rise (phys.org)

Climate change: Dams played key role in limiting sea level rise - BBC News

Spatial variability of sea level rise due to water impoundment behind dams - Fiedler - 2010 - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

NASA-led study reveals the causes of sea level rise since 1900 – NASA Sea Level Change Portal

Other factors are known to slow the rise, such as dams impounding water on the land, stymying its flow into the sea.

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Land Water Storage and Sea Level Rise

 

Before responding have you ever considered doing a two minute google search to check whether there might be some truth in another persons statement? 

Edited December 14, 2020 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

17 hours ago, markslawson said:

Nick - you'll find that NASA is just repeating the 3.3 mm figure from the Uni of Colorado. Here is the link if you care to look for yourself. As noted the increase is far below anything required to meet even the minimum IPCC forecast. As for your statement about dams it is obviously absurd. No one has ever made such a statement nor is it possible for dams to affect sea levels.. If you doubt this then I recommend you get out a map of the world and look at it. Note size of oceans and land and then remember that dam areas are an infinitesimal fraction of the land area. Probably not a good idea to make stuff up.

If you do the basic maths you can calculate that Aswan High Dam (the largest Dam by water volume) at full capacity hold the equivalent of 0.3mm if added to the entirety of the worlds oceans. 

Lake kariba (An artificial reservoir) in Zambia holds 0.4mm of water if added to the oceans. 

It all starts adding up.....

Edited December 14, 2020 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

14 hours ago, markslawson said:

Nick - you'll find that NASA is just repeating the 3.3 mm figure from the Uni of Colorado. Here is the link if you care to look for yourself. As noted the increase is far below anything required to meet even the minimum IPCC forecast. As for your statement about dams it is obviously absurd. No one has ever made such a statement nor is it possible for dams to affect sea levels.. If you doubt this then I recommend you get out a map of the world and look at it. Note size of oceans and land and then remember that dam areas are an infinitesimal fraction of the land area. Probably not a good idea to make stuff up.

You may wish to take note of when these were actually commissioned. Most between the 1950's and mid 1980's. 

List of reservoirs by volume - Wikipedia

[NickW + 2,714]

Connected to this,  one of the mega engineering proposals to slow down rising sea levels is to divert part of one of the big Siberian rivers into the almost dry Aral Sea (disaster area) 

This area could take about 1000km3 and would restore the sea from the dusty disaster zone it has become. 

This would offset global sea level rises by about 2.7mm

It would reduce the flow of warm water into the Arctic ocean which maybe adding to ice melt

Rejuvenate the area around the sea

Increase water availability / rainfall in the region

 

The rapidly falling Dead Sea offers similar opportunities and Hydro electric by channelling water from the Med into the basin. Likewise the Qattara Depression in Egypt. 

[markslawson + 1,057]

10 hours ago, NickW said:

If you do the basic maths you can calculate that Aswan High Dam (the largest Dam by water volume) at full capacity hold the equivalent of 0.3mm if added to the entirety of the worlds oceans. 

Lake kariba (An artificial reservoir) in Zambia holds 0.4mm of water if added to the oceans. 

It all starts adding up.....

Cut and pasted an old estimate from NASA GISS before it went wild-eyed green but it gives you the general idea - note that the reduction you're hoping for is halved by other processes.  There is something there I'll grant you that but nothing like what you were claiming and I was unable to find any more recent material backing up your claims of dam building having any major effect on sea level increases. This is for the very good reason that the excuse has run out. Those major reservoirs - Aswan, Three Gorges - have all been built.. and were built mostly before the Colorado group started tracking sea levels by satellite. You'll have to think of another excuse for rejecting the figures.. anyway, okay, you weren't inventing material as I accused you of - my apologies. But that's enough.. leave it with you. 

"Between 4510 and 5330 km3 of water -- 11% to 13% of the total annual river runoff (~41,000 km3/yr) -- is presently sequestered behind large dams. More than 90% of this total reservoir capacity has been created since the 1950s. The volume of water retained on land is equivalent to a decrease in sea level of 1.3 to 1.8 mm/yr.

However, other processes increase the rate of streamflow to the oceans. These include groundwater mining (or pumping of groundwater at rates exceeding the natural recharge rate), deforestation, and urbanization. Deforestation reduces the infiltration capacity of the soil due to compaction by heavy logging, farm machinery, overgrazing and trampling by cattle, and increased soil erosion. In newly cleared areas, runoff usually increases, especially in the rainy season, leading to greater chances of flooding. Urbanization expands the area of impermeable surfaces, which impedes infiltration of rainwater, reduces evapotranspiration, and thus augments streamflow. The combined effect of these processes is to increase sea level by 0.4 to 0.9 mm/yr."

[NickW + 2,714]

On 12/13/2020 at 10:54 PM, markslawson said:

Nick - you'll find that NASA is just repeating the 3.3 mm figure from the Uni of Colorado. Here is the link if you care to look for yourself. As noted the increase is far below anything required to meet even the minimum IPCC forecast. As for your statement about dams it is obviously absurd. No one has ever made such a statement nor is it possible for dams to affect sea levels.. If you doubt this then I recommend you get out a map of the world and look at it. Note size of oceans and land and then remember that dam areas are an infinitesimal fraction of the land area. Probably not a good idea to make stuff up.

The link you post confirms that  sea level rises, taking account of local conditions (land rising / fall) are accelerating. 

There are factors accelerating (ground water losses)  and decelerating the rise (impoundment) but the overall effect in the post war period was to mask the effect by locking up so much water in inland reservoirs . I recall the figure is something in the region of 30-40mm of sea water equivalent. 

Edited December 15, 2020 by NickW

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

Snow fall is irrelevant. The key issue is the recession of the glaciers and that is happening rapidly

Kilimanjaro’s Glaciers Are Melting (unofficialnetworks.com)

[specinho + 467]

16 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

By 2020, kiss the snow of Kilimanjaro goodbye.........

Traveled ages ago to Switzerland of the East, Sabah Malaysia. Stayed at a place where the windows opened to pine trees hill, door opened to Mount Kinabalu. Took a car ride to the hill top, watching sunrise across the mountain top, needed not to climb the butt and limps off......... I was told that the mountain used to be snow capped, but no longer so.......... Few years later, I received news, the ice cap returned..............

Therefore, it could be a cycle that the globe self regulates at best whenever possible...........

The nearest guess work might not always give the correct answer................

[NickW + 2,714]

22 hours ago, specinho said:

Traveled ages ago to Switzerland of the East, Sabah Malaysia. Stayed at a place where the windows opened to pine trees hill, door opened to Mount Kinabalu. Took a car ride to the hill top, watching sunrise across the mountain top, needed not to climb the butt and limps off......... I was told that the mountain used to be snow capped, but no longer so.......... Few years later, I received news, the ice cap returned..............

Therefore, it could be a cycle that the globe self regulates at best whenever possible...........

The nearest guess work might not always give the correct answer................

A dusting of snow is completely different from a mountain forming glaciers. I can recall in the middle of summer the mountain to the North of Teheran getting a coating of snow. 

[specinho + 467]

23 hours ago, NickW said:

A dusting of snow is completely different from a mountain forming glaciers. I can recall in the middle of summer the mountain to the North of Teheran getting a coating of snow. 

Thank you for the sharing..... Not sure if it would be too general to deduce this phenomenon, whereby snow was witnessed during summer, might have happened since late 80s, on different countries but  of similar latitude?? Did it persist?? Or restored to its normalcy after that??

If it is the later, would it be possible to find out how??

I am not sure if this assumption is correct but just wondering........... if this alternative, helping the Earth to recover on its own, would be more viable and more effective?? Compared to vague guidelines and agreements to reduce and counteract CO2 emission alone??

[Ecocharger + 1,470]

Here is the recent article by Zharkova, showing the solar variables control earth temperature.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2002.06550.pdf