Why Are the Maldives Still above Sea Level?

Back in 1988, if we are to trust this news report, scientists predicted that by 2018 the Maldives will be underwater. They are not. I know there have been many overblown climate change predictions that never came to pass and this may be just the latest. Is somebody keeping track?

Caveat: Please don't use the "alt-right climate denialism" card if a discussion ensues. Climate skeptics may be biased but so are climate enthusiasts/centrics (what's the antonym of skeptic?). denial is a coping mechanism, so let's leave it out. The climate is obviously changing, the only point of contention is how much of this change was caused by humankind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's remember that a warming climate implies warming ocean waters; it is the expansion of those waters which would lead to a rise in sea levels.  That expansion could be dramatic.  Then there is the water from glaciers and ice packs on land that can melt and add to the total sea volume of water. 

But warming waters also increase the rate of evaporation.  As the water evaporates, some proportion of that will disgorge from the vapor clouds as rain over land, typically when the clouds reach shore and climb upwards into higher, and cooler, altitudes.  Then the question arises: how much of that extra rain is getting absorbed back into the ground, refilling ancient aquifers? 

If enough of that evaporated moisture gets wicked off the ocean surface, and sinks down into those aquifers, then you have equilibrium again - and the sea levels do not rise up.  Trust this explains.

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

refilling ancient aquifers

^This is a good point that I had never considered.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Marina Schwarz said:

Caveat: Please don't use the "alt-right climate denialism" card if a discussion ensues. 

Well heck, time for me to fold then.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only logical proof of Global Warming is worldwide ocean rise. Without it nothing else matters. Even that does not prove that mankind has much to do with it. Thousands of years ago many areas of the world were underwater or lush forests yet are now deserts. All of southern Florida, the deserts of California, the Gulf of Mexico, large parts of Egypt, etc.etc. 

Global Warming AKA Climate Change

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B7YYeQTmESPhjlS_dj4zMTxWOiJhmLjxN1I_1NJcJFY/edit

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2018 at 12:38 PM, Marina Schwarz said:

Caveat: Please don't use the "alt-right climate denialism" card if a discussion ensues. Climate skeptics may be biased but so are climate enthusiasts/centrics (what's the antonym of skeptic?). denial is a coping mechanism, so let's leave it out. The climate is obviously changing, the only point of contention is how much of this change was caused by humankind.

All righty then, let's have a discussion about discussion, shall we...  Here's some food for thought.

The Social Media Purge and How It Affects Everyone

Just about every website owner I know is feeling personally victimized by the recent social media purge that has been going on.  But here’s an interesting fact: it isn’t, as is widely perceived, just conservative voices that are being silenced. It is dissenting voices.

It’s the voices of critical thinkers whose ideas run the gamut of philosophies who find that they no longer have much in the way of reach.

This social media purge affects everyone, even people who are not on social media. It does so in several ways:

  1. Dissenting information is silenced which stifles discussion
  2. Young people who are avid consumers of social media are being literally brainwashed because they only see one side of the story – any story
  3. The social media purge harms websites that post non-establishment information because it stamps out their ability to reach readers who would be interested in their content.
  4. The unfairly biased search results show people who are trying to learn more about a topic only one side of the information.
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/22/2018 at 8:18 AM, Epic said:

^This is a good point that I had never considered.

It's a dangerous point: it suggests warming might be good for the planet. Imagine that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, ronwagn said:

The only logical proof of Global Warming is worldwide ocean rise. Without it nothing else matters. Even that does not prove that mankind has much to do with it. Thousands of years ago many areas of the world were underwater or lush forests yet are now deserts. All of southern Florida, the deserts of California, the Gulf of Mexico, large parts of Egypt, etc.etc. 

Global Warming AKA Climate Change

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B7YYeQTmESPhjlS_dj4zMTxWOiJhmLjxN1I_1NJcJFY/edit

Wow, Ron.  Your google docs files are impressive.  Do you collect all of this info yourself?  I wish there were more people like you who put this much effort into finding the truth. 

Well done.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Epic. Thank you very much. Occasional plaudits help me keep it going. Yes, I curated all the stories. I got started during the last "energy crisis" and when that was over I turned to politics and over 225 other topics. I started eight years ago and do the work while watching TV or listening to the radio. This all coincided with my retirement since it requires fifty to sixty hours per week. 

Unfortunately, I am now shadowbanned on Facebook and Twitter where I have accumulated about 14,000 followers. Gab.com is my new home, where I spend about 90% of my posting time. It allows freedom of speech within very wide limits. I still send out my work to as many places as possible though. All of my curated stories are free to share. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For folks following this discussion, I would mention that changes to airstream patterns have a dramatic effect on the local surface areas.  Specifically, airflows over the South Atlantic have historically wicked up vast amounts of moisture and dropped that as rain on the North African Sahara and the Middle East, including the Saudi Arabian desert.  It might surprise you to learn that, every so many tens of thousands of years, the airstream flows over the Sahara alter, bringing in that moisture from the Atlantic, and turning the entire Sahara into a savanna, with lots of plant matter.  Sitting underneath the Sahara is this vast amount of legacy water;  apparently the total amount of that legacy water is equal to or perhaps greater than that found in the US Great Lakes  (and that is a lot of water!).  In places, that groundwater contacts the desert surface, and the evidence of it is in local oases. 

Moving over to the Saudi desert, there are at least five major rivers in the Arabian Desert, flowing into both adjacent seas.  Those rivers are dry now, at this point in the water cycle.  But when the winds change, and moisture arrives from the Atlantic, those become major rivers, lots of rain drops, and the Arabian desert actually blooms again.  

Can the Arabian desert be converted, today, using technology, into a fertile plain?  Emphatically, yes, it can.  But you do need to add a lot of water.  To alter that localized climate, assuming enough nuclear reactors could be built, and enough saltwater converted to fresh and pumped inland, to be sprayed as rain upon the land (and irrigated onto the land), add nutrient and seeds and you have a new micro-climate, of a lush savannah and farmland. You would need to add cow manure from the USA and Argentina, for nitrogen and phosphorus, and some river dredging spoil from wherever, to act as cover over rocky areas, and you jump-start the process of converting the desert back into cropland and orchards.  If they used Thorium reactors it would not even cost that much. 

But to do that, you do have to get away from the mentality of "Allah will provide."   That is not going to work for you. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Marina Schwarz said:

It's a dangerous point: it suggests warming might be good for the planet. Imagine that.

Well, it beats getting colder! 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, as we are talking about the Maldives, the opposition candidate Ibrahim Mahamed Soilih has just won the presidential election.

It's a good news for democracy and a bad news for China. The incumbent authoritarian president Yameen - half-brother of former autocrat Gayoom who ruled the country for three decades - imprisoned  opponents and forced many other into exile. He favoured close ties with China at the expense of India. Solih, the new president leans more towards India.

It will be interesting to see how China reacts to the election outcome.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45592375

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

12 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Well, it beats getting colder! 

it certainly does. Bad news is it's not getting warmer everywhere. This year the Balkans had a very English summer while the English had a very southern European summer. I find this is not fair.

 

In other climate news: Cambridge University scientists create ancient tree ring diary

Edited by Marina Schwarz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites