What's new
By:

Global Warming could be worse than we thought-- paper from Science

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 848
  • Start date Start date
Red said:
In the first photo, easy to understand why RI's barrier beaches are destined to be reclaimed by a rising Atlantic Ocean. You can see, in the aerial photo on the display board, how narrow that barrier beach is. In second photo, left to right are Atlantic, barrier beach, Trustom Pond. Fortunately, I'm too old to live to see these portions of our Atlantic coast reclaimed by the sea. But happen it will, and I believe as a result of climate change. Not the most devastating result of climate change, to be sure, but it will certainly affect our summer tourist industry in due course. I have read, and am not sure if true, that the disappearance of RI's barrier beaches will be among the earliest major physiographic changes to occur on the east coast of the US as a result of rising sea levels....

(Wish I knew how to make photos full size, instead of click on thumbnails?)

View attachment 4782

View attachment 4783

View attachment 4784

View attachment 4785

View attachment 4786

You can likely also see why there are probably worse places to spend a Summer day. I took these photos during the annual Sept. Monarch butterfly migration. We used to see thousands. Now, very, very few....
Click to expand...

So I took a quick google tour to see what data is there to quibble about. Here's a site that has a pro+ bias that does some of the reasons people quibble with their view, and systematically demolishes them, in their opinion. LOL. https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

In geologic contexts, it is a fact that plate tectonics is ongoing, with different areas in uplift or subsidence. Here in Utah, the eastern half of the state has been in uplift for millions of years, raising former sealevel terrain that had geologically proven periodic shallow oceanic basins flooded repeatedly, lifted up, dried out to a basic salt flat, flooded again, and so forth, to make thousands of feet of salt beds, and now the region is oh 4000 feet above sea level or more. In the western half of Utah, although at a much earlier time it was shallow ocean, it was raised to significant elevation a hundred million years ago, and has been in subsidence for the past 50 million years. We go out to the trilobite beds in the West, and then go look for dinosaur bones in the East.

There is one other thing that is more important than any possible global warming trend on seashores, and that is wave erosion, storm erosion, the relentless reworking of material on the edges of the oceans. That is what has build beaches in the first place.

Even in the Pacific Atoll type of land formations, it could be uplift/subsidence that we are really looking at as the most important factor.

Of course, polar ice, or high latitude or high altitude land ice accumulations can be contributors as well, but I'm betting on the coming ice age. Go buy some seashore, but get the title of the plot to read "thence to the seachore" or you'll be left high and dry.

In the Great Basin, do not buy land in Salt Lake City unless you believe the State will build seawalls against a rising GSL shoreline. Right now the lake is as low as it has been in my lifetime, but it's been lower historically, and will rise again.

Those sand dunes around Barstow are interesting. In the legends of the natives, those lakes have come and gone a few times, and they're coming back, soon.
 
babe said:
yes, Science and Nature are big.

I don't think their track record for leading research matches their reputation. More of a tail wind sort of press. advancing science from the rear.

To be a courageous sort of challenger to the status quo, you practically have to publish the work yourself anymore. Well, you always needed to do that.

Historically, The British Royal Academy of Science publishes more breakthrough science.

In 1996 I hiked up on the mountain and found a tree near a spring that had been cut down. I spent an afternoon counting an measuring tree rings for the past 400 years. The past 100 years was the tightest set of rings, meaning less water or colder or both. My grandpa, at age 100 in 1964, made a big point about the weather changing. Used to be lush grasslands for grazing cattle in some places that are just sagebrush today. Summer monsoon rains dropped off.

The past four years, the summer monsoons are back, and grass is growing in those places again. Between 50000 and 10000 years ago, we had a very wet climate, comparatively, and some huge lakes throughout the Great Basin. Lake Bonneville broke out down the Snake River and dropped 500 feet in elevation, while a flood raged down the Snake.

Most of Earth History has been much higher CO2 atmosphere, and the world didn't end, and we didn't need to market carbon credits or taxes to make the world economically just under a few megatrillionaires who crafted the market to their advantage, or to the advantage of their plans.

In the past million years or so, we have had unprecedented low CO2 atmospheric content, and with it, ice ages. Summer ice melt in the Northern Hemisphere sets up a cycle of salt-mixing currents that create corresponding weather cycles. In the past 10000 years we have been on an interglacial warm, but each preceeding interglacial warm has reached higher temps than we have now, without any so-called anthropogenic effects.

Science and Nature have been caught up in a fashionable scientific trend. Just fifty years ago they were, correctly, invoking the specter of a coming ice age. win some lose some, that's what science is all about, and it usually takes less than a hundred years for any scientific result to become sorta dated, old school.

I've been following the climate research pretty closely lately, and I am impressed with the things we are learning. All this money and attention on weather and climate is actually pretty great.

I just think it will take about ten years for the reality of the new ice age to become vogue science, and I expect the politicians to get right out there in front of that wave with megaideas about how the world needs to respond to that.

warm oceans put water into play, and you would not believe how fast an ice sheet can build up once the snowfall in the Arctic catches up on that trend. Ice Ages all have begun with a short-lived spike in temps.
Click to expand...

I have faith big government knows what is best for me, the environment, and marsians. They know what temperature is optimal to halt evolution. We can not have change.
 
Siro said:
Yep, a perfect example of an authoritarian regime imposing disastrous laws.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151030-china-one-child-policy-mei-fong/

Lower population growth can be achieved organically thru development (happened in every single developed country), and sometimes even with minimal development thru focus on improving education and healthcare (see Bangladesh).
Click to expand...

Most developed countries are basically begging their citizens to breed now and they can't get them to do it. It's crazy how many countries have fallen below replacement rate.

CIHAJU6UsAI6niY.png:large

20151212_fbm962_595.png

TFR-largest-101.jpg


Blue countries have growing populations; red countries are shrinking. Purple are growing slowly or not at all. Data source: United Nations Population Fund.
Click to expand...
imrs.php
 
I have yet to see the irrefutable proof that climate change or global warming is a catastrophe. The greatest periods of variety and amount of life on the planet coincides with the highest temperatures, much higher often than we are seeing our predicting now.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I have yet to see the irrefutable proof that climate change or global warming is a catastrophe. The greatest periods of variety and amount of life on the planet coincides with the highest temperatures, much higher often than we are seeing our predicting now.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on what you view as a catastrophe. It is certainly already a financial burden on lots of communities. Wild swings in temperatures and unpredictable weather in mountain towns threaten tourism commerce as well as the way if life in these towns. Look at the reno tahoe region for a stark example. The ski industry there is either feast or complete famine. This year has been epic in snow proportion, but last year many of the resorts closed down mid season.


It may not be a giant global catastrophe when viewed on a macro level, but it is certainly catastrophic locally.
 
babe said:
So I took a quick google tour to see what data is there to quibble about. Here's a site that has a pro+ bias that does some of the reasons people quibble with their view, and systematically demolishes them, in their opinion. LOL. https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

In geologic contexts, it is a fact that plate tectonics is ongoing, with different areas in uplift or subsidence. Here in Utah, the eastern half of the state has been in uplift for millions of years, raising former sealevel terrain that had geologically proven periodic shallow oceanic basins flooded repeatedly, lifted up, dried out to a basic salt flat, flooded again, and so forth, to make thousands of feet of salt beds, and now the region is oh 4000 feet above sea level or more. In the western half of Utah, although at a much earlier time it was shallow ocean, it was raised to significant elevation a hundred million years ago, and has been in subsidence for the past 50 million years. We go out to the trilobite beds in the West, and then go look for dinosaur bones in the East.

There is one other thing that is more important than any possible global warming trend on seashores, and that is wave erosion, storm erosion, the relentless reworking of material on the edges of the oceans. That is what has build beaches in the first place.

Even in the Pacific Atoll type of land formations, it could be uplift/subsidence that we are really looking at as the most important factor.

Of course, polar ice, or high latitude or high altitude land ice accumulations can be contributors as well, but I'm betting on the coming ice age. Go buy some seashore, but get the title of the plot to read "thence to the seachore" or you'll be left high and dry.

In the Great Basin, do not buy land in Salt Lake City unless you believe the State will build seawalls against a rising GSL shoreline. Right now the lake is as low as it has been in my lifetime, but it's been lower historically, and will rise again.

Those sand dunes around Barstow are interesting. In the legends of the natives, those lakes have come and gone a few times, and they're coming back, soon.
Click to expand...

Geology has always been one of my great loves. For awhile there, I studied to be a geologist. My understanding is that the period in which we live, the Holocene, which began about 11,700 years ago, is really just another interglacial warm spell of the Pleistocene Epoch, which began some 2.5 million years ago, and has seen glaciers advance across the northern hemisphere many times. Followed by retreats and interglacial warm periods. Even during the Holocene, there was a lengthy cold snap, known as The Little Ice Age, and which might have been in part responsible for the abandonment of the Greenland settlements.
The Little Ice Age is usually dated 1300-1850. It was a cold spell, and did not result in the advancement of actual continental glaciers. But, bottom line, I've always visualized myself as living in a warm spell between glaciations. A warm spell known as the Holocene, and coincident with the rise and development of human civilization. Climate change, and the notion that human caused global warming could interfere with the past 2.5 million year cycle of ice advance and ice retreat was unheard of when I was a student studying Earth history and Earth science. We were living in a warm interglacial period, and could expect it to end eventually with another advance of continental size ice sheets.

https://www.dandebat.dk/eng-klima5.htm
 
b_line said:
I guess it depends on what you view as a catastrophe. It is certainly already a financial burden on lots of communities. Wild swings in temperatures and unpredictable weather in mountain towns threaten tourism commerce as well as the way if life in these towns. Look at the reno tahoe region for a stark example. The ski industry there is either feast or complete famine. This year has been epic in snow proportion, but last year many of the resorts closed down mid season.


It may not be a giant global catastrophe when viewed on a macro level, but it is certainly catastrophic locally.
Click to expand...

In a world where by all measures we are doing better than in any other period of human history, across the board, localized events like this do not constitute a catastrophe. And by all accounts the "cure" would be far worse financially on impoverished nations than the supposed "disease". Imo this is more leftist political propaganda. Is the climate changing? Well considering the fact that the geologic record indicates our climate makes drastic swings with some regularity then climate change should be no surprise to anyone. Should we adapt to it? By all means, that is why we are where we are in the first place, our ability to adapt. Should we always be on the lookout for more efficient and less harmful ways to power our world? Damn straight. Should we enact drastic and demonstrably harmful measures in the short-term that may or may not have an effect on a situation that may or may not really be a problem? Hell no.
 
LogGrad98 said:
In a world where by all measures we are doing better than in any other period of human history, across the board, localized events like this do not constitute a catastrophe. And by all accounts the "cure" would be far worse financially on impoverished nations than the supposed "disease". Imo this is more leftist political propaganda. Is the climate changing? Well considering the fact that the geologic record indicates our climate makes drastic swings with some regularity then climate change should be no surprise to anyone. Should we adapt to it? By all means, that is why we are where we are in the first place, our ability to adapt. Should we always be on the lookout for more efficient and less harmful ways to power our world? Damn straight. Should we enact drastic and demonstrably harmful measures in the short-term that may or may not have an effect on a situation that may or may not really be a problem? Hell no.
Click to expand...

1) yeah I mean what could be harmful about fracking other than polluting groundwater reserves worldwide...
2) yes but the millions of environmental migrants that continue to be forced to leave their homes do in fact constitute a catastrophe.
3) You live in Germany-- have their eco-friendly legislations bankrupted the country?
 
LogGrad98 said:
In a world where by all measures we are doing better than in any other period of human history, across the board, localized events like this do not constitute a catastrophe. And by all accounts the "cure" would be far worse financially on impoverished nations than the supposed "disease". Imo this is more leftist political propaganda. Is the climate changing? Well considering the fact that the geologic record indicates our climate makes drastic swings with some regularity then climate change should be no surprise to anyone. Should we adapt to it? By all means, that is why we are where we are in the first place, our ability to adapt. Should we always be on the lookout for more efficient and less harmful ways to power our world? Damn straight. Should we enact drastic and demonstrably harmful measures in the short-term that may or may not have an effect on a situation that may or may not really be a problem? Hell no.
Click to expand...

dalamon said:
1) yeah I mean what could be harmful about fracking other than polluting groundwater reserves worldwide...
2) yes but the millions of environmental migrants that continue to be forced to leave their homes do in fact constitute a catastrophe.
3) You live in Germany-- have their eco-friendly legislations bankrupted the country?
Click to expand...

As typical,ignore context to make your "point".
 
LogGrad98 said:
In a world where by all measures we are doing better than in any other period of human history, across the board, localized events like this do not constitute a catastrophe. And by all accounts the "cure" would be far worse financially on impoverished nations than the supposed "disease". Imo this is more leftist political propaganda. Is the climate changing? Well considering the fact that the geologic record indicates our climate makes drastic swings with some regularity then climate change should be no surprise to anyone. Should we adapt to it? By all means, that is why we are where we are in the first place, our ability to adapt. Should we always be on the lookout for more efficient and less harmful ways to power our world? Damn straight. Should we enact drastic and demonstrably harmful measures in the short-term that may or may not have an effect on a situation that may or may not really be a problem? Hell no.
Click to expand...

In my mind the argument has never been a fix. We just need to be able to slow it down in order to adapt to it more easily. While a local catastrophe like the Tahoe region may not be taken as globally damaging, when added with rising sea levels, reduced precipitation in arid areas, and other things like agricultural regions shifting, this constitutes a global disaster of catastrophic levels. This could very well be the defining economic crisis of our time. The climate refugees displaced from rising sea levels alone would be far more than any war, and that is super costly.

You might come back and say that is leftist propoganda, but the real question is, how are we going to pay for it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top