Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Jump to new
Sdajii said:
It's really amazing how much misinformation is out there on the alarmist side. More amazing is how blatantly wrong it is, and more amazing still is that people believe it.

Okay, on the sea level fluctuations, consider that many times, as a semi regular cycle with a period of a few thousand years (that is to say it happens every few thousand years, not tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands), the sea level fluctuates enough so that it forms land bridges between mainland Australia and PNG. Now, without looking it up, I'm willing to say Torres Strait is more than an inch deep. Your information is completely and utterly wrong. I've already pointed this out earlier in the thread. I'm not sure how you can say you think an inch over 200,000 years makes any sense when it literally fluctuates enough to create dry land between Australia and PNG. It happened many times over the last 200,000 years. It happened several times over the last few tens of thousands of years.

People argue about how long ago hominids invaded Australia, but I won't split hairs, let's say 50,000 years. As an ecologist by training, it's a little annoying when people talk about species extinctions as though they are all equivalent, and even ignoring that, they caused far more extinctions than have been counted. It's a lot easier to see some obscure little marsupial going extinct today than to observe that happening 50,000 years before anyone was cataloguing anything. But, even ignoring that, at the time hominids first stepped on to Australia (which was almost certainly a case of walking there rather than arriving by boat), there were giant lizards which made Komodo Dragons look small, snakes far, far larger than anything alive today, wombats the size of cars, marsupial wolves, giant kangaroos far larger than anything alive today, the world's only terrestrial crocodiles (crocodiles that didn't live in or near water), and many others. We know about these because they were big and obvious and if we find remains they're clearly different from anything else. These things went extinct in the blink of an eye right after aboriginals arrived, and shortly after, extinctions largely stopped until they brought in dingos and there was then another wave of extinctions. These days biologists constantly relabel every little population of species as separate species, so when one population goes extinct they say an entire species has gone extinct. If we were to apply the same rules and had the same observational abilities over the last 100,000 years the extinction rate would have been much higher. What exactly constitutes as a 'species' is very vague, and one species going extinct is not the same as another. It doesn't really relate to climate change and I'm not sure why you want to focus on this point, but aboriginals caused a massive extinction event when they arrived, and this happened at a time when no unusual climate activity was occurring. The background/base level extinction rate you're talking about is meaningless in this context, but even so, if we were able to measure things (or if we just look at what happened and take best estimates) it goes against what you are saying.
Click to expand...

Alright, my bad. I wasn't taking notes. But ey I did say don't quote me on the stats from the video.

Rewatched it and at about the 18 to 20minute mark, he said 8 inche in sea level rise in the 20th century. It is estimated that in the 21st century, he said, it'd be from 3 to 6 feet. ANd that's a gross, gross, underestimation, he said.

8inch = 20cm; 3 to 6 feet = 91cm to 1.8m.

So we're accelerating yes? It's not the same old, same old.



From wiki,

"
Recently, it has become widely accepted that late Holocene, 3,000 calendar years ago to present, sea level was nearly stable prior to an acceleration of rate of rise that is variously dated between 1850 and 1900 AD. Late Holocene rates of sea level rise have been estimated using evidence from archaeological sites and late Holocene tidal marsh sediments, combined with tide gauge and satellite records and geophysical modeling. For example, this research included studies of Roman wells in Caesarea and of Roman piscinae in Italy. These methods in combination suggest a mean eustatic component of 0.07 mm/yr for the last 2000 years.[15]

Since 1880, the ocean began to rise briskly, climbing a total of 210 mm (8.3 in) through 2009 causing extensive erosion worldwide and costing billions.[19]
"

So, over the last 3,000 years... ocean level remain pretty much the same.
Over the last 2000 years, it rises about 0.07mm/year.

From the same TEDx lecture, it's quoted as:
20th Century - about 2mm/year
21stC expected to rise 3 to 3.5mm/year


-------------

Yes man... the Aborigines were total eco-terrorists. Wiping out giant mamals and clearing the land so much that when the first European arrives they thought it's like a jungle no one lives here.
 
Luutzu: It's incredible, the extent to which you can continue arguing a point despite how blatantly insane it is.

The sea level has literally risen and fallen many times over the last 200,000 years, to such an extreme, that it literally allows you to walk from Australia to PNG or the UK to mainland Europe.

As your own data points make out when you actually get them right rather than saying 2 inches in 200,000 years, they can sit fairly stable for a few thousand years, which means when they move, they can move quite quickly. And we know this happens quite often (every few thousand years, typically). And sometimes it probably happens more slowly, though that's more difficult to demonstrate with certainty.

And, now, here we are, for the first time ever making real time observations, and observing nothing at all remotely like the extreme changes which occur entirely naturally, and would occur naturally with or without us, and will occur with or without our influence. To say that the rate is increasing is like saying that since the temperature rose by 3 degrees between 8am and 1pm, after it was sitting quite stable between 6am and 8am during which it only rose by 0.5 degrees, by the end of the day it will have risen by 20 degrees, 100 degrees tomorrow and 1,500 degrees by the end of the week.

You are literally applying observations over less than 200 years and extrapolating it in the context of a pattern which takes orders of magnitude longer to play out. If you take that small a section of any cycle and try to extrapolate it, you'll get ridiculous projections, as demonstrated in the paragraph above. If you wanted to you could try it on a different time scale and say that this week was cooler than last week and this month is dramatically cooler than last month, and then project that by the end of the year we will stop seeing temperatures above zero, ever. In reality, we're currently in autumn (well, you are, assuming you're in southern Australia), and after winter the cycle will be in the upswing. We have a daily weather cycle, a yearly climate cycle, phenomena such as the multi year El Nino/La Nina cycle which was only relatively recently discovered and is still not fully understood, no doubt many other short term (a few years to tens of years) phenomena yet to be discovered, no double phenomena which takes hundreds and thousands of years to complete cycles, if you look at the last 150,000 years of global climate there seems to be patterns which cycle under some circumstances with a period of several thousands of years which can be interrupted by whatever forces (solar variance, celestial impacts, volcanic or tectonic activity, etc etc) and no doubt if we had better data we would see patterns over millions of years and longer, although they would generally interrupted.

Things such as tectonic movement, which humans still have no influence over and no positive or negative influence over, have huge impacts on the climate. If you were to rearrange the shape of the continents (this does happen over time), you would change ocean currents and wind patterns and radically alter the climate.

It's a very big, complex system with all sorts of influences, big, small, slow and rapid. We have become a part of that, but we are not suddenly jumping into a previously stable system as a huge disruptive force, we're just playing along as one of many forces, by no means the biggest, and unless we increase our impact (which we probably will because we're stupid), we won't throw it outside natural boundaries and will just make it zig rather than zag a bit. It certainly is still nothing at all like being unstoppable, in any sense other than the fact that climate change has always occurred, and is virtually unstoppable, and if it did stop it would be the first time since the planet had a climate, and we are nowhere near being able to do it, and completely removing all humans and all human influence would not do it.

Anyway, you seem fixated on the 'climate was previously stable and is now changing because of humans' narrative, despite how incorrect it is, so I'll probably stop responding.

Have a read of this, a government climate website (not a biased 'climate denier' (sic) thing) briefly examining the climate over the last 200 million years or so (massively, massively longer than we've been discussing in this thread, but still recent history in terms of the planet). On that timescale you can see that our current situation isn't really hot (when it's actually *really* hot, the arctic has a tropical climate, and that hasn't happened for tens of millions of years, but has happened multiple times, the most recent being more than 50 million years before humans existed, clearly nothing to do with us, and far, far, far more extreme than any climate scientist is suggesting might happen, and, even *that* naturally reversed itself!)

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

If you stop unconditionally trying to push your fictional narrative and look at the situation objectively it should become more clear.

Once again, it's probably worth pointing out that I am not saying humans are having no impact or that we can be sure that we won't cause catastrophic environmental disaster, don't accuse me of saying anything I'm not.
 
Sdajii said:
...

If you stop unconditionally trying to push your fictional narrative and look at the situation objectively it should become more clear.

Once again, it's probably worth pointing out that I am not saying humans are having no impact or that we can be sure that we won't cause catastrophic environmental disaster, don't accuse me of saying anything I'm not.
Click to expand...
As I believe you have already observed in one of your other posts, the polarisation of this debate is such that anyone not fully endorsing the narrative of one polar extreme, is automatically accused of residing at the opposite.

So you might as well get used to being accused of that heresy of denial, and thereby being liable for the sin of having damned the earth (and its population) to imminent extinction.

That is the cost of speaking reason, within an environment permeated with religious zealotry.
 
I can't say I observed any difference in the relative height of plimsoll lines versus tides..... what problem?
 
Knobby22 said:
Is there a way we can check if cynic is real or a robot?
Click to expand...
captcha.jpg
 
Tisme said:
I can't say I observed any difference in the relative height of plimsoll lines versus tides..... what problem?
Click to expand...
The rise in sea levels according to NASA is only 8cm over the last 25 years on average. Considering the variability of the tides not that noticeable.

The fact that the arctic is melting has no real effect. In the near term the Greenland ice shelf melt is the real concern.

Speaking of the arctic, on track for a record melt this year though we won't know if we reach it till September.
 
Sdajii said:
Luutzu: It's incredible, the extent to which you can continue arguing a point despite how blatantly insane it is.

The sea level has literally risen and fallen many times over the last 200,000 years, to such an extreme, that it literally allows you to walk from Australia to PNG or the UK to mainland Europe.

As your own data points make out when you actually get them right rather than saying 2 inches in 200,000 years, they can sit fairly stable for a few thousand years, which means when they move, they can move quite quickly. And we know this happens quite often (every few thousand years, typically). And sometimes it probably happens more slowly, though that's more difficult to demonstrate with certainty.

And, now, here we are, for the first time ever making real time observations, and observing nothing at all remotely like the extreme changes which occur entirely naturally, and would occur naturally with or without us, and will occur with or without our influence. To say that the rate is increasing is like saying that since the temperature rose by 3 degrees between 8am and 1pm, after it was sitting quite stable between 6am and 8am during which it only rose by 0.5 degrees, by the end of the day it will have risen by 20 degrees, 100 degrees tomorrow and 1,500 degrees by the end of the week.

You are literally applying observations over less than 200 years and extrapolating it in the context of a pattern which takes orders of magnitude longer to play out. If you take that small a section of any cycle and try to extrapolate it, you'll get ridiculous projections, as demonstrated in the paragraph above. If you wanted to you could try it on a different time scale and say that this week was cooler than last week and this month is dramatically cooler than last month, and then project that by the end of the year we will stop seeing temperatures above zero, ever. In reality, we're currently in autumn (well, you are, assuming you're in southern Australia), and after winter the cycle will be in the upswing. We have a daily weather cycle, a yearly climate cycle, phenomena such as the multi year El Nino/La Nina cycle which was only relatively recently discovered and is still not fully understood, no doubt many other short term (a few years to tens of years) phenomena yet to be discovered, no double phenomena which takes hundreds and thousands of years to complete cycles, if you look at the last 150,000 years of global climate there seems to be patterns which cycle under some circumstances with a period of several thousands of years which can be interrupted by whatever forces (solar variance, celestial impacts, volcanic or tectonic activity, etc etc) and no doubt if we had better data we would see patterns over millions of years and longer, although they would generally interrupted.

Things such as tectonic movement, which humans still have no influence over and no positive or negative influence over, have huge impacts on the climate. If you were to rearrange the shape of the continents (this does happen over time), you would change ocean currents and wind patterns and radically alter the climate.

It's a very big, complex system with all sorts of influences, big, small, slow and rapid. We have become a part of that, but we are not suddenly jumping into a previously stable system as a huge disruptive force, we're just playing along as one of many forces, by no means the biggest, and unless we increase our impact (which we probably will because we're stupid), we won't throw it outside natural boundaries and will just make it zig rather than zag a bit. It certainly is still nothing at all like being unstoppable, in any sense other than the fact that climate change has always occurred, and is virtually unstoppable, and if it did stop it would be the first time since the planet had a climate, and we are nowhere near being able to do it, and completely removing all humans and all human influence would not do it.

Anyway, you seem fixated on the 'climate was previously stable and is now changing because of humans' narrative, despite how incorrect it is, so I'll probably stop responding.

Have a read of this, a government climate website (not a biased 'climate denier' (sic) thing) briefly examining the climate over the last 200 million years or so (massively, massively longer than we've been discussing in this thread, but still recent history in terms of the planet). On that timescale you can see that our current situation isn't really hot (when it's actually *really* hot, the arctic has a tropical climate, and that hasn't happened for tens of millions of years, but has happened multiple times, the most recent being more than 50 million years before humans existed, clearly nothing to do with us, and far, far, far more extreme than any climate scientist is suggesting might happen, and, even *that* naturally reversed itself!)

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

If you stop unconditionally trying to push your fictional narrative and look at the situation objectively it should become more clear.

Once again, it's probably worth pointing out that I am not saying humans are having no impact or that we can be sure that we won't cause catastrophic environmental disaster, don't accuse me of saying anything I'm not.
Click to expand...

Dude, keep it short. Now I know how other feel reading some of my stuff :D

Beside the Chinese, most of the world's current civilisation [race/culture] kind of have their "recorded history" going back to about 5,000 years.

As Wiki tell us, sea level rises over the past 2,000 years were practically zero... over the past 3,000 years it was, what 0.007mm/year?

So your argument that the Earth have been through this before; that there was the Ice Age and we're alright mate... That's like saying that the Earth managed the survived after the dinosaurs were wiped out. Yea, that's true. Just the key factor was survival of the species then...

Key word is "organised civil society" as we currently know it. Not we'll be send back to the stone age, the ice age and we'll be alright.

Then there's the problem of practically all major import/export terminals, most of the world's cities and some 1 billion people live near or at sea level... BUt yea, a meter or two above current sea level is no problem at all.

And that doesn't include the other factors a warming ocean causes. There's the slowing down of that gulfsteam and world current; there's the greater frequency and intensity of hurricanes, typhoons. The reefs getting cooked, no small fishies to feed the bigger ones to continue that circle of life.

But alright, if water rises we'll just build a wall or buy a bigger pump.
 
I am aware of at least two contributors to changes in the sea level that have nothing to do with global warming theory.

It is curious how they are seldom if ever mentioned.

The increasing human populace is impacting the sea level in at least two ways:

(i) The human body is comprised of over 70% water! More humans equates to less water elsewhere on the planet!! This exerts a reductionary influence on the volume of the ocean waters, hence a lowering of sea levels.
(ii) More cargo carrying ships in the ocean. This displaces water driving sea levels upward, i.e. a raising of sea levels.

So the above factors are exerting competitive influences on the direction of sea level changes.
So it would seem that there is only a very small likelihood of those opposing influences, somehow being of exactly equal magnitude.

If one factor is truly overwhelming the other, thereby causing a change in the sea level, then both factors need to be taken into account.

So why are the climate clergy so insistent that changes to sea level can only be a consequence of anthropegenic CO2 emissions?

When the blindingly obvious gets bypassed in favour of wild and unsubstantiated theories, it becomes clear that the practice of science has left the laboratory!
 
The big question that is driving conversations about the effects of global warming is the impact on the Antarctic ice caps and in particular the vulnerable Thwaites/Pine glaciers. Rapid destabilisation of the Antarctic ice cap will cause a rapid 1-2 metre plus increase in sea levels world wide. The evidence of the thinning and undermining of the glacier is already in. The more detailed examination of how soon it will break down and open up the landlocked ice is about to begin. Frankly I wouldn't be betting on a long death for the glacier.

I'm bewildered by Cynics attempts to explain increases in ocean levels by suggesting the increase in sea traffic and the extra number of humans are somehow significant effects. This a rabbit warren with a million blind tunnels. Why not consider the mass loss of fish and land based animals as well?

These are vanishingly small elements in the picture of explaining current sea levels. The main factors are
1) How warm is the ocean? Warm water expands
2) How much water is locked up on land in mountain glaciers and Ice caps?

The Wiki discussion on the various factors that affect sea level is detailed and well documented. But at present the overwhelming question is the stability of the West Antarctic ice sheet. There is some troubling analysis of previous rapid sea levels rises which can only have happened because of rapid collapses in polar ice caps.

Solid geological evidence, based largely upon analysis of deep cores of coral reefs, exists only for 3 major periods of accelerated sea level rise, called meltwater pulses, during the last deglaciation. They are Meltwater pulse 1A between circa 14,600 and 14,300 calendar years ago; Meltwater pulse 1B between circa 11,400 and 11,100 calendar years ago; and Meltwater pulse 1C between 8,200 and 7,600 calendar years ago. Meltwater pulse 1A was a 13.5 m rise over about 290 years centered at 14,200 calendar years ago and Meltwater pulse 1B was a 7.5 m rise over about 160 years centered at 11,000 years calendar years ago. In sharp contrast, the period between 14,300 and 11,100 calendar years ago, which includes the Younger Dryas interval, was an interval of reduced sea level rise at about 6.0–9.9 mm/yr. Meltwater pulse 1C was centered at 8,000 calendar years and produced a rise of 6.5 m in less than 140 years.[16][17][18] Such rapid rates of sea level rising during meltwater events clearly implicate major ice-loss events related to ice sheet collapse. The primary source may have been meltwater from the Antarctic ice sheet. Other studies suggest a Northern Hemisphere source for the meltwater in the Laurentide ice sheet.[18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
 
luutzu said:
Then there's the problem of practically all major import/export terminals, most of the world's cities and some 1 billion people live near or at sea level... BUt yea, a meter or two above current sea level is no problem at all.
Click to expand...

This should concentrate our thinking.

But somehow I doubt it will until it's way too late.
 
luutzu said:
Dude, keep it short. Now I know how other feel reading some of my stuff :D

Beside the Chinese, most of the world's current civilisation [race/culture] kind of have their "recorded history" going back to about 5,000 years.

As Wiki tell us, sea level rises over the past 2,000 years were practically zero... over the past 3,000 years it was, what 0.007mm/year?

So your argument that the Earth have been through this before; that there was the Ice Age and we're alright mate... That's like saying that the Earth managed the survived after the dinosaurs were wiped out. Yea, that's true. Just the key factor was survival of the species then...

Key word is "organised civil society" as we currently know it. Not we'll be send back to the stone age, the ice age and we'll be alright.

Then there's the problem of practically all major import/export terminals, most of the world's cities and some 1 billion people live near or at sea level... BUt yea, a meter or two above current sea level is no problem at all.

And that doesn't include the other factors a warming ocean causes. There's the slowing down of that gulfsteam and world current; there's the greater frequency and intensity of hurricanes, typhoons. The reefs getting cooked, no small fishies to feed the bigger ones to continue that circle of life.

But alright, if water rises we'll just build a wall or buy a bigger pump.
Click to expand...

If there was any shred of doubt remaining about you not being worth conversing with, this post of yours removed it. Thank you :)
 
Sdajii said:
If there was any shred of doubt remaining about you not being worth conversing with, this post of yours removed it. Thank you :)
Click to expand...

That's a bit harsh man. It's also not true in that...

Confucius says, when I converse with an intelligent man I learn; When I converse with a stupid man, I also learn. .. (and) learning must never stop :)
 
Sdajii said:
If there was any shred of doubt remaining about you not being worth conversing with, this post of yours removed it. Thank you :)
Click to expand...

Sdajii I think that shot at Luutzu just blew up in your face.

Not true, not nice and certainly not a good look.
 

Similar threads

basilio
What does Lloyds think is happening?
2
Replies
22
Views
5K
springhill
springhill
2020hindsight
  • Poll
Which IPCC Scenario is your guess?
2
Replies
32
Views
10K
2020hindsight
2020hindsight
Top