I would think the Australian island of Saibai before the Maldives. The average rise in sea level there is 6mm a year. Average height of Saibai is 1m above sea level, peak 1.7m. July 2017 a sea wall was completed. By Jan 2018 it was breached. The wall restricted the damage to 1 house. The cost of the wall was 24 million.
News or just anything to fit a narrative
- Thread starter Goldfreak
- Start date
Help Support Prospecting Australia:
Climate change is a scam used to justify an agenda ..
Anolphart said:
That is the pollies argument, that simply throws out the timing of CO2 as a red herring while ignoring the science. It is actually not all that complicated. A couple of minor points - we have only just pushed the data back to one million years (a lot less than the 300 million years you mention), and the cycling you mention is only thought to be a feature of ice ages, so confined to the last 1.4? million years since our present ice age began (unfortunately we lack preserved Arctic and Antarctic ice back beyond one million years, so cannot study back to the start of this ice age). Other evidence supports the Earth being about 6 degrees warmer prior to that, going back to the previous ice age a couple of hundred million years ago (with no cycling during that intervening long warm period).
Warming periods appear to be initiated by orbital Malenkovic cycles, when the Earth is closer to the sun than normal (which occurs on a systematic long-term basis). Much more carbon dioxide dissolves in cold water than in warm water, so the sea has lots of dissolved carbon dioxide in it during the glacial periods which we have had a dozen or so of in the last million years during the present ice age. The Malenkovic event causes slight warming, so some CO2 escapes from the sea into the atmosphere as a gas (it cannot remain dissolved at higher temperatures). The increase in atmospheric CO2 adds to the Greenhouse effect (theoretically calculable from physics), which then causes further warming and this induces more release of dissolved carbon dioxide from the sea - this increases warming once it is in the atmosphere - and so on and so on, so that over tens of thousands of years the atmosphere continually warms as the sea loses its dissolved carbon dioxide, until we go into a very warm inter-glacial period (as we are in now). I am not exactly clear what tips us back into a cooling period - I assume it is also further Malenkovic related activity, with the Earth being at its farthest point from the sun. As soon as this slight cooling occurs, some of the atmospheric CO2 dissolves back into the sea water and this reduces the Greenhouse effect, so further cooling occurs as a result of that - with further cooling more CO2 dissolves back into the sea which further decreases the Greenhouse effect (and so on and so on, until we go into the next glacial period - until the next Malenkovic warming starts). We see this from drill cores into Antarctic ice, in which each year can be counted as a layer in the ice, and its bubbles of atmospheric air studied and its CO2 content analysed - the oxygen isotope ratio in the ice is proportional to air temperature at the time each layer formed. It is a bit much to claim that there is no relationship between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and temperature (see graph) - and the preceding of carbon dioxide by temperature increase is over a very brief period at the start of each cycle (almost impossible to distinguish at the scale of this graph).
The concern is that we have introduced a lot of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere since the industrial revolution (by burning of coal etc), that is not part of the normal sea-atmosphere cycling of carbon dioxide that we have had throughout this ice age, so that we appear to be accelerating warming - we now have far more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than at any time during the last 1.4 my of the present ice age - the carbon dioxide values are far above any value shown on the graph above (it is hard to see, but the blue line at zero years before the present - now - goes right up into the graph above because it is so off-scale). So - how hot might it get before it reverses - and will it even reverse now that we appear to have upset the cycle
Sadly, the pollies know that if you say something is so (or not so) for long enough, many in the public will believe them despite good evidence to the contrary. And of course most politicians are no different to the public and never actually read the scientific argument (which I accept is not easy without scientific training) - so believe what they want to believe (as do the public, depending on whether you are a greenie or a coal miner). They also talk about nonsensical "base load" problems with renewable energy (base load only exists for coal and oil power plants - it is the MINIMUM level at which you can generate power without closing a coal plant down and it takes days to re-start them). The pollies also have the problem of putting people out of work if they impose mining restrictions etc. (so like me, they would prefer it to not be true - but unfortunately as a scientist I am unable to do so). However because we have all these false arguments - as at the green end and the "denier" end as I mentioned previously, we never get to seriously discuss the real issues. For example, to what degree can we adapt to warming and its implications, and the fact that banning new mines (as is happening with Adani) ignores the fact that most power in the world is from coal plants and they definitely cannot be replaced by renewables overnight (Australia's tiny population does not compare with the number of people or coal plants in India and China). China has already stopped increasing its coal consumption, but will require huge amounts of coal for decades even as it slowly replaces with renewables - we are talking of trillions of dollars in replacement, more than exists in the world economy (and market forces seem to be driving a trend to more renewables). People at the extreme prevent these real issues being properly discussed - I guess if it gets a lot hotter discussion will start and we will start having energy policies, but it will probably then take hundreds of years to reverse the situation. The sky isn't falling - but we have to start talking responsibly and stop this scoring of brownie points by people who do not understand the science (i.e. most people, sadly). That wont happen while it is bearably cool and when governments don't take the lead in sensibly and honestly presenting arguments to the population (rather than discrediting the overwhelming majority of scientists).
Re the Marshall Islands comment - I already said that sinking of Pacific atolls occurs (in fact it is the norm for atolls to sink - they form on dead volcanoes, and the Earth's crust decreases in volume and sinks as it cools beneath the former volcanoes). But that is not how we measure sea level rise by looking at pencil marks on a jetty like kids height growth marks on a wall. We were already far past that point before modern satellite telemetry was developed.
Nowadays it is even better with satellite and other laser surveying (lidar etc) - we can measure the sea level surface directly (not islands) to sub-mm level each year relative to the centre of the Earth, and it confirms that sea level is constantly rising and probably accelerating. What most people don't seem to realise (including pollies) is that sea level has been steadily rising for the past 17,000 years since the last glacial period - we knew that, it had to be (water volume increases as it warms, melting ice adds to it). What we are concerned about is that it is probably accelerating. It doesn't matter whether you consider it is carbon dioxide or not that is causing it - we can measure it, it is happening, and you have to be an ostrich to ignore the observable facts. It is not the Pacific atolls with their tiny and relocatable populations that are the issue, it is places like the northeast China and Bangla Desh river deltas that are the prime agricultural land for the hundreds of millions of people who live there that is the real concern (most of Bangla Desh will disappear). They will only relocate by force, and that means massive invasions and wars. However again as I said - it is not happening overnight but over centuries (in Australia the only populated areas likely to be significantly affected one hundred years from now are areas like the Brisbane ports and Point Lonsdale north). Lots of time for planning - but people need to stop vilifying scientists, listen (not have opinions based only on what they wish to be true), and discuss sensibly and calmly, not insult each other (we are all in the same boat, excuse pun).
Nowadays it is even better with satellite and other laser surveying (lidar etc) - we can measure the sea level surface directly (not islands) to sub-mm level each year relative to the centre of the Earth, and it confirms that sea level is constantly rising and probably accelerating. What most people don't seem to realise (including pollies) is that sea level has been steadily rising for the past 17,000 years since the last glacial period - we knew that, it had to be (water volume increases as it warms, melting ice adds to it). What we are concerned about is that it is probably accelerating. It doesn't matter whether you consider it is carbon dioxide or not that is causing it - we can measure it, it is happening, and you have to be an ostrich to ignore the observable facts. It is not the Pacific atolls with their tiny and relocatable populations that are the issue, it is places like the northeast China and Bangla Desh river deltas that are the prime agricultural land for the hundreds of millions of people who live there that is the real concern (most of Bangla Desh will disappear). They will only relocate by force, and that means massive invasions and wars. However again as I said - it is not happening overnight but over centuries (in Australia the only populated areas likely to be significantly affected one hundred years from now are areas like the Brisbane ports and Point Lonsdale north). Lots of time for planning - but people need to stop vilifying scientists, listen (not have opinions based only on what they wish to be true), and discuss sensibly and calmly, not insult each other (we are all in the same boat, excuse pun).
There is truth in this, but it operates on a completely different time-scale (we are concerned with hundreds of years, it operates on millions of years). During periods when we have more active oceanic rises than normal (areas where new ocean crust is being created faster than is normal), there is some resulting sea level rise as water is displaced onto the continents by these newly created sub-sea mountain ridges).Manpa said:
As for sediment building out to sea, the Earth's crust compensates for that (isostasy) because it can slowly "flow"- imagine you had a backyard of jelly metres thick and you started pouring wet sand on top of it - the jelly would flow sideways and the sand would sink.
We do not measure sea level rise by looking at tide heights. But yes, greenies do misrepresent regularly, because they don't understand the issues any more than most of the public, so they think that want they want to be true (eg evidence) is actually true.stoyve said:
EVIE/BEE said:
You will wait a lot longer than that for the Bass Highway to go under. But most climate scientists are not claiming that the media and greenies are. The media sensationalises doomsday scenarios (the sky is falling says chicken little) and it rarely reflects accurately what scientists are saying.
No, volcanoes do not comprise more than a small part of carbon dioxide additions to the atmosphere annually (occasional mega-eruptions every thousand years or so can alter the climate for years or even many decades, but it is then absorbed by the sea).
People talk about amounts of carbon dioxide from different sources but it is the equilibrium that matters, more than the amount, although both are related - vast amounts are produced each year naturally but it is re-dissolved into the sea (or extracted into rocks as coal and oil and methane gas), but if we add too much, it cannot dissolve fast enough and stays in the atmosphere where it builds up with time.
I tie you to the bottom of a swimming pool, turn on the tap so lots of water is coming in but leave the drain-plug open. The water level never rises to your head and you remain healthy (if angry as hell). I turn the tap on just a little more and put you out of your misery. I have upset the equilibrium. Initially the drain-hole could cope with all the water coming in, but once I increased the rate that I added water (perhaps just a tiny amount), it could no longer drain it away fast enough. Think of the water as carbon dioxide, the drainplug as the sea, and the pool as the atmosphere. The sea is dissolving the carbon dioxide that is being added to the atmosphere - but then we add just a little bit more and it cannot dissolve it fast enough and it builds up in the atmosphere.
So yes, there are a number of sources for the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but it was in equilibrium - most of what comes into the atmosphere goes out again into the sea (a little less when we are moving into warm inter-glacial periods, a little more as we move into cool glacial periods). Then along come humans and add the straw that broke the camels back, by burning coal (carbon extracted from the atmosphere in the past over hundreds of millions of years) 0ver a period of only 150 years or so.
And be fair - it is not uni students - it is scientific researchers. By the age of about 23 few people at universities are being "taught" by others in any conventional sense as we are taught at school - they are coming up with new ideas and are exchanging these ideas with each other. Most great discoveries in science from atomic power to lasers to electricity to transmission of radio and TV signals and WIFI, computers, electric light are made by people under 35 (mostly under 30). Older scientists know a lot, but are mostly supervising the young ones who are coming up with the ideas. And Earth scientists (meteorologists, climate scientists, geologists. geophysicists, geochemists) spend more time under the stars than 95% of the population and probably more than most detectorologists. I have spent years sleeping under the stars from the equatorial rain forests to the deserts of Namibia, Arizona and Kunnawaritji to the northern lights of the Arctic circle of Canada and Northern Siberia and Norway. Why do you think they chose those careers? When you talk about volcanic carbon dioxide or sea level in the Marshall Islands this is not your work - you are correctly (or incorrectly) - and often somewhat selectively - quoting those people. Without them you would not even know there was (or wasn't) climate change - they started the discussion. Humans didn't see things like the Dark Ages or the mini- Ice Age coming - they were driven unprepared out of Europe and back to the equator 30,000 years ago and again about 12,000 years ago - up to 40% of the populations of some countries starved to death as a result in the Middle Ages. Climate scientists are trying to prevent such things.
Sea ice is a very sensitive variable - just the ups and downs from year to year can affect its distribution greatly because it is simply a layer of ice only one to three metres thick that floats on the sea, so very slight warming or cooling can greatly affect the area covered by it (it isn't even there in the main for part of each year - you can stand on the shore of Coronation Gulf in summer and not see anything bit the odd iceberg). What they are discussing is its winter coverage. However there does seem to be a trend towards recent accelerated decrease, but on ots own this would not be good evidence. It is interesting that some of the same governments that question global warming are spending lots of money on the assumption that it is melting. Potentially a new sea way from the Atlantic to the Pacific, new oilfields and mineral fields that may become accessible, new fishing grounds. Ships are being built to cope with the conditions and to police new land claims. Don't just watch events in the South China Sea - watch what happens in the Arctic - new territorial disputes have started already.Theduke said:
Your last sentence - which gases are you discussing - I don't know of any that meet that definition. Some are more destructive if there was enough of them (nitrous oxides, methane) but they are miniscule compared with carbon dioxide and its effects (less potent but far more of it). Methane would be the most abundant and such claims are sometimes made about it, but it does not build up in the atmosphere to any great degree because it reacts with the oxygen in the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide plus water (i.e. CH4 + 3O2 gives CO2 + 2H20). Unfortunately carbon dioxide does not react readily with anything in the atmosphere to convert to anything more benign.stoyve said:
I'm not writing all this for the sake of being argumentative, it is just that this BLOG is bringing up many of the demonstrably false arguments being used by the media to titillate and by politicians for political purposes. The politicians have good reasons for their concerns (economy, employment) but you can't solve those in the longer term by living on false hopes. So it is a good place to mention the actual arguments being used by scientists, and to correct demonstrably - incorrect "facts" that most of the public assumes are correct. I am not an expert, but as a geologist and isotope geochemist with some knowledge of things like atmosphere and hydrology (and paleoclimates throughout time), who has read the papers for half a century now and who runs courses on how climatic events in the past have affected human evolution and migration, I can at least present what I know the arguments and data to be.
It's true 'Goldierocks' that water volume increases as it warms but you're ignoring the fact that so does everything else including the continents (land mass), ultimately the entire globe.goldierocks said:
I don't agree that melting ice adds anything to the sea level, an iceberg displaces 90% of it's mass below the surface, when it melts it reverts back to liquid adding nothing to the level.
I am not disputing the claims of an overwhelming number of scientists as you claim in a previous post because an overwhelming number of scientists reject the theory of man made climate change.
Don't you just hate politics?...
Stick with the gold mines Goldierocks.goldierocks said:
"It's true 'Goldierocks' that water volume increases as it warms but you're ignoring the fact that so does everything else including the continents (land mass), ultimately the entire globe".
Yes, but a few degrees increase in temperature causes significant expansion in water (but absolutely negligible expansion in rock), and the water sits on the rocks anyway, so if you increase its volume it will inundate more land.
"I don't agree that melting ice adds anything to the sea level, an iceberg displaces 90% of it's mass below the surface, when it melts it reverts back to liquid adding nothing to the level".
What you say is true only once you are dealing with individual icebergs. Icebergs are mostly sea and coastal ice and do not extend to major depths- the ice caps contain ice up to four kilometres thick. Nearly all of the world's ice overlies land not water, so it is addition of new water to the sea when it melts. Also, while it is frozen in an ice cap it is geographically confined to the poles, but once its water is added to the sea it affects the depth of the entire global oceans. It is all easily calculated, and known.
"I am not disputing the claims of an overwhelming number of scientists as you claim in a previous post because an overwhelming number of scientists reject the theory of man made climate change".
Nothing supports that in the least - quite the opposite. But of course it is not "scientists" whose opinions on climate matter anyway, but those scientists who study things like climate (your average molecular biologist knows as much about climate as I know about the structure of DNA). It would be a great majority of scientists accept it, but more than 95% of climate scientists.
I have looked into this a bit - I started out years ago as a climate sceptic.
Science does not deal in finding absolute truths, but in working at getting closer and closer to the truth, and scientists tend to think in terms of probabilities that something is right or wrong. It puts scientists at a disadvantage in discussions with the public - scientists know the most on the topic but mostly avoid saying that things are absolutely proven (while their opponents know little of science but have no doubt at all that they are right). Yes, Anthropogenic (human-induced) Global Climate Change could be wrong (I think in terms of better than 90% probability that it is correct). If there was only a 90% chance that you would die of cancer if you did not undergo surgery, would you avoid surgery because there was a 10% chance that it was unnecessary? And of course we KNOW that warming itself is occurring, and that sera level is rising, and that glaciers are retreating etc. - scientists who dispute such observations are very rare.
The balancing factors are economics and employment, which is why most opponents of the science are from industry because they feel it can affect the immediate bottom line. But nothing is constant in economics or markets - the economics has now tipped in favour of renewables and employment will follow - mining is actually a small employer of the country's work force (1.9%?), coal mining much less. During the industrial revolution, England for example went into things like woollen mills, Portugal for example focussed on things that it did best like making wine. The English technology of weaving and making paper led onto all other sorts of advanced industry. Today England has a strong economy and Portugal is a poor country that still mostly produces wine. Australia is mainly a primary producing resources economy - last I looked it was around 40% mining exports, 22% agriculture, 10% tourism, 10% education, 10% manufacturing and a few other minor odds and ends like IT. Mining will ultimately decline (not soon though, unless discouraged by government and land access issues), agriculture will probably increase a bit, Asian countries will get their own universities and not come here, and tourism is healthy at present but ultimately very dependent on disposable income, and fuel prices. Attacks on three Indian students caused a 40% drop in foreign students over two years, and high fuel costs always affect tourism as do exchange rates. We do the country no favour if we insist on same old, same old....
The main issue is export income, and I have already said that coal will be needed for a long time just to sustain existing power stations around the world - I DO NOT support banning coal mines. The economics of replacing those power plants is that it is so costly that it will have to occur over half a century, not next year. You can decrease emissions without stopping coal mining. Other factors come into play as well (power consumption is population-dependent and China's population will go into decline by 2090). By 2150 the entire population of the world will be in decline. Obviously things can occur to change that, but there is a strong relationship between increased standard of living and declining birth rate - most of the population of the Western world is already in decline (Australia is a notable exception, but almost entirely because of emigration). Countries like Russia and in Eastern Europe have decreased in population by between 5 and 15% since 1985 - Australia has increased by 25% over that period).
Yes, but a few degrees increase in temperature causes significant expansion in water (but absolutely negligible expansion in rock), and the water sits on the rocks anyway, so if you increase its volume it will inundate more land.
"I don't agree that melting ice adds anything to the sea level, an iceberg displaces 90% of it's mass below the surface, when it melts it reverts back to liquid adding nothing to the level".
What you say is true only once you are dealing with individual icebergs. Icebergs are mostly sea and coastal ice and do not extend to major depths- the ice caps contain ice up to four kilometres thick. Nearly all of the world's ice overlies land not water, so it is addition of new water to the sea when it melts. Also, while it is frozen in an ice cap it is geographically confined to the poles, but once its water is added to the sea it affects the depth of the entire global oceans. It is all easily calculated, and known.
"I am not disputing the claims of an overwhelming number of scientists as you claim in a previous post because an overwhelming number of scientists reject the theory of man made climate change".
Nothing supports that in the least - quite the opposite. But of course it is not "scientists" whose opinions on climate matter anyway, but those scientists who study things like climate (your average molecular biologist knows as much about climate as I know about the structure of DNA). It would be a great majority of scientists accept it, but more than 95% of climate scientists.
I have looked into this a bit - I started out years ago as a climate sceptic.
Science does not deal in finding absolute truths, but in working at getting closer and closer to the truth, and scientists tend to think in terms of probabilities that something is right or wrong. It puts scientists at a disadvantage in discussions with the public - scientists know the most on the topic but mostly avoid saying that things are absolutely proven (while their opponents know little of science but have no doubt at all that they are right). Yes, Anthropogenic (human-induced) Global Climate Change could be wrong (I think in terms of better than 90% probability that it is correct). If there was only a 90% chance that you would die of cancer if you did not undergo surgery, would you avoid surgery because there was a 10% chance that it was unnecessary? And of course we KNOW that warming itself is occurring, and that sera level is rising, and that glaciers are retreating etc. - scientists who dispute such observations are very rare.
The balancing factors are economics and employment, which is why most opponents of the science are from industry because they feel it can affect the immediate bottom line. But nothing is constant in economics or markets - the economics has now tipped in favour of renewables and employment will follow - mining is actually a small employer of the country's work force (1.9%?), coal mining much less. During the industrial revolution, England for example went into things like woollen mills, Portugal for example focussed on things that it did best like making wine. The English technology of weaving and making paper led onto all other sorts of advanced industry. Today England has a strong economy and Portugal is a poor country that still mostly produces wine. Australia is mainly a primary producing resources economy - last I looked it was around 40% mining exports, 22% agriculture, 10% tourism, 10% education, 10% manufacturing and a few other minor odds and ends like IT. Mining will ultimately decline (not soon though, unless discouraged by government and land access issues), agriculture will probably increase a bit, Asian countries will get their own universities and not come here, and tourism is healthy at present but ultimately very dependent on disposable income, and fuel prices. Attacks on three Indian students caused a 40% drop in foreign students over two years, and high fuel costs always affect tourism as do exchange rates. We do the country no favour if we insist on same old, same old....
The main issue is export income, and I have already said that coal will be needed for a long time just to sustain existing power stations around the world - I DO NOT support banning coal mines. The economics of replacing those power plants is that it is so costly that it will have to occur over half a century, not next year. You can decrease emissions without stopping coal mining. Other factors come into play as well (power consumption is population-dependent and China's population will go into decline by 2090). By 2150 the entire population of the world will be in decline. Obviously things can occur to change that, but there is a strong relationship between increased standard of living and declining birth rate - most of the population of the Western world is already in decline (Australia is a notable exception, but almost entirely because of emigration). Countries like Russia and in Eastern Europe have decreased in population by between 5 and 15% since 1985 - Australia has increased by 25% over that period).
Anolphart
Zol Straub
Succinctly put goldierocks, you seem to know your stuff. A lot of hysteria is written based on emotion and I don't doubt that most people would agree that we need to clean up our act, not just for any purported anthropogenic climate change but pollution and waste generally.
It's quite interesting how little people know about our atmosphere though. Just about everybody I've asked has no idea what percentage of CO2 makes up the atmosphere. They're quite astounded to find out that it is only just under 0.04% which does make you ask why it is considered such a volatile greenhouse gas.
It's quite interesting how little people know about our atmosphere though. Just about everybody I've asked has no idea what percentage of CO2 makes up the atmosphere. They're quite astounded to find out that it is only just under 0.04% which does make you ask why it is considered such a volatile greenhouse gas.
Simply because of its thermal effects - as you say it is only a bit over 400 ppm. However these things are easily measured using gases in a laboratory (they are not in doubt as properties, but of course extrapolating to the entire atmosphere with its many variables is not quite as simple - things like water vapour also play a role).Anolphart said:
Yes, I get tired of the hysteria serving self-interest on both sides (which is pumped up by the media and then divides the uninformed population in general). We need economists and scientists talking rationally to each other and trying to understand both sides - see where the others are coming from, and come up with things like energy plans that make overall sense. Having no energy plan is not a solution.
Theduke - I disagree a bit, but I agree about the icebergs. Sea ice changes (decreased winter extent) are an indicator of global warming, but have negligible effect on sea level because most of it thaws each summer, and it is only 1 to 3 metres thick in mid-winter anyway. The ice caps covering the land in the continents of Antarctica and Greenland average kilometres thick (4 km in places) and it is their melting that dominates sea level rise at present (a significant subordinate component also coming from simple expansion of sea water volume with warming). However the ice caps will probably take thousands of years to completely melt (that rate issue that I keep referring to, that is rarely mentioned). There are very complex issues not well understood (melting of ice at the base of ice caps and near the coasts is increasing, but at the same time increased warming seems to have increased snowfall on top of the ice, increasing its thickness. This is because the poles are deserts with only a few cm of precipitation per year, but warming causes more precipitation than in the past - which at those latitudes falls as snow.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2015
- Messages
- 7,768
- Reaction score
- 12,894
This website is an interesting & well balanced read IMO:
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html
British Geological Survey
https://www.bgs.ac.uk/discoveringGeology/climateChange/general/causes.html
British Geological Survey
Yes, looks balanced to me. The changes in Earth's orbit that it mentions are part of what I call the Malenkovic cycles, that have probably been tripping us into and out of glacial and interglacial periods (carbon dioxide then controlling increased heating and cooling as it is dissolved or emitted as gas by the sea).mbasko said:
silver
silver
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 18,904
- Reaction score
- 25,834
Currently the powers to be are busily getting us to readily accept euthanasia........ euthanasia is going to be wide spread and utilized en-masse(at the governing bodys explicit discretion).
Negative population growth by force.
Negative population growth by force.
