AGW and rising sea levels (1 Viewer)

fugl said:

True, but the question is, how do we implement these practices on other than an individual basis without drastic human population decrease and draconian—and I mean draconian if to be really effective—government intervention? This is the question of questions, asked many times by me and others, and I for one don’t know the answer. Do you? Does anyone here?

In the interim, we must do what we can with the tools at hand, starting with that master evil of our time, AGW, against which not nearly enough is being done anywhere, certainly not in the US where a “denier” administration is actively engaged in rolling back what little progress has been made. No hope here, except the ballot box. Fingers crossed. And then there’s the Amazon and the other rain forests, all of which are going to soon disappear without some sort of effective internationalization. And what are the chances of that? The phasing out of fossil fuels in favor of wind, tidal and solar; there might be some hope there, given the ever increasing efficiency of the technologies involved. Industrial-scale agriculture and animal husbandry with its heavy dependence on noxious chemicals of various kinds; hard to know what to do about these, though the technology behind the “nothing burger” might be a possible starting point..

.

Click to expand...

Sadly I disagree with your appraisal. I disbelieve the idea that AGW is the master evil of our time. The oceans are a great moderator, so nothing drastic will happen during the next century or so. That buys us time to move to emission free power technologies. If I had to pick one, I'd nominate corruption as the master evil of our time, but it has a long and sordid history throughout other cultures and ages as well, with no durable remedies yet found.
Imho, the various 'green' energy offerings all provide at best very intermittent power, at exuberant cost. They would be unworkable except for massive subsidies which detract from more plausible solutions such as more advanced nuclear power, currently the only reliable source of emission free and fully scalable power.
In terms of the rain forests and their destruction, it is an outrage that truly calls into question the legitimacy of the national governments involved, in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Solutions are well above my pay grade however.

etudiant said:

Sadly I disagree with your appraisal. I disbelieve the idea that AGW is the master evil of our time. The oceans are a great moderator, so nothing drastic will happen during the next century or so. That buys us time to move to emission free power technologies. If I had to pick one, I'd nominate corruption as the master evil of our time, but it has a long and sordid history throughout other cultures and ages as well, with no durable remedies yet found.
Imho, the various 'green' energy offerings all provide at best very intermittent power, at exuberant cost. They would be unworkable except for massive subsidies which detract from more plausible solutions such as more advanced nuclear power, currently the only reliable source of emission free and fully scalable power.
In terms of the rain forests and their destruction, it is an outrage that truly calls into question the legitimacy of the national governments involved, in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Solutions are well above my pay grade however.

Click to expand...

Well, I agree with you about nuclear energy (which I forgot to mention in my original post) but, unsurprisingly, little else in your post so perhaps we should leave things there?

That said, I’m puzzled by your “pay grade” remark. You feel competent, after all, to express an opinion on AGW, a complicated, highly technical subject only fully understandable in all its ramifications by highly trained scientists in faculties and committees assembled. Why not also, then, on international protections for rainforests, a political matter on which ordinary citizens can—and should—have an opinion? Probably unachievable in the present state of the world, admittedly, but still worth thinking about and working towards (e.g., in the US context, by voting a certain isolationist out-of-office).

fugl said:

Well, I agree with you about nuclear energy (which I forgot to mention in my original post) but, unsurprisingly, little else in your post so perhaps we should leave things there?

That said, I’m puzzled by your “pay grade” remark. You feel competent, after all, to express an opinion on AGW, a complicated, highly technical subject only fully understandable in all its ramifications by highly trained scientists in faculties and committees assembled. Why not also, then, on international protections for rainforests, a political matter on which ordinary citizens can—and should—have an opinion? Probably unachievable in the present state of the world, admittedly, but still worth thinking about and working towards (e.g., in the US context, by voting a certain isolationist out-of-office).

Click to expand...

My pay grade does not extend to trying to impose my views on others in matters of their national policies.
On AGW, it does not require huge technical expertise to understand that in science as in other matters, 'who pays my bread, his song I sing'. Eisenhower warned against this in his farewell address, to little benefit unfortunately. So science sings the song of its sponsor, the Federal Bureaucracy.
As is, I do not believe there is anything unusual to climate except the real impacts from the human misuse of the earth's surface. I think there is no doubt that this results in desertification and destruction of much of the biosphere that we depend on.
By contrast, I see sea level rise as a chimera, as evidenced by the lack of rise in places such as San Diego or Tarawa over the past 100 or 80 years. If one looks at a global sea level rise map, most of the increase is focused on places with the worst instrumentation, such as the Philipines, but it varies all over.
In the 1840s, a British Admiralty expedition carved a mean high sea level mark on an island off Tasmania, called the Isle of the Dead. That mark is still very much visible and actually above where the sea level now stands.
The island is not volcanic and has not been glaciated, so no isostatic rebound or similar explanations will be persuasive. Facts such as this are very compelling to me, enough so that it will take a lot more than an AAAS dictum to persuade me otherwise.
I also remember an interview with Mr Mann back in the 1990s where he forecast that the East River Drive, in my home town, NYC, would be under water by 2020. It was briefly, during Hurricane Sandy, but the drive is not different today from then. In retrospect, these were clearly alarmist projections. They left me deeply skeptical of anything that relates to the AGW narrative, especially the catastrophic variety.

etudiant said:

My pay grade does not extend to trying to impose my views on others in matters of their national policies.
On AGW, it does not require huge technical expertise to understand that in science as in other matters, 'who pays my bread, his song I sing'. Eisenhower warned against this in his farewell address, to little benefit unfortunately. So science sings the song of its sponsor, the Federal Bureaucracy.
As is, I do not believe there is anything unusual to climate except the real impacts from the human misuse of the earth's surface. I think there is no doubt that this results in desertification and destruction of much of the biosphere that we depend on.
By contrast, I see sea level rise as a chimera, as evidenced by the lack of rise in places such as San Diego or Tarawa over the past 100 or 80 years. If one looks at a global sea level rise map, most of the increase is focused on places with the worst instrumentation, such as the Philipines, but it varies all over.
In the 1840s, a British Admiralty expedition carved a mean high sea level mark on an island off Tasmania, called the Isle of the Dead. That mark is still very much visible and actually above where the sea level now stands.
The island is not volcanic and has not been glaciated, so no isostatic rebound or similar explanations will be persuasive. Facts such as this are very compelling to me, enough so that it will take a lot more than an AAAS dictum to persuade me otherwise.
I also remember an interview with Mr Mann back in the 1990s where he forecast that the East River Drive, in my home town, NYC, would be under water by 2020. It was briefly, during Hurricane Sandy, but the drive is not different today from then. In retrospect, these were clearly alarmist projections. They left me deeply skeptical of anything that relates to the AGW narrative, especially the catastrophic variety.

Click to expand...

Eisenhower warned against the “military-industrial” complex, not the “deep state” (i.e., the “federal bureaucracy”). Today, the military worries about the effects of AGW on its bases and other installations; “Industry” divides along predictable lines, fossil fuel adamantly “against”, alternative energy “for”; and the “federal bureaucracy”, in spite of your assertions to the contrary, doesn’t have a dog in this hunt and just follows the evidence.

It’s not a case of telling other countries what to do but of entering into binding international agreements for the common good. Or, maybe, you think of the modern nation state as a fundamental unit of polity, inviolable and eternal, incapable of further development? I don’t and would be very surprised if it survives the century in anything like its present form.

Sea levels, ice melting and the rest. The following summary should put your doubts to rest about the reality of accelerating sea level rises in recent years (though I’d be amazed if it did ).

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Our political opinions and our views on what constitutes convincing evidence are so divergent that I think further discussion would be a waste of time. You’re more than welcome to the last word if you want it.

fugl said:

Eisenhower warned against the “military-industrial” complex, not the “deep state” (i.e., the “federal bureaucracy”). Today, the military worries about the effects of AGW on its bases and other installations; “Industry” divides along predictable lines, fossil fuel adamantly “against”, alternative energy “for”.; and the “federal bureaucracy”, in spite of your assertions to the contrary, doesn’t have a dog in this hunt and just follows the evidence.

It’s not a case of telling other countries what to do but of entering into binding international agreements for the common good. Or, maybe, you think of the modern nation state as a fundamental unit of polity, inviolable and eternal, incapable of further development? I don’t and would be very surprised if it survives the century in anything like its present form.

Sea levels, ice melting and the rest. The following summary should put your doubts to rest about the reality of accelerating sea level rises in recent years (though I’d be amazed if it did ).

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Our political opinions and our views on what constitutes convincing evidence are so divergent that I think further discussion would be a waste of time. You’re more than welcome to the last word if you want it.

Click to expand...

Fugl, if you listen to that Eisenhower farewell speech, you'll note that he begins his famous military industrial complex warning with a preamble that the lone independent researcher is now replaced by the multitudes, all funded by and beholden to the Federal government. He warned against that concentration of power and said it posed a risk of abuse, correctly so imho.

The NASA charts you helpfully provided indicate that the various modestly rising temperature and sea level trends have been in effect with no radical swings since the 1880 and are consistent with an ongoing recovery from the 'Little Ice Age'. They do not show any alarming change in trend that I can discern.

What vexes me is that we have clear evidence of major damage to our biosphere before our eyes, for example a quarter of US birds gone in the last 50 years, yet the political effort is to ignore that catastrophe and instead focus on politically correct trivia such as AGW or banning plastic straws, with content free agreements that do not effectively address the ongoing CO2 rise.
If people really believed CO2 was a mortal threat, we would have a crash program to go nuclear in China and in India, because that is where the bulk of the CO2 is emitted. France did that under DeGaulle in a decade, it could be done elsewhere as well.
The willingness of the conservation societies such as the Audubon here in the US to sacrifice their core tenets at the altar of AGW ( for example endorsing windmills which are super efficient raptor killers) illustrates the degree to which they have become co-opted and useless, salt that has lost its savor, to quote the Bible.

poledark said:

Does anyone here know the amount of CO2 absorbed by an acre of grass grown for sheep or cattle? And what happens to that Co2 when the grass is eaten. I am surrounded by thousands and thousands of acres of quite intensively farmed land (SE Kent UK ) Hedgerows/woods/small copses/every type of C02 absorbing crop.

Even a week or so after being harvested the fields start to green up (absorbing C02 ?) or have I got it wrong?
Most of this land was at one time all forest but centuries of intensive management has produced a very healthy environment for plants and animals, the rate at which some crops and grass grows has to be seen to appreciate the fertility of the land.

I also understand that all this "green stuff" produces Oxygen which I rely on to exist so is there a balance for good or bad for me as an eater of meat and veg?

Trying to put it more simply, do 30 cows produce more CO2 than the 30 acres of grass they graze absorb?

By the way, I do believe in climate change.

Den

Click to expand...

etudiant said:

In isolation, if the cows are fed solely from the grass, there is a balance, because they cannot emit more carbon than they take in.
In the macro, it is quite possible to farm in a carbon friendly manner, even with primitive methods.
The Amazon was once a garden for millions, with an ongoing soil improvement effort based on charcoaling vegetation and using that plus midden materials to enrich the soil. The large areas called Terra Preta reflect these centuries of human activity. The plagues brought about by the European invasion exterminated the locals and let the garden run wild, but the fruit and nut trees are still there. The current day ranching methods are short sighted, because the rains leach out the nutrients quickly, leaving impoverished soil. The earlier inhabitants did better, they left a richer place than before.

Click to expand...

When grass is grazed by animals a proportion of the roots die off and the carbon is absorbed into the soil. This is a complex relationship involving fixed, mineralized, available, and mobile carbon. There is an optimum range for the grass to be grazed whilst retaining relevant amounts of ground cover. There is also the addition of organic matter in the form of waste and trampled vegetation etc. I'm pretty sure I may have posted a link to a simple schematic in the relevant threads.

As the grass regrows in the presence of moisture (largely in the soil) and sunlight you get the green growth you observed and a corresponding growth in the root mass which draws CO2 out of the atmosphere. This process works best in biologically biodiverse environments no matter what the particular vegetation type. It relies on a whole host of symbiotic relationships such as fungi and other organisms and other biochemical process such as nitrogen fixing by legumes, etc and the rhizome interface is a key circuit for turbocharging the whole web of life.

Etudiant is right in saying that some set stocking methods degrade the system long term and essential minerals are lost below the root zone unable to be accessed (such lands will often be subject to 'weeds' as the land tries to heal - which man then stoopidly sprays out with poison further killing off, simplifying, and degrading the system - which leads to dried carbon poor soils and hotter global temperatures). We should note that European and North American soils in particular are far more fertile than what we mostly have in Australia. Make no mistake though - you are desertifying them - just at a less obvious rate. Perhaps rising global temperatures are a more noticeable symptom.

When you've observed and lived in harmony with this caper for hundreds of thousands of years as Australian Aborigines have you'll also realize that grassland/ woodland etc are not fixed entities - but ebb and flow like waves on a beach over vast time frames in symbiosis with the web of life and greater cosmological cycles.

The problems of today are more political and elitist than anything else. It isn't 'climate change' that is causing fires in the Amazon, but a class of capitalist succubi heck dang bent on further dispossesing indigenous people's and stealing the collective environmental asset of the world.

They are more than happy for you to demonize 'the other' and chase bubbles of pink elephants through the air while they sell you on the taxation of that air to further enslave you.




Chosun :gh:

fugl said:

.... It’s not a case of telling other countries what to do but of entering into binding international agreements for the common good. Or, maybe, you think of the modern nation state as a fundamental unit of polity, inviolable and eternal, incapable of further development? I don’t and would be very surprised if it survives the century in anything like its present form....

Click to expand...

Is your money on a worldwide evolution in that regard? or devolution? and is a revolution on the cards for either case?




Chosun :gh:

fugl said:

....Sea levels, ice melting and the rest. The following summary should put your doubts to rest about the reality of accelerating sea level rises in recent years (though I’d be amazed if it did ).

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Our political opinions and our views on what constitutes convincing evidence are so divergent that I think further discussion would be a waste of time. You’re more than welcome to the last word if you want it.

Click to expand...

So let me see if I've got this correct - there were natural variations in various cosmological and planetary cycles which changed the amount of heat the world experienced over long cycles and this affected the absorption/emission mass balance of CO2e ..... ?

Pray tell what happens to the actual heat driving it itself?

What would be the effect of paving untold billions? of square kilometers in gazillions? of tons of heat compounding and retaining concrete etc in place of natural hydrological and vegetative 'air-conditioning' mechanisms? and just about totally (insert majority high % figure of your choice) degrade any remaining land masses such that their natural carbon cycle and heat regulating function is effectively kaput?

I would like to see a planetary (at least) scale statistical analysis of the nett effect of compounding so many base thermodynamic and statististical assumptions - surely the only answer is that the entire premise must have a very good chance of being invalid?




Chosun :gh:

fugl said:

.....
One thing, however, is certain, harking back to an illusionary “Golden Age” when men lived in peace with each other and “in harmony with nature”, is a cop-out—instead think: “doing what it takes to scratch-out a living” (just like most of the world population today); internecine warfare; murderous raids on neighbors for women or other goods or just for the hell of it; short lifespans generally ending painfully in violence, untreatable diseases or infected wounds; hatred of strangers; barbaric religious practices; rotting teeth.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but this definitely doesn't reference Australian Aborigines. So good did they make it that 'life was but a dream' ..... o

There are strict 'skin' rules as to who can and who can not engage in mating. No widespread raids as the whole thing was very organized and the epitome of civilization. Not saying that there weren't the odd cases of 'cousin-lovin' that tempted but the rules are a cultural embodiment Anyone 'going rogue' and refusing Ancestral Law was then subject to Spiritual Law - and Kadaitcha Men don't miss, and they never cease - time and space hold no bounds. They make Cyborg Terminators look like house bound 800lb Krispy Creme lovers with free lifelong cable! :eat:

I think it's telling that upon first contact the vast majority of Aborigines were the picture of health, and arguably far physically superior and more mentally superior than they were given credit for (didn't have those wretched murderous ego separations though) - ask Binastro - he's well versed in the physical attributes - particularly optically. By and large they all had five digits per limb, and as far as I know none of them ever invented the banjo !

I know the Golden Utopia is outside the thinking and realms of possibility of 'modern' man --- but it's coming ......




Chosun :gh:

etudiant said:

Sadly I disagree with your appraisal. I disbelieve the idea that AGW is the master evil of our time. The oceans are a great moderator, so nothing drastic will happen during the next century or so. That buys us time to move to emission free power technologies. If I had to pick one, I'd nominate corruption as the master evil of our time, but it has a long and sordid history throughout other cultures and ages as well, with no durable remedies yet found.
Imho, the various 'green' energy offerings all provide at best very intermittent power, at exuberant cost. They would be unworkable except for massive subsidies which detract from more plausible solutions such as more advanced nuclear power, currently the only reliable source of emission free and fully scalable power.
In terms of the rain forests and their destruction, it is an outrage that truly calls into question the legitimacy of the national governments involved, in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Solutions are well above my pay grade however.

Click to expand...

fugl said:

Well, I agree with you about nuclear energy (which I forgot to mention in my original post) but, unsurprisingly, little else in your post so perhaps we should leave things there?

That said, I’m puzzled by your “pay grade” remark. You feel competent, after all, to express an opinion on AGW, a complicated, highly technical subject only fully understandable in all its ramifications by highly trained scientists in faculties and committees assembled. Why not also, then, on international protections for rainforests, a political matter on which ordinary citizens can—and should—have an opinion? Probably unachievable in the present state of the world, admittedly, but still worth thinking about and working towards (e.g., in the US context, by voting a certain isolationist out-of-office).

Click to expand...

And that gentlemen is the crux of the folly right there.
Why would you leap out of the frying pan (supposedly) into the fire (literally) ..... ?!? :brains:

Intractable waste and spurious economics are not something we need to add to the mix.

Follow the money, follow the money. 'ding ding'. Of course it's very hard to wage war and engender mass fear and control with distributed solar panels ......




Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan said:

Is your money on a worldwide evolution in that regard? or devolution? and is a revolution on the cards for either case?

Click to expand...

Haven’t a clue, wish I did. . .. What do you think?

Chosun Juan said:

I can't speak for the rest of the world, but this definitely doesn't reference Australian Aborigines. So good did they make it that 'life was but a dream' ..... o

There are strict 'skin' rules as to who can and who can not engage in mating. No widespread raids as the whole thing was very organized and the epitome of civilization. Not saying that there weren't the odd cases of 'cousin-lovin' that tempted but the rules are a cultural embodiment Anyone 'going rogue' and refusing Ancestral Law was then subject to Spiritual Law - and Kadaitcha Men don't miss, and they never cease - time and space hold no bounds. They make Cyborg Terminators look like house bound 800lb Krispy Creme lovers with free lifelong cable! :eat:

I think it's telling that upon first contact the vast majority of Aborigines were the picture of health, and arguably far physically superior and more mentally superior than they were given credit for (didn't have those wretched murderous ego separations though) - ask Binastro - he's well versed in the physical attributes - particularly optically. By and large they all had five digits per limb, and as far as I know none of them ever invented the banjo !

I know the Golden Utopia is outside the thinking and realms of possibility of 'modern' man --- but it's coming ......

Click to expand...

I don’t think we can fruitfully discuss such matters, Chosun, our views on how the world works are too divergent. . ..

Chosun Juan said:

Is your money on a worldwide evolution in that regard? or devolution? and is a revolution on the cards for either case?

Click to expand...

fugl said:

Haven’t a clue, wish I did. . .. What do you think?

Click to expand...

Well, we know what won't work - isolationist popularism, outright totalitarianism and fascism, far left socialism etc. That just leaves centerist multilateralism - but a new improved version guided by indigenous wisdom, integrity, egalitarianism, and vision.

I know folks in the US think they have got it bad with Trump, but in comparison how people transform China, Russia, and many Islamic Repressors will be a bigger issue.

Beyond politics we really must stop pillaging this home of ours, and Capitalism itself must be reborn, valuing ecosystems inherently, addressing the blatant tax avoidance of the too big too fail (and too powerful to reign in thusfar) multinationals. It seems Big Brother has also walked in the front door while everyone was busy keeping up with the Kardashians ..... and that can't be good .....

I could tell you encouraging tales of beings that I ushered through a doorway to enter our world on the Spring Equinox here, but that notion may be too far out and outside the understanding of many folks worldview. I don't know exactly how things will unfold from here only that they are on the right side of the ledger and do good work - and they're super tall.

Many times, after seeing what my fellow travellers are unfortunately choosing for their dream, I'm left having to turn to confidence in hope. This tune is good. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2zyAmCJTuBw

Fingers crossed ay




Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan said:

And that gentlemen is the crux of the folly right there.
Why would you leap out of the frying pan (supposedly) into the fire (literally) ..... ?!? :brains:

Intractable waste and spurious economics are not something we need to add to the mix.

Chosun :gh:

Click to expand...

There is more intractable waste produced by wind power than by nuclear, as the rare earths required for the generators are hugely messy to extract and leave behind square miles of earth deeply contaminated with thorium, which usually is found associated with the rare earths. Imho it was one of China's more ecologically sensitive decisions to massively boost the price of these elements, the intolerable environmental damage was not reflected in the market value.

I do agree that the economics of nuclear today are cloud cuckoo absurd, but if we are to lift several billion out of dire poverty, we need reliable power without massive emissions.
Australia in theory has everything needed to show that solar is the answer, lots of sun, plentiful land and supportive regulators and governments. Sadly, the experience to date has been spotty, erratic power at inflated prices. That is what keeps people looking at nuclear, warts and all we know it works reliably.

I see nuclear offered as a solution.

Reactors have, in theory, more safeguards if anyone can ever manage and fund one of the new-generation ones with all the failsafes and reduced complexities.

What I have not heard about is the latest advances in waste disposal: not just how to secure store it and the ever-growing amounts of it if nuclear becomes the mainstay, but the latest technologies in reducing how long the stuff remains dangerous.

When we talk about storage for tens of thousands of years compounded by growth in the sector, that gives me pause more than the reactors themselves.

Someone want to fill me in on the latest and greatest on the nuclear waste front?

CalvinFold said:

I see nuclear offered as a solution.

Reactors have, in theory, more safeguards if anyone can ever manage and fund one of the new-generation ones with all the failsafes and reduced complexities.

What I have not heard about is the latest advances in waste disposal: not just how to secure store it and the ever-growing amounts of it if nuclear becomes the mainstay, but the latest technologies in reducing how long the stuff remains dangerous.

When we talk about storage for tens of thousands of years compounded by growth in the sector, that gives me pause more than the reactors themselves.

Someone want to fill me in on the latest and greatest on the nuclear waste front?

Click to expand...

Sad to say that afaik, there are no new breakthroughs in the broad area of nuclear waste management. To put it into perspective though, the total amount involved in nuclear is actually fairly small. on the order of 100 million cubic meters cumulatively, with over 80% low level or very low level wastes.

To provide context, the global coal production of about 8 billion tons annually is roughly 100 times larger,translating to roughly 800 million tons of coal ashes, with a volume of 1000 million cubic meters. Coal ash too is radioactive as well as contaminated with heavy metals, but is used widely to make concrete. Even so, there are massive ash piles, covering square miles of land many feet deep, around major coal fired plants, along with additional piles of the spent flue cleaning materials used to remove sulfur from the smokestacks. These regularly result in major environmental disasters.

Consequently, I believe the focus on nuclear waste is too selective.
The by products of coal power are at least as damaging and are similarly perpetually dangerous, as mercury and arsenic are no less hazardous than radioactivity and equally difficult to detect.
Similar concerns apply to wind power, where the rare earths essential for the generators are nightmarishly difficult to extract economically without poisoning the landscape or to solar, where the fabrication and disposition of square miles of solar panels poses a huge toxic waste management challenge.

AGW & the way forward—

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/opinion/climate-change.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

fugl said:

AGW & the way forward—

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/opinion/climate-change.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

Click to expand...

Have to sign in unfortunately.

dantheman said:

Have to sign in unfortunately.

Click to expand...

How irritating. I wish I knew a work-around but I don’t. Sorry.

Carbon tax the best way out. . .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/clim...tax-just-years-limit-climate-change-imf-says/