• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

AGW and rising sea levels (2 Viewers)

...I've attached a recent report by Judith Curry, who in my opinion is a world-class expert on sea-level rise. This comprehensive article runs 72 pages plus seven more of references. The ocean-land interface is a very complicated system for sure.

Will anyone read it through dispassionately, or will the ad hominem insults begin?

Ed

I've posted on J. Curry in the past here, Ed. It's been a few years for sure. Things were less dispassionate than I had hoped, but not less than I expected. Curry took an undeserved beating.

Quite the collection of information supplied in your links, a person could spend years researching her work.
It's ironic considering Nohatch's latest comments, but there was a time when it seemed worthwhile to post such information, but it's become increasingly apparent that most don't even bother to read the links.

I'm going to read the link J. provided, and I'll attempt to read through at least some of yours as my reading for March. I typically try to read one non-fiction book a month. It will likely be a struggle so I don't know how far I will get!
 
If you haven't read it, I'd recommend Bernie Lewin's interesting book "Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." It's a fine historical review of late 19th to 21st Century meteorology and climatology concerns, much of which I was exposed to starting in the 1950s and can remember quite well. The present generation could do with a bit of historical context. It's available on Kindle for almost nothing.

Ed
 
Chosun,

The "real cause of climate change" is not a single thing, but a legion of sins both major and minor. The more I know about the effects, the more it concerns me that we as a species are screwed. Also the more I tend to believe that over-population is the root cause. This mostly because the best solution to most problems plaguing the environment seems to be that we're taxing and abusing the environment and if there were alot less of us, we'd be better off.

So I have to ask, if you personally believe we can sustain all the human beings currently in existence on this little blue orb, what would be your first step to give billions of people a swift kick in the backside (aka, the necessary, sudden epiphany) required to about-face on their mindset?

And what would that mindset look like? How would the ethics work? The politics? The societal organization? The standard of living?
 
One has to wonder what the Vikings must have thought on Greenland. Erik the Red and his clan landed there approx 985 AD during what is considered a warm period in Earth's history. A mere four hundred years later the vikings abandoned their settlements there due to "the little ice age." The continent had become largely uninhabitable.

It would be interesting to know the correlation between the Sun's activity and that cooling period in history.
In 400 years there was a complete climate change, and man's influence was virtually nil. No man-made carbon, and tens of millions of buffalo were farting all over the North American plains. The horror.

In this day and age we freak out over 50 years of climate change like it's the end of the world.
And the ironic thing is that no one here will be here in 400 years to see how stupid this alarmist mentality was.


We should be good stewards of our planet, we only have one. But AGW is the great scam of our time.
 
Chosun,

The "real cause of climate change" is not a single thing, but a legion of sins both major and minor. The more I know about the effects, the more it concerns me that we as a species are screwed. Also the more I tend to believe that over-population is the root cause. This mostly because the best solution to most problems plaguing the environment seems to be that we're taxing and abusing the environment and if there were alot less of us, we'd be better off.

So I have to ask, if you personally believe we can sustain all the human beings currently in existence on this little blue orb, what would be your first step to give billions of people a swift kick in the backside (aka, the necessary, sudden epiphany) required to about-face on their mindset?

And what would that mindset look like? How would the ethics work? The politics? The societal organization? The standard of living?

Indeed, as has been pointed out many times on BF and which is self-evident in any case, the (ever increasing) human population’s the thing. Problem is that, barring “natural” controls—starvation, pestilence, social breakdown etc. etc., human numbers will only stabilize when everyone in the world achieves a modern western standard of living, as it is only then that the global population will have the leisure and mental and physical resources to develop and practice the necessary conservation ethic. And before that happens (if it ever happens), much of wild nature will inevitably be lost.

In the scenario just outlined, AGW and its effects on islands and the big coastal cities is just another stressor making everything else worse, much worse. To think that a significant part of the solution is small-scale sustainable agriculture in the few favored areas where the necessary physical and demographic conditions presently exist, is hopelessly naive.

So, what’s to do in the meantime? The small, and not so small, ameliorative steps people of good will have long been advocating/taking, certainly: practicing sustainable agriculture where feasible (sure, why not?); creation and maintenance of nature reserves, national parks, wilderness areas and the like (absolutely!); carbon emission control (ditto).

The rest is despair. . ..
 
Last edited:
Chosun,

The "real cause of climate change" is not a single thing, but a legion of sins both major and minor. The more I know about the effects, the more it concerns me that we as a species are screwed. Also the more I tend to believe that over-population is the root cause. This mostly because the best solution to most problems plaguing the environment seems to be that we're taxing and abusing the environment and if there were alot less of us, we'd be better off.

So I have to ask, if you personally believe we can sustain all the human beings currently in existence on this little blue orb, what would be your first step to give billions of people a swift kick in the backside (aka, the necessary, sudden epiphany) required to about-face on their mindset?

And what would that mindset look like? How would the ethics work? The politics? The societal organization? The standard of living?
Jeez ! An easy question then ! :eek!:

Calvin, Setting aside the natural causes, it is clear that we are having a massive deleterious effect on the world through the way we live, and the sheer numbers of us. Fixing one without the other won't see us end up at a better place. A root cause must be a lack of respect for the environment and other living things.

Do I personally believe it's possible to repair the damage done, live in harmony with other living things and live sustainably on this planet ? ....... YES ! however, the paradigm shift required is beyond the vision or imagination of most people at this point. Short answer we need to flip the place on its head - from ever shrinking islands of nature in amongst a sea of humanity ..... to islands of humanity - smaller footprint self sufficient cities miles high, in amongst largely uninterrupted and interconnected nature. Flooding (hence moist soil building, hence old growth vegetation, hence natural cooling), hence core wildlife habitat is key. I would suggest nothing gets built below the 1 in 200 year flood level elevations .... perhaps even more 1 in 500. It would need research, but that is the gist of it :t:

In a future world where a lot of the construction, manufacturing, supply chain, transport, service, health, and commerce activities become more and more robotized and automated - apart from scholars, scientists, robot engineers, creatives, business execs, medical faciltators, and hairdressers, etc what's the world to do ? ...... travel and tourism ! but that becomes self defeating if the joint is ruined ..... :-C

What would it take for such an epiphany? That's the hard part. There is a growing sustainability drive that is making good progress - the trouble is that legacy financing of all manner of polluting industries and deleterious land uses is locked in for circa 30 years or so. Inefficient and problematic buildings have 80 years to go before their usual lifespan ends. Rampant urbanization and inappropriate infrastructure is being rolled out as we speak. That's going to be the hard one to stop and turn around. We need a plan.

I will relate this story of our recent heatwaves - 45°C+ and the near death of a river system the size of France and Germany put together .... a million fish floating belly up .... and from our elected representives - not enough. This short few minute video makes compelling viewing. The bloke speaking is an ex Rugby Union player and a lot of the time dumb as a box of rocks - but even he nails it here: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=382845979178685&id=163164813757533&_rdr

What would the mindset look like? Nature first, humans second.
There are plenty of answers to our energy needs: https://www.carnegiece.com/wave/what-is-ceto/
How would the ethics work? Ban all military for a start - that frees up a heck of a lot of money.
The politics?, the societal organization? Again, difficult. Much the same as cleaning up chewing gum of the Singaporean streets - it might need a global dictator .... I'd be the only one I trust in that position, and then, not for long.
The standard of living is easy - much better.
It needs the developing world to bypass the old problematic ways and technology and leapfrog straight into a sustainable future.
The 'developed' world has to dismantle at least a third of the built environment and repair and rewild it. The remaining built world then operates much more efficiently, generating its own energy and a fair chunk of its food. Transport and distribution happens seamlessly and automated at night while we sleep. It can be a beautiful world.

Given that a significant proportion of the population are mindless zombies, I can only hope that we get there in time .....



Chosun :gh:
 
Jeez ! An easy question then ! :eek!:
If it was easy, it'd be fixed already. |:D|

I tend to like to ask questions like this to get beyond the question-at-hand and look at the broader scope.

I generally agree on all but one thing:

You'd likely include me as one of those mindless zombies, and I might not even deny it depending on your criteria, but when you're just managing to scrape-by on the time and budget you have, try to carve out a little time to enjoy yourself, and also trying to be good about a few things with food, the environment, etc. it can really look (and feel) like you're doing nothing.

To some degree, at least around here, one has to "go with the flow" and "take what you can get" in order to get a home, have food, have power, have insurance, have transportation, have a loving companion, meet societies appearance norms, keep a job, etc.

I've long not liked many things society expects. I've bucked quite a few norms, quietly. But sometimes there is no time, money, and land available to do more, and going with the flow ameliorates those issues.

I sometimes wish for that benevolent dictator (not me though) or government oversight to force people to do the right thing, but I also know deep-down that that slope is not only slippery, but steep. And if getting Trump as President is any indicator (or Obama, if you're on the other side of the fence), then we'd have to split out country in two in order to get the people themselves to come to a cohesive game plan to fix the world without anger and bloodshed.

In short, at least here in the USA, we're doomed. I can't speak for the rest of the world's ability to pull it off.
 
Solar minimum...not a single sun spot in February. The last time that happened was 2008, a particularly brutal Winter for us in the Pacific Northwest, a record 150" of snowfall and intense cold.
Our 2019 February was very cold, daily temps were 12* below normal and we experienced a record 55" of snow for this month.

https://earthsky.org/space/solar-cycle-24-25-sunspot-predictions
The most remarkable thing about this article is how the author seemingly struggles to correlate the Sun's activity and Earth's climate! I had to laugh out loud. Obviously any contrarian science that may challenge the high priests of AGW has to be downplayed or altogether spiked. Anathema!

And it appears the peer review 'war room' has convened and will meet that pesky Sun head on....fools to be sure.

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=448
 
Last edited:
Solar minimum...not a single sun spot in February. The last time that happened was 2008, a particularly brutal Winter for us in the Pacific Northwest, a record 150" of snowfall and intense cold.
Our 2019 February was very cold, daily temps were 12* below normal and we experienced a record 55" of snow for this month.

https://earthsky.org/space/solar-cycle-24-25-sunspot-predictions
The most remarkable thing about this article is how the author seemingly struggles to correlate the Sun's activity and Earth's climate! I had to laugh out loud. Obviously any contrarian science that may challenge the high priests of AGW has to be downplayed or altogether spiked. Anathema!

And it appears the peer review 'war room' has convened and will meet that pesky Sun head on....fools to be sure.

https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=448

I had to laugh too, ha ha ha ha. . ..

50” of snow in North Idaho last month! My goodness that’s a lot! Ever thought of moving to somewhere with a more clement climate?

Anathema!, indeed! A curse on the so-called “scientists” who permit their work to be reviewed by other so-called “scientists” prior to publication!! Anathema! Anathema! Anathema!
 
Last edited:
Way to actually address the real substance of my posting....oh wait...

And look who learned a new word today!

You're referring to the scientists who collude with peers to posit ONE side of the story. And we all know exactly what happens to those who buck the tide; they are marginalized, discredited, disparaged and with your recent behavior subjected to ageist discrimination. Nothing new, the hate for contrary opinion and those who hold it runs deep. But, hey!
 
Way to actually address the real substance of my posting....oh wait...

And look who learned a new word today!

You're referring to the scientists who collude with peers to posit ONE side of the story. And we all know exactly what happens to those who buck the tide; they are marginalized, discredited, disparaged and with your recent behavior subjected to ageist discrimination. Nothing new, the hate for contrary opinion and those who hold it runs deep. But, hey!

Ah, so that’s what you mean by “peer review”. Thought it must be something like that.

The “real subject” of your posting? Not sure what that might be exactly. That the 1000s of climate scientists who “believe” AGW is real are all crooks and scoundrels? If so, I didn’t consider it worth a reply.

Oh, you poor snowflake. Still feeling “marginalized, discredited (and) disparaged” are you? What you need, it seems to me, is some good old-fashioned self-esteem counseling.

[English usage note. “Posit”? Not quite the word you were looking for, I think.]
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top