Silvaire wrote:
I’m still waiting for a reasonable explanation of why there is virtually no correlation between dramatic increases in man made carbon dioxide production and an almost unchanged rate of sea level rise
The explanation is both reasonable and straightforward:
1. Latency in the system due to its size. It takes many years for a forcing effect to show up in sea levels since the specific heat capacity of water is quite high so it takes a long time for atmospheric average temperature rise to be reflected in sea temperature.
2. The energy required to turn ice to water. You can observe this whenever you have a cold drink with ice, that the drink stays colder for a lot longer because it takes a lot more energy to melt ice and raise the drink’s temperature by, say, 1 degree than it does to simply raise the same volume of water by 1 degree. Since part of sea level rise is driven by melting ice sheets, this means sea level rise will lag global temperature rise by a considerable time period.
These are all easily observable and testable phenomena.
I don’t buy that in this case, because the rate of rise has been constant for so many pre-industrial years.
Doubtless the billions spent on climate research can deliver an exact answer to this Q but I don’t think it is just latency.
I don’t believe for one minute that any phenomenon in play here is latent for 50 or more years. And sea level was regardless already rising at almost the same rate as today in 1870, and likely long before.
There was no significant man made carbon dioxide emission before 1870. It’s a shame we don’t have data going back hundreds of years before that because I’m guessing you’d see an unchanged rate of sea level rise for a long time before.
@airborne_again, answering your question there are sources of data for sea level rise in something like 20 places around the world starting around 1860 or so, and all of them show similar data.
If man made carbon dioxide is affecting sea level rise it is a minor effect overlayed on something ten times bigger that was in full force by 1870. My thought is that if you have to work so hard to analyze and extrapolate the minor effect, it might be useful to explain the major effect first.
It’s not the carbon dioxide that is affecting sea level rise, it’s global temperature. While one (CO2) certainly affects the other (temperature), the direct causal effect is from temperature not CO2 concentration. Temperature change will lag CO2 concentration change and in turn sea level change will lag temperature change.
OK, so what was the predominant cause of global temperature rise in 1870, if that is what created the substantial and similar rate of sea level rise that was already ongoing and uninterrupted at that time? There was very little man-made carbon dioxide emission at that time, or before.
Silvaire wrote:
OK, so what was the predominant cause of global temperature rise in 1870, if that is what created the substantial and similar rate of sea level rise that was already ongoing and uninterrupted at that time?
Maybe you should ask a professional climatologist?
And who is putting the bread on the table at his house?
The professional activity that puts a fair fraction of the bread on my table is listening to the sales pitch of often arrogant and self-interested research PhDs and college professors, and providing input to make sure their ideas are utilized in a practical and useful way by those spending real money, assuming their ideas do have any value in the particular case.
An answer to the question would be helpful, and given the amazing hype surrounding this issue one would think the answer would be in broad circulation. It isn’t.
It would also be helpful if there was a broader recognition that historical measurements show sea level rising at a similar rate 150 years ago, when man-made carbon dioxide emissions had never risen above perhaps 2% of the current level, and likely before. Little in relation to sea level rise specifically has changed since then.
The problem with the generalisations in climate change is that no-one can 100% prove anything. So we are faced with what we can say definitively in the here and now.
Fact 1/ Many of us are suffering more regular and more serious flooding than we have known in our lifetime.
You could argue that many thousands of years ago there was a great flood and mankind was only saved by building an ark.
So perhaps instead of net zero we all need to start building arks.
Fact 2/ Many people are losing their homes to wildfires which every year seem to happen more often and cause more damage. So perhaps we should cover all forest areas with sprinklers. They could certainly make use of the extra water we area getting. Or simply chop down all the trees and dig fire trenches and thus turning our forested areas into deserts.
Fact 3/ There is a massive increase in children and some adults suffering from respiratory diseases on traffic congested streets in large cities, due to petrol and diesel engined vehicles. We could ban them from cities. But that would be a political disaster.
Fact 4/ Glaciers are receding providing more water and increased risk of avalanche. We are curing the risk to people and property from potential avalanches by blowing them up when they look as if they might be a problem.
Fact 5/ There are measurements showing increased pollution, especially plastics in our seas and oceans. If we eat any sea food who knows what on earth we will be eating.
There are many other things that can be listed as measured and recorded facts. Plus much of this we can see with our own eyes. We can’t blame the media for it.
So if net zero, fossil fuel phasing out, reducing greenhouse gases, banning single use plastic or whatever is not going to work what are we going to do? Are we in fact looking at alternative methods to allow us to live a normal life if things do go from bad to worse?
Are there still people walking the streets carrying banners with “The end of the world is nigh” ? There were loads of them when I was younger.
Just a few thoughts from a grumpy old man?🙃🙃🤭
gallois wrote:
Many of us are suffering more regular and more serious flooding than we have known in our lifetime.
This is correct, but the reason is mainly there are more people affected, and we are building houses, structures, riverbeds that are destroying the natural flood plains.
gallois wrote:
Many people are losing their homes to wildfires which every year seem to happen more often and cause more damage
Again, more people. Wildfires are natural things, and in most cases a necessary thing for the habitats to stay healthy.
gallois wrote:
There is a massive increase in children and some adults suffering from respiratory diseases
This is mostly due to eating highly pre-processed food IMO, and over-protection of children, and unhealthy indoor environments, where we spend way too much time anyway.
gallois wrote:
If we eat any sea food who knows what on earth we will be eating.
Doesn’t matter. The microplastics are already everywhere, in our blood stream, in our brains. Even unborn children are packed with plastic. What will it do with us? nobody knows, but my guess is the same as pre-processed food. It will make us sick easier.
gallois wrote:
Are there still people walking the streets carrying banners with “The end of the world is nigh” ?
Haven’t people been doing that (for some odd reason or the other) for as long as civilization has existed?
