Global Warming, Rising Seas, and Solutions

[Murky]

See this is where you're completely wrong. I do agree with the basic science of the greenhouse affect. What I don't agree with is high climate sensitivity, that warming is all bad (and catastrophic) and the knee-jerk reactionary policies which cripple economies, industry and social structures.

But you still deny the consequences, which is what most people are concerned about. Most people wouldn't care if it's a little warmer or if the is a little more rain. For many people and for lots of other species living on the planet, even just a few degrees of global warming will have catastrophic consequences. If we want to avoid having to react after the worst disasters start happening then we need to take a proactive approach to preventing it. It doesn't have to cripple the economy, in fact, green jobs can help rebuild the economy. Allowing it to happen will damage social structures a lot more than taking steps to keep it from happening.

 

[Dale]

But you still deny the consequences, which is what most people are concerned about. Most people wouldn't care if it's a little warmer or if the is a little more rain. For many people and for lots of other species living on the planet, even just a few degrees of global warming will have catastrophic consequences. If we want to avoid having to react after the worst disasters start happening then we need to take a proactive approach to preventing it. It doesn't have to cripple the economy, in fact, green jobs can help rebuild the economy. Allowing it to happen will damage social structures a lot more than taking steps to keep it from happening.

You can't accept the basic science, and "deny" the consequences. The world's warmer, some ice has melted, some more clouds and rain is occurring. This does happen when the world warms a little. And let's be realistic here, the world has warmed 0.8C since 1850. But when people start saying 4-6C increase by 2100, or 13 metre sea level rises by 2100, or all glaciers will be gone by 2036, or Australia's Climate Commissioner predictions of "dams will never fill again", that's when you know someone left the door open and let the cookoos out. Between 200AD and 850AD the temperature rose a full degree, yet humans and animals survived that. At the start of the Younger Dryas temperatures dropped 7C in 30 years, humans and animals survived that one too. And let's look very recently. Between 1700AD and 1800AD temperatures rose 0.8C, yet humans and animals survived that one too. Abrupt climate change is survivable. A look at the Medieval Warm Period shows temperatures were the same as modern times. Yet there is little written, recorded, evidenced or even popularised in art, catastrophic disasters. If anything, all historical records show life was just that little bit easier and better. Longer food growing season, less winter chill (less deaths) and more population growth and prosperity.

All the evidence just points to these predicted so called catastrophic disasters not occurring in the past. So why would they suddenly start happening now?

 

[Murky]

I think we're going a bit OT here, this thread was supposed to about solutions.

edit: I gave my reply in the evidence thread.

 

[El_Machinae]

That said, rapid changes are 'survivable' only there's sufficient biodiversity and sufficient opportunity to migrate to buffer the rapid changes. I'm not at all convinced that Gaia can handle a 0.8 C shift this century as easily as it would have last century. By analogy, a sick or old person couldn't handle a 0.8 C shift in body temperature nearly as well as a young, healthy person ... especially a very rapid one.

I like the term cAGW, because the economic negative externalities of simple AGW might be invisible (in aggregate) like much of our industrial pollution is. However, cAGW would be 'really bad', obviously, and thus should be dealt with like other potential disasters that are based on odds. By analogy, the Canadian people spend roughly 2x on "defensive military" (to prevent military-based disasters) than it would cost us to ameliorate our GHG contributions. Is a military-based disaster twice as likely as cAGW? Honestly, I think maybe.

 

[Arwon]

The term watermelon is recognised as defining someone who is Red-Green, or Eco-Socialist. In Australia it's common usage is to define someone who follows eco-socialism. Not exactly "name-calling" now is it? Even Wikipedia, the fount of all information, accepts the watermelon definition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-socialism

But you're right, it's off topic. I will withdraw discussion of politics from this thread.

Moderator Action: Please take it to PM next time. 'Watermelon' is a recognised term, sure, but that doesn't mean you can use it as a pejorative. You were using it in a similar way to how someone would use the word 'fascist' to describe someone they're arguing against.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

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

One way to resolve the rising sea level crisis is we could clone Al Gore and send him to all parts of the globe at the same time. Thus the Al Gore Effect will cause extreme cold anomalies all over the globe and cause ocean temps to decrease. The resulting contraction of the oceans as the SST dives will avert any potential damages from sea level rise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gore_Effect

For the record, as well as being trite and silly twenty years ago, it's also incredibly inaccurate applied to me personally. Check the compass thing in my sig, yo. I want social democratic mixed market economies that properly incorporate externalities. BAM.

Hearts and kisses.

 

[Murky]

The NRDC has a great page on the consequences of anthropogenic global warming.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fcons.asp

Wiki also has a page dedicated to it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

edit:
The NRDC has a pretty descent solutions section too.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/solutions/

• Step 1: Set limits on global warming pollution
• Step 2: Invest in green jobs and clean energy
• Step 3: Drive smarter cars
• Step 4: Create green homes and buildings
• Step 5: Build better communities and transportation

We probably need to add saving forest and other preservation strategies to that list.

 

[peter grimes]

The NRDC has a pretty descent solutions section too.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/solutions/
Step 1: Set limits on global warming pollution
Step 2: Invest in green jobs and clean energy
Step 3: Drive smarter cars
Step 4: Create green homes and buildings
Step 5: Build better communities and transportation

We probably need to add saving forest and other preservation strategies to that list.

I'm really surprised that they didn't include anything about agriculture / meat production. I thought that industrial meat harvesting was a major factor in Americans' carbon footprint.

 

[Murky]

I'm really surprised that they didn't include anything about agriculture / meat production. I thought that industrial meat harvesting was a major factor in Americans' carbon footprint.

I don't think that list was designed to be all inclusive. I think meat production will decrease on its own anyway. It will become more difficult to maintain large herds of cattle because grain prices will increase. Corn is already pretty high. As people become aware of the unsustainable practices, poultry and factory farmed fish/shrimp will also decrease because of lack of demand.

 

[Tee Kay]

I'm really surprised that they didn't include anything about agriculture / meat production. I thought that industrial meat harvesting was a major factor in Americans' carbon footprint.

I don't think that list was designed to be all inclusive. I think meat production will decrease on its own anyway. It will become more difficult to maintain large herds of cattle because grain prices will increase. Corn is already pretty high. As people become aware of the unsustainable practices, poultry and factory farmed fish/shrimp will also decrease because of lack of demand.

As the middle and upper classes in the so-called Third World grow, so will meat consumption with it. I don't think increased grain prices will be much of a bother as far as meat production is concerned. Farmers in some regions are already being forced to sell for far less than they should earn to sustain themselves anyway. As for factory farming, price will continue to trump morality any day of the week. Free-range or organic products will sell better but it won't put an end to factory farming. Factory-farmed fish/shrimp will probably increase due to the collapse of fisheries.

We can't depend on economics to solve this particular problem, and measures like taxing meat consumption will bound to be politically unpopular and only partially effective. Reducing meat consumption requires a revolution in mentality, and we cannot count on that to happen. We will need innovation and smarter practices.

In any case, the bulk of GHG emissions still come from burning fossil fuels, and particularly electricity generation and transportation (more than 60%).

 

[CavLancer]

At the risk of a couple more naughty points, what then is the term "denialist"? Certainly it can be no less a fascist term than "watermelon", though I don't recall any stories of stormtroopers breaking down doors and accusing the folks of being fruits? Or is a watermelon a fascist veggie? What is a watermelon? Certainly it doesn't pertain to this discussion but I am curious.

I'm very confused, but I would rather fully understand whether such decisions are based upon whether a term is considered pejorative simply based on its side in the debate or whether instead its based on the reported post which is considered in isolation, according to the very nice mod who gave me my last points, don't recall his name, getting old.

Apparently if a armed thief breaks into a house, and the homeowner wrestles the gun from him and in the process shoots the criminal, and at that point the crime is reported, its only the fact that the homeowner shot the other individual that is to be considered, and not the whole case of the breaking and entering, the homeowner hung from the neck.... Under my current understanding, and I hope I'm wrong, only the single reported post is considered, not the preceding posts which truly determine the crime. Respectfully though, things are done differently at different forums, and I am only curious, not accusatory.

I only ask this in public because everything else regarding Dale's innocence/guilt has been laid out in public, and what's fair is fair, if fair applies here which is a question not of the success of a forum, which cannot be denied, but its appeal, and that in itself is a very serious question on my part which has to do with my choice of internet home and doesn't truly pertain to this discussion. Are the folks who referred to those who don't accept the CAGW agenda also to be punished for their "denialist" statements or just the reported post?

Must we all become informers? Should Dale have reported any post in which "denialist" was used? Grant you I have no idea whether he would do such a thing but knowing him I doubt it.

I don't ask if there was a reported post on either side because I know that such stuff is private to the forum, as it should be, and the entire thing seems to me, a mere member, as the very definition of petty.

So really I don't care about whether someone refers to me as a denialist, and I doubt Dale does, but is that the circumstance in which we find ourselves, where if we use the term "watermelon" its to be reported in every instance as a dire insult, and if someone calls us "denialists" well we should go running to moderation?

Is that the policy?

Moderator Action: Take it to PM, don't publicly discuss moderator actions.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Tee Kay]

At the risk of a couple more naughty points, what then is the term "denialist"?

Or "warmist"?

Actually, "denialist" is a literally accurate term, since they do "deny" the sciences behind the theory of AGW.

 

[CavLancer]

Sure, whatever, who cares? The question stands. Should we be reporting every tiny thing which could result in an infraction for those who use such terms and who happen to disagree with our side, whichever that is?

Btw, the reverse side is also in denial of what I belive is the case. That would make for more denialists.

Indeed, if I'm to be considered a denialist, would not other who disagree be denialiast deniers?

 

[Dale]

Or "warmist"?

Actually, "denialist" is a literally accurate term, since they do "deny" the sciences behind the theory of AGW.

Then if that's the definition, I only know of one "denier" (Dr S. Fred Singer who denies any warming at all contrary to all evidence), as everyone else accepts the basic theory of AGW. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and a doubling of CO2 will cause a 1.1C rise in temperature (raw, no feedbacks calculated). The only difference between the two camps is literally "how much warming will occur due to CO2". And that comes down to feedbacks in the system which determines climate sensitivity and the ultimate final round million dollar prize question of "does CO2 drive climate or nature".

 

[CavLancer]

Either of you guys know whether a watermelon is a fruit or a veggie?

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: Drop the subject. If you disagree that watermelon was used as a pejorative, PM me. Get back on topic here.

For the record, nothing revolving around 'watermelon' was reported.

 

[CavLancer]

Thank you Camikaze. I'll try the PM next time I have a question.

 

[Silurian]

And no, keeping our atmospheric pollution limited to "natural" parameters is not an option... Please do not even argue for that fantasy as a solution, this thread is about how we prevent the flooding of coastlines all over the world - or not, maybe we just build sea walls and move inland when needed.

Fortunately we wont see the kind of sudden "biblical" flooding that happened as the ice age was ending. But I for one welcome a world that is both warmer and wetter with less ice, especially since lengthy and far more deadly cold snaps are inevitable given climate records.

More ice is gonna melt and seas will rise if we continue down this road... Obviously Greenland will be the main source given its proximity to the N Atlantic and warmer waters. During a "natural" period ~125 kya large chunks of Florida were under water, that'll happen again as the ice sheet on Greenland melts.

Solve our problem!

Who knows what'll work, maybe someone can invent something to turn our pollution "whiter" or we just paint everything white.

Since I've advocated for several ways of dealing with this in past threads I'd like to see what other people can come up with...

So does anybody have an answer to the OP. (I think controlling CO2 is the cheapest solution but that’s OT and there is another thread for that).

I think I have shown that storing water in large reservoirs would be difficult.

A large part of the earth’s fresh water is stored in aquifers such as the Ogallala aquifer. Stopping water extraction from these aquifers and refilling where a suitable fresh water source exists would reduce water flow to the oceans but I cannot see it being significant! Only about 312km2 has been extracted (from the Ogallala), about a third that could go into the Jordan Valley, so refilling it would not be a solution on its own. Are there enough aquifers with rivers that could be used to recharge and overcharge them? Will the cost of stopping farming in places like Kansas be too great?

 

[tokala]

Solution a) build higher and thicker dikes and flood barriers.
Solution b) abandon some coastal areas.
I do not see any realistic point c)

For any real nation, it will be a combination of those, the richer the nation, the closer the solution will be to 100% a)

For example I learned in the "Ask a Dutchman" thread that the Netherlands are already allocating about 1% of their national budget to coastal protection. That protection scheme is designed to withstand a sea level rise of 4 feet up to 2100.

I could imagine that poor countries with unfavorable geography, say, Bangla Desh, will not be able to affort a meaningful level of coastal protection.

On a global scale, and on the timescale of decades, investments that reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere appear likely to be more economically sensible than putting that money into after-the-fact mitigation schemes.

On even longer timescales, there should be no question that the cost of mitigation will be orders of magnitudes higher than prevention:

There is a clear and strong correlation between long-term global average temperature and sea level in the geologic record. Sea level has the potential to change much more than is forecast for the coming century, and it has done so in the past. The slope of covariation from the geologic record has been 10–20 m/°C. Of course, there is a world of complexity that is collapsed into this simple figure.

Citation from this paper.

Considering the way politics, economics and human psychology operate in todays world, it is not very likely that any globally effective climate protection schemes will be implemented, though.

 

[Dale]

As an answer to the OP, a way to deal with rising sea levels, I return to the solution I offered. As I see it, it's a win-win as it has the effect to drop sea levels and reduce temps at the same time.

One way to resolve the rising sea level crisis is we could clone Al Gore and send him to all parts of the globe at the same time. Thus the Al Gore Effect will cause extreme cold anomalies all over the globe and cause ocean temps to decrease. The resulting contraction of the oceans as the SST dives will avert any potential damages from sea level rise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gore_Effect

 

[Berzerker]

On a global scale, and on the timescale of decades, investments that reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere appear likely to be more economically sensible than putting that money into after-the-fact mitigation schemes.

I should have been more clear in my OP, trying to slow the growing rate of pollution is a given... I just seriously doubt we will see a return to natural parameters due to our efforts - keeping co2 at 2 or 3x the rate in 1900 is overly optimistic. Certainly we'd do what we can, which aint much, but seas will rise unless we can figure out ways to "regulate" them.