Global warming strikes again...

[onejayhawk]

No. You're just wrong. The consensus is ther.

You are in denial, so this conversation cannot proceed.

I'm surprised you want to rehash it... You're welcome to convince people it'd be easier building a damn several hundred miles long around Kansas and deliver the water than a damn several hundred ft long on a ridgeline bordering the sea letting gravity deliver the water. I'd be happy to move from Kansas if it meant we could slow or stop the flooding of the world's coastal populations. Then you can convince people why its smarter to flood prime farmland than what are mostly lava fields destined to be seafloor anyway.

That would be over 1000 miles. The height at tallest would be over 2000 feet. You could get good power generation. That said, Nevada would make more sense. The government already owns almost 90%.

J

 

[CavLancer]

That's kind of why I let events decide. There is no convincing people. However if its so cold their testicles clack together like castanets, they are more convincing. Or, who knows? If cold doesn't come on as strong as I expect now that El Nino is finished then maybe CO2 is more of a greenhouse gas than I thought. Better than believing in a bunch of garbage in garbage out climate models.

 

[Berzerker]

Those are impressively-sized damns. To think that the biggest damn we can muster here on the forum is this size:

DAMN!

Nope, they don't compare at all. Not even two inches on my computer screen.

I wonder how big a Darnitall! I could type...

Dam kind of you to correct my spelling mistakes, damn must have been my sub-conscious typing.

Im not trying to convince anybody of anything. I am just demonstrating that you have not done any back of an envelope calculations to show that your water storage solution is cost effective.

The cost of building a dam around Kansas doesn't demonstrate my idea isn't cost effective and I never said it was, I said it was better than letting seas rise.

You have not shown any place that could hold the water produced by the USA.

Thats not true, I've identified several places.

You have suggested that the USA invade Isreal and flood the dead sea valley up to Lebanon, but this is required to hold the extra sea water produced by Israel, Jordan and Syria.

Invade? I suggested pumping water into the Dead Sea region (and the Nevada Basin, etc).

You suggested the Afar depression but that would only hold 1/60th of the water produced by the USA and where are the Africans going to put their water.

Why are we using your numbers? I dont want to lower seas by a meter, I want to keep them about where they are now. But if we could lower them an inch it might help those people out on those islands in the Indian Ocean.

So where is this place where the USA can build a dam " several hundred ft long on a ridgeline bordering the sea letting gravity deliver the water".

Might not even need a dam, nature has one there already. We just connect the Red Sea with the Afar Depression and regulate the flow, maybe produce power with a hydro station for desalinization plants to produce clean water for the region.

Remember you have to find a place with the area of the USA that you can flood to a depth of 6m or a smaller area deeper like Kansas.

I do? That's your idea.

If the oceans of the world were to rise by 1m and 18% of that were stored in the USA the whole country would have to be covered to an average depth of 6m. Alternatively Kansas could be surrounded in one massive dam and flooded to an average depth of 285m.

Why am I dealing with your "if"? I'm worried about now, not 1m from now.

It will be cheaper to raise the sea walls by 1m around cities and other valuable areas and retreat from others.""

I imagine many places will need those sea walls, but why retreat from good land when we can save it and improve one of the most desolate regions in the world?

 

[CavLancer]

I'm all for flooding the low desert places. Increase evaporation, more rain. Free desalinization from the sky, slightly lower sea levels, and maybe some good golf courses.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Dam kind of you to correct my spelling mistakes, damn must have been my sub-conscious typing.

Actually, I was reminded of a controversial thing that happened in my province back in the 1970s, between the people who wanted to construct a dam to regulate the river that flows through my city and the people who opposed it. I was in junior high school at the time, and my social studies class went on a field trip out to the possible sites where the dam would be built. The reason for the controversy was the sheer amount of productive farmland that would be flooded, and one of the sites had an old FN burial ground on it. We also attended the public hearings conducted by the Environment Conservation Authority (back in those days the public really were allowed to attend public meetings and conservation really did mean conservation).

Some of the opponents made bumper stickers and window stickers that said "NO DAM WAY" and conversation was apt to include the words, "That damn dam!".

In the end it was built, of course.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's kind of why I let events decide.

Yeah, you sure showed us that the last 6 years. Events have been getting warmer and you've been going:

There is no convincing people. However if its so cold their testicles clack together like castanets, they are more convincing.

While year after year of temperature records doesn't sway you an inch. Every single prediction you have made didn't just fail to materialize, the exact opposite of what you predicted has.

In 2011 you said exactly the same: "When in 2012 your balls are freezing off I can go: told you so"
In 2012: "When in 2016 your balls are freezing off, no one can deny the obvious trend"
In 2015: "Next year the cooling trend will be obvious enough so even idiots like you can see the truth"

You have never let events influence a single iota of your opinion on climate change. You cemented it in 2011 cheerleading for Dale.

 

[CavLancer]

I'm concerned with your sense of moral outrage Ziggy, you are imo getting carried away here, you appear to be losing your balance. We used too be quite friendly, until you accused me, do you remember? That was the first sign that maybe it mattered too much to you. Maybe my opinions haven't changed much over the years, but please examine whether its worth getting so upset about. Btw as I stated in the thread several times, if by the end of this coming spring the climate isn't significantly cooler, I'll accept that CO2 is more of an warming gas than I thought it was. Victory for you is just around the corner! Find some peace at last.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm concerned with your sense of moral outrage Ziggy, you are imo getting carried away here, you appear to be losing your balance. We used too be quite friendly, until you accused me, do you remember? That was the first sign that maybe it mattered too much to you. Maybe my opinions haven't changed much over the years, but please examine whether its worth getting so upset about. Btw as I stated in the thread several times, if by the end of this coming spring the climate isn't significantly cooler, I'll accept that CO2 is more of an warming gas than I thought it was. Victory for you is just around the corner! Find some peace at last.

I'm not outraged or upset or anything. Just weary of claims made. Since this is a forum where arguments are our means of communication, I will treat yours as any other. When I find fault in them I will point them out. Tell me, was what I said not true? Did you not say those things in 2011/12/15?

Victory for me would be for you to be more open minded towards counter arguments you get. Victory would have been realization that claims you were certain of in 2011/2012/ 2015 haven't panned out the way you expected and you'd be more susceptible to people who do know what they're talking about (not me, I'm just a lay man. I'm talking about the people who study this phenomenon professionally on a daily bases). Victory would be for you not to go "Sure they now claim that every year is hotter, but one has a hard time with that if its bloody obvious to even the most fervent AGW adherents that its too cold to be warming." when that's clearly bollocks, after you've been shown wrong by the climate no less. Victory would be if you'd not tell people to look at events to see what's happening while ignoring them yourself.

Instead you go with an arbitrary point in time, next spring, and hinge your position on global warming on that. Spring next year doesn't mean anything in the timescales that are involved when determining whether global warming is happening or not. This is not about victory, defeat or face loss. This is about understanding. This is about having a meaningful discussion.

I already dropped the idea of reminding you of our bet a year ago when it was clear what I deem a victory would not be realized. I'm not in this for an "I told you so", I hate "I told you so"'s. Imagine my surprise when around the time our bet would be expired you would start this thread as a carbon copy of 2011.

 

[Silurian]

The cost of building a dam around Kansas doesn't demonstrate my idea isn't cost effective and I never said it was, I said it was better than letting seas rise.

Well if we store water on land we need to cover entire countries or build large dams to store it in a smaller area. If we store sea water in the sea we have the entire area of the sea to store the water in. The oceans cover 71% of the earth surface. So If you store the sea level rise on land it will be 2.44 times as deep unless you start building dams to store it.

Thats not true, I've identified several places.

Yes you have identified some places. But they are just not big enough. They also assume that the USA is the only country producing CO2.The solution to rising sea levels will have to be solved by all countries.

Do you think that if taxes in Kansas were raised by 25% it would solve the US budget problems. I don't it would help but would only make a small dent. You got to have more places to tax or put water.

Invade? I suggested pumping water into the Dead Sea region (and the Nevada Basin, etc).

Yes you proposed invading Israel.

Yeah, thats what I'm proposing....

Nevada has a few mountain ranges which would reduce the area of the lakes. But feel free to provide some numbers.

And I stated that the dead sea region would be about big enough to store the sea level rise caused by Israel, Jordan and Syria. They produce a lot less CO2 than the USA. Your proposed lake would be very salty due too the salt in the dead sea so would most likely have no fish and maybe no life. So the Sea of Galilee would end up as a brackish dead place.

Why are we using your numbers? I dont want to lower seas by a meter, I want to keep them about where they are now. But if we could lower them an inch it might help those people out on those islands in the Indian Ocean.

Please supply your own numbers then.

Take the area of oceans. 361,900,000 km2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean

Take projected sea level rise over the next 120 years. (In the UK we design large civil engineering projects for 120 years) The current rate is about 3mm per year . It is projected to be between 300 and 1200mm higher by 2100 so using a figure of 1000mm rise by 2136 seems like a reasonable figure with a factor of safety if only limited action is taken to slow the rise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Then you have to decide how much of the rise the USA is responsible for. I took the current CO2 out put for simplicity which is now 14.95%. The USA (and Europe) has been polluting for longer but China and other countries are now making a bigger contibution. The USA was responsible for 28.8% of historical emissions to 2007. So using the current pollution level takes the historic high levels and the hopefully continued reduction in US pollution into account for a rough estimate.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change

So 361,900,000 km2 x 1m = 361,900km3

361,900km3 X 14.95% = 54,104km3

Area of USA 9.834 million km²

So 54,104km3 / 9,834,000km2 = 5.5 m depth over the entire USA.

Might not even need a dam, nature has one there already. We just connect the Red Sea with the Afar Depression and regulate the flow, maybe produce power with a hydro station for desalinization plants to produce clean water for the region.

Well the Afar Depression is near three major faults so a dam would have to be well engineered. The Danaki depression, the bit below sea level, has an area of about 10000km. So flooding it to sea level, 100m, would take 1000 km3 of water.

1000 km3 / 54,104km3 = 0.018

0.018 X 120 years = 2.2 years.

So what are you going to do after you have filled it .

I do? That's your idea.

No its your idea to store the sea on land.
You have been unable to supply places with sufficient volume to do this.
I have just demonstrated how deep and the area needed to carry out your idea.

Why am I dealing with your "if"? I'm worried about now, not 1m from now.

Some people plan for the future.

I imagine many places will need those sea walls, but why retreat from good land when we can save it and improve one of the most desolate regions in the world?

That is why I suggested turning Kansas into a lake.

 

[Angst]

You are in denial, so this conversation cannot proceed.

I'm in denial? How is it me that's in denial? Are you aware of how laughably you're acting? You just go no. I presented you the material that you still hasn't answered. You are quoting minute parts of any points directed at you. Your views are stupid, ingrained for reasons I cannot fathom - I assume stubborn convenience. I'll still read the thread but until you actually provide facts, your presence isn't worth anything for anyone, reading your posts either changes nothing or makes the reader dumber. So until you present a fact, I won't actually answer you anymore - as with you not answering me, nor anyone else.

 

[CavLancer]

Glad to hear it Ziggy. Here;'s from another thread.

Michkov said: ↑
How would this work? I've seen you put this hypothesis forward several times now, so I assume you got more on that than just "the sun did it".

Cav...
Same as it has in the past. Normally refereed to as 'sunspot minimums' but since sunspots are an effect of solar magnetism, and solar magnetism seems connected to such stuff as solar irradiance and the magnetism protects the solar system from cosmic rays and these are hypothesized to be important in cloud formation and clouds further reflect the sun's rays, the result is cooling. The sun is just winding down from its most anemic solar cycle (24) in a hundred years, and its anticipated that 25 will be exceptionally weak. Maunder weak...possibly end of the Holocene weak? Bootstoots says no, hope he's right. These factors combined with the Pacific going into cold phase (PDO) and the Atlantic already being there, as well as the emerging La Nina in the tropical central Pacific means to me that temps ought to be dropping off a cliff by the end of next spring. How would this evidence itself in the face of AGW CO2 is the 800 lb gorilla in the room, or perhaps alternately the Pink Panther's minkey. If CO2 is as strong as Algore says it is, well all this stuff can stand aside, its the 800lb gorilla, and it will stay warm. If its an overblown bunch of hysteria, then we get the minkey. If its the gorilla I'm gratefully wrong about CO2. (Cold would be worse than warm if you like to eat) If its the minkey then I'm right about CO2, I receive the unreserved accolades of a bunch of CFC folks who would be enjoying the taste of their words as we all prepare to go on a diet for the rest of our lives. Hope I'm wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum

...and the somewhat more theoretical...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spörer_Minimum

 

[onejayhawk]

I'm in denial?

Correct.

If we are turning Kansas into a lake, make sure they do it right. There is a Lake Cheney (like the former VP) already. It's a stinking mudhole.

J

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Yeah, you sure showed us that the last 6 years. Events have been getting warmer and you've been going:

While year after year of temperature records doesn't sway you an inch. Every single prediction you have made didn't just fail to materialize, the exact opposite of what you predicted has.

In 2011 you said exactly the same: "When in 2012 your balls are freezing off I can go: told you so"
In 2012: "When in 2016 your balls are freezing off, no one can deny the obvious trend"
In 2015: "Next year the cooling trend will be obvious enough so even idiots like you can see the truth"

You have never let events influence a single iota of your opinion on climate change. You cemented it in 2011 cheerleading for Dale.

That's kind of why I let events decide. There is no convincing people. However if its so cold their testicles clack together like castanets, they are more convincing. Or, who knows? If cold doesn't come on as strong as I expect now that El Nino is finished then maybe CO2 is more of a greenhouse gas than I thought. Better than believing in a bunch of garbage in garbage out climate models.

Just where exactly is this obsession with frozen testicles coming from, Lance? It worries me.. Is there something you want to tell us?

 

[CavLancer]

Yeah, Been fun. :b:

 

[Michkov]

Glad to hear it Ziggy. Here;'s from another thread.
Same as it has in the past. Normally refereed to as 'sunspot minimums' but since sunspots are an effect of solar magnetism, and solar magnetism seems connected to such stuff as solar irradiance and the magnetism protects the solar system from cosmic rays and these are hypothesized to be important in cloud formation and clouds further reflect the sun's rays, the result is cooling. The sun is just winding down from its most anemic solar cycle (24) in a hundred years, and its anticipated that 25 will be exceptionally weak. Maunder weak...possibly end of the Holocene weak? Bootstoots says no, hope he's right. These factors combined with the Pacific going into cold phase (PDO) and the Atlantic already being there, as well as the emerging La Nina in the tropical central Pacific means to me that temps ought to be dropping off a cliff by the end of next spring. How would this evidence itself in the face of AGW CO2 is the 800 lb gorilla in the room, or perhaps alternately the Pink Panther's minkey. If CO2 is as strong as Algore says it is, well all this stuff can stand aside, its the 800lb gorilla, and it will stay warm. If its an overblown bunch of hysteria, then we get the minkey. If its the gorilla I'm gratefully wrong about CO2. (Cold would be worse than warm if you like to eat) If its the minkey then I'm right about CO2, I receive the unreserved accolades of a bunch of CFC folks who would be enjoying the taste of their words as we all prepare to go on a diet for the rest of our lives. Hope I'm wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum

...and the somewhat more theoretical...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spörer_Minimum

Didn't we already go through the whole minimum nonsense a couple of pages back?

That said every insolation data I've seen so far puts the variation for the Maunder minimum and Solar cycle at about 0.1% of the solar constant. While earths orbit changes it by -/+2% over a year. By moving the planet closer to the start not making the star hotter just by orbiting.

As for the cosmic rays, that has been found to be a minuscule contributor.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119

 

[Berzerker]

Well if we store water on land we need to cover entire countries or build large dams to store it in a smaller area. If we store sea water in the sea we have the entire area of the sea to store the water in. The oceans cover 71% of the earth surface. So If you store the sea level rise on land it will be 2.44 times as deep unless you start building dams to store it.

Yes you have identified some places. But they are just not big enough. They also assume that the USA is the only country producing CO2.The solution to rising sea levels will have to be solved by all countries.

Do you think that if taxes in Kansas were raised by 25% it would solve the US budget problems. I don't it would help but would only make a small dent. You got to have more places to tax or put water.

Yes you proposed invading Israel.

Nevada has a few mountain ranges which would reduce the area of the lakes. But feel free to provide some numbers.

And I stated that the dead sea region would be about big enough to store the sea level rise caused by Israel, Jordan and Syria. They produce a lot less CO2 than the USA. Your proposed lake would be very salty due too the salt in the dead sea so would most likely have no fish and maybe no life. So the Sea of Galilee would end up as a brackish dead place.

Please supply your own numbers then.

Take the area of oceans. 361,900,000 km2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean

Take projected sea level rise over the next 120 years. (In the UK we design large civil engineering projects for 120 years) The current rate is about 3mm per year . It is projected to be between 300 and 1200mm higher by 2100 so using a figure of 1000mm rise by 2136 seems like a reasonable figure with a factor of safety if only limited action is taken to slow the rise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

Then you have to decide how much of the rise the USA is responsible for. I took the current CO2 out put for simplicity which is now 14.95%. The USA (and Europe) has been polluting for longer but China and other countries are now making a bigger contibution. The USA was responsible for 28.8% of historical emissions to 2007. So using the current pollution level takes the historic high levels and the hopefully continued reduction in US pollution into account for a rough estimate.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/apr/21/countries-responsible-climate-change

So 361,900,000 km2 x 1m = 361,900km3

361,900km3 X 14.95% = 54,104km3

Area of USA 9.834 million km²

So 54,104km3 / 9,834,000km2 = 5.5 m depth over the entire USA.

Well the Afar Depression is near three major faults so a dam would have to be well engineered. The Danaki depression, the bit below sea level, has an area of about 10000km. So flooding it to sea level, 100m, would take 1000 km3 of water.

1000 km3 / 54,104km3 = 0.018

0.018 X 120 years = 2.2 years.

So what are you going to do after you have filled it .

No its your idea to store the sea on land.
You have been unable to supply places with sufficient volume to do this.
I have just demonstrated how deep and the area needed to carry out your idea.

Some people plan for the future.

That is why I suggested turning Kansas into a lake.

You suggested turning Kansas into a lake because you didn't like me suggesting we store seawater in depressions. But now you're calling it one of the most desolate places on Earth? Try surviving a day or two in the Danikil Depression. Kansas feeds people, lava fields do not. Building your strawman with numbers doesn't make it more sturdy, I never said I wanted to lower sea levels by a meter. You decided my idea must lower seas by a meter. Then you decided to require every country store the water it produces. First we get the moral/liberal outrage in the form of a dam around Kansas followed by the bureaucracy from somebody complaining about cost effectiveness. Now where did I say we needed to invade Israel? Thats BS too.

 

[onejayhawk]

It will be cheaper to raise the sea walls by 1m around cities and other valuable areas and retreat from others.

Oceans are rising on the close order of a cm per decade, so we will have 1000 years to do whatever.

J

 

[Silurian]

You suggested turning Kansas into a lake because you didn't like me suggesting we store seawater in depressions. But now you're calling it one of the most desolate places on Earth? Try surviving a day or two in the Danikil Depression. Kansas feeds people, lava fields do not. Building your strawman with numbers doesn't make it more sturdy, I never said I wanted to lower sea levels by a meter. You decided my idea must lower seas by a meter. Then you decided to require every country store the water it produces. First we get the moral/liberal outrage in the form of a dam around Kansas followed by the bureaucracy from somebody complaining about cost effectiveness.

I suggested turning Kansas into a lake so that I could show you the area and depth that would be required.

I do not object to the concept of storing water in depressions but they have to be big enough to hold the water. If you were to state that you were doing some work on your swiming pool and were going to store the water in your saucepans I would be equally sceptical.

You are correct that I decided that we should allow for a meter rise in sea levels over the next 120 years. I do not know why you keep stating that " I never said I wanted to lower sea levels by a meter".

Would you please supply the sea level rise that you propose to fill the depressions with.

I think every country should be responsible for its own pollution. China has over taken the USA in the pollution stakes. I do not see why the USA should do something and China nothing. I assumed that the USA is 15% responsible for the projected sea level rise over the next 120 years. It seems pointless to me for the USA to store a small part of this 15% in the Dead Sea valley and Israel, Jordan and Syria allow an equal amount of water to go into the sea.

I think there would be a fair bit of moral out rage if the USA was to flood the Dead Sea Valley as you propose. More people care about the Sea of Galilee than Kansas.

I do not see what bureaucracy has to do with cost effectiveness. I do not support governments wasting tax payers money.

Now where did I say we needed to invade Israel? Thats BS too.

I,m surprised you did not read your post that I linked for you.

Are you proposing that the US invade Israel and Jordan and flood the Jordan valley up to sea level. You know that would flood the whole valley nearly to Lebanon.

Yeah, thats what I'm proposing.

You asked why we should use my figures.
I have shown where I got my figures from and have asked you to supply your own.
Will you be suppling your own figures.

With your figures would you please show how long filling some of the depressions would hold back sea level rise.

Oceans are rising on the close order of a cm per decade, so we will have 1000 years to do whatever.

J

You are misinformed. Sea levels are currently rising at about 30mm per decade and the rate is increasing.

From Wiki

Sea level rise has been estimated to be on average between +2.6 millimetres (0.10 in) and 2.9 millimetres (0.11 in) per year ± 0.4 millimetres (0.016 in) since 1993[3] and has accelerated in recent years.[4] For the period between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels are estimated to have risen a total of 195 millimetres (7.7 in), and 1.7 millimetres (0.067 in) ± 0.3 millimetres (0.012 in) per year, with a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 millimetres (0.00051 in) ± 0.006 millimetres (0.00024 in) per year"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

 

[onejayhawk]

You are misinformed. Sea levels are currently rising at about 30mm per decade and the rate is increasing. From Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

That is in of the range I stated, so no disagreement.

Use your top number. 333 years to deal with one meter of ocean. Pardon me if that is not a pressing issue in my calculations. Even at 100 years, it is not a problem.

J

 

[sophie]

That is in of the range I stated, so no disagreement.

Use your top number. 333 years to deal with one meter of ocean. Pardon me if that is not a pressing issue in my calculations. Even at 100 years, it is not a problem.

J

That doesn't include contributions from melting ice sheets, which are expected to add considerably to water level rise. Conservatively, we're looking at a 1m rise by 2100.