Arctic ice melt could trigger uncontrollable climate change at global level

[LeafByNiggle]

Have to remember that sea levels have always been rising at a fairly consistent rate since the last ice age subsided about 10000 years ago. Long, long before the modern industrial age. For instance, Phoenician seaports can be found under about 20 feet of water now. What’s in dispute is whether that rate has accelerated at all, let alone due to MMGW. I’m not convinced either way. One can pull certain NOAA data to say one thing and other NOAA data to take the other side of that argument.

If you look at the graph you quoted, there is evidence of acceleration right there.

1. Hold up a straight edge to your computer screen from the 1900 point on the graph to the 2015 point on the graph. Notice how all the middle portion of the graph lies** below** your straight edge. This is evidence of a graph that is concave upward - a sure sign of an increasing rate of change.
2. Hold up that same straight edge to the “Satellite measurements” portion of the graph is blue. Notice how the angle of your straight edge is higher than the angle formed by the whole graph going back to 1900. Another sure sign that recent rate of change is greater than the rate of change earlier in the last century.

So you are correct that the sea level has been rising gradually since the last ice age, but if that were all, we would expect to see that rate leveling off now that we are quite distant from that time. We certainly would not expect to see it speeding up if it were just the tail end of the ice-age subsiding.

 

[edwest2]

No, this generation will be okay, at least those of moderate means in the 1st world. It’s that we’re killing people on into the far distant future.

It’s the future generations who will suffer the most from CC. Do we care about them? That’s the question.

As I’ve written before, the culprits ain’t us. And those who have the resources and expertise ain’t us. Most people in “the richest country on earth” are less well off than the fraction who control/own 80% of everything. But if they don’t care then they don’t care, not WE.

Ed

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Judging from the amount of ice still existent, we’re not nearly at the end of the ice-age subsiding, as you call it. There can still be a lot more coming. Centuries, probably. There is speculation out there that the next ice age could be around 1000 years from now, but others are stepping in to say the interval to the next ice age could be much longer and not because of MMGW, but because there have been long intervals in the past. Further, since we know that all climate change is cyclical in nature, it is very well possible the bend in the graph you are eager to point out is a cyclical occurrence and if we had the ability to accurately measure by today’s standards going back to the last ice age, we might find similar deviations both positive and negative from the long term trend in centuries and millenia past. So … not conclusive.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Judging from the amount of ice still existent, we’re not nearly at the end of the ice-age subsiding, as you call it. There can still be a lot more coming. Centuries, probably. There is speculation out there that the next ice age could be around 1000 years from now, but others are stepping in to say the interval to the next ice age could be much longer and not because of MMGW, but because there have been long intervals in the past. Further, since we know that all climate change is cyclical in nature, it is very well possible the bend in the graph you are eager to point out is a cyclical occurrence and if we had the ability to accurately measure by today’s standards going back to the last ice age, we might find similar deviations both positive and negative from the long term trend in centuries and millenia past. So … not conclusive.

Not conclusive, but very strongly suggestive. The doubt that you express is founded on a hypothesis that cannot be verified.

 

[tomarin]

As I’ve written before, the culprits ain’t us. And those who have the resources and expertise ain’t us. Most people in “the richest country on earth” are less well off than the fraction who control/own 80% of everything. But if they don’t care then they don’t care, not WE.

Ed

According to this, in terms of CO2 emissions, we’re number 2 after China with Russia behind us at number 3. And I think most of those emissions are from car exhaust.

 

[Ridgerunner]

But if the Arctic is melting, surely the water must be going somewhere?

Subsidence of the land would also cause absolute sea levels to rise. So would undersea sedimentation from rivers. The more stuff you sink in the water, the higher the water gets. Settle down into the bathtub, and the water rises dramatically. Drop in a bar of soap and it rises, but by only a little.

I’m not saying that’s the cause of oceans rising, or any difference in the rate of rise over time, but the article accompanying the graph in question doesn’t appear to take that into account when it comes to ocean levels.

“This graph shows cumulative changes in sea level for the world’s oceans since 1880, based on a combination of long-term tide gauge measurements and recent satellite measurements. This figure shows average absolute sea level change, which refers to the height of the ocean surface, regardless of whether nearby land is rising or falling. Satellite data are based solely on measured sea level, while the long-term tide gauge data include a small correction factor because the size and shape of the oceans are changing slowly over time. (On average, the ocean floor has been gradually sinking since the last Ice Age peak, 20,000 years ago.) The shaded band shows the likely range of values, based on the number of measurements collected and the precision of the methods used.”

 

[lynnvinc]

Judging from the amount of ice still existent, we’re not nearly at the end of the ice-age subsiding, as you call it. There can still be a lot more coming. Centuries, probably. There is speculation out there that the next ice age could be around 1000 years from now, but others are stepping in to say the interval to the next ice age could be much longer and not because of MMGW, but because there have been long intervals in the past. Further, since we know that all climate change is cyclical in nature, it is very well possible the bend in the graph you are eager to point out is a cyclical occurrence and if we had the ability to accurately measure by today’s standards going back to the last ice age, we might find similar deviations both positive and negative from the long term trend in centuries and millenia past. So … not conclusive.

Believe me climate scientists are well aware of all that. There is a whole field of paleoclimatology that they study and understand.

There have also been great warming episodes in the past that have caused massive extinctions, such as the end-Permian extinction 251 mill yrs ago that killed off 95% of life on earth and lasted 200,000 years. We are now causing warming at a rate orders of magnitude faster than happened then by natural means, which gives life even less time to adapt to the change. We’re in for a very horrible future if we don’t do our very best now to mitigate climate change.

As for future ice ages, that might not happen due to 2 factors: (1) the great global warming we are currently causing that could last 100,000 years or more (since a portion of our CO2 emissions can reside in the atmosphere that long); and (2) the sun is slowly getting ever hotter, and eventually will kill off all life on earth, maybe in a billion yrs or so (if we don’t beat the sun to that by doing it sooner).

 

[lynnvinc]

According to this, in terms of CO2 emissions, we’re number 2 after China with Russia behind us at number 3. And I think most of those emissions are from car exhaust.

But China’s population is more than 4 times ours in the US, so per capita we in the US emit about 4 times more GHGs than a Chinese AND a lot of the products China makes we buy, so those are also our GHG emissions.

We buy it, we emit it.

 

[lynnvinc]

Subsidence of the land would also cause absolute sea levels to rise…

What I learned in school was that the east coast of the US was subsiding (sinking) and the west coast was rising up. So I’m thinking their might be equal counter-processes going on, so no net effect world-wide.

I’m thinking even if one considers all the minerals were sucking up from the earth (which may cause subsidence – not sure), that might not really be enough to impact the net results much.

 

[edwest2]

According to this, in terms of CO2 emissions, we’re number 2 after China with Russia behind us at number 3. And I think most of those emissions are from car exhaust.

Car exhaust? Really.

scmp.com/topics/china-air-pollution

nytimes.com/2016/08/18/world/asia/china-coal-health-smog-pollution.html?_r=0

nrdc.org/media/2016/160713

Ed

 

[vz71]

But China’s population is more than 4 times ours in the US, so per capita we in the US emit about 4 times more GHGs than a Chinese AND a lot of the products China makes we buy, so those are also our GHG emissions.

We buy it, we emit it.

Of course. America is always the bad guy.
Did anyone really expect China to be responsible for themselves.

 

[lynnvinc]

As I’ve written before, the culprits ain’t us. And those who have the resources and expertise ain’t us. Most people in “the richest country on earth” are less well off than the fraction who control/own 80% of everything. But if they don’t care then they don’t care, not WE.

Ed

That might be true for many local pollution issues caused by corporations for which the corps and gov are responsible – and NOT doing their jobs to mitigate or clean up to the extent they should, as for example the 33 acre benzene plume under a poor Hispanic neighborhood in the town next to mine. We just can’t get gov to clean it up, so people there are dying from leukemia and other conditions, including small children and the unborn. And they do have the technology to clean it up. The court made a gas station clean up their 3-acre portion caused by them. The other 30 acres caused by others is under the auspices of the Texas gov and they are doing nothing, but heel-dragging.

However, with climate change the only solution is for most people on earth to do their part and reduce their own GHG emissions at the household level, in their schools, churches, workplaces. etc. The gov and corps can do much to help (which some are doing), but most of the effort is going to have to come from regular people.

Like turning off lights not in use. There are lists of 100s of things that can be done by individuals, families, schools, churches, and businesses (most of which don’t cost or even save $$). It is a matter of picking those things that are feasible.

It is a long-term process, even if one is keen about doing all they can, and takes years even decades to implement all of those things. So it is a good idea to start now with some baby-steps. For instance, one of the many small things I do is take a hanky to dry my hands in public restrooms. Not much, but something. The Little Way of Environmental Healing. As Mother Teresa said, it isn’t how much or little you do, it is your love that makes it infinite.

 

[ATraveller]

For climate change sceptics, any move away from fossil fuels is good. Cleaner air, less acidified oceans, and eventually isolate the Saudis and Gulf Arab countries, who have used the high oil prices in the past to promote Islamist extremism and fund the acts. If only the world could run only on oil from countries that haven’t created so much of the world’s misery as them.

 

[edwest2]

That might be true for many local pollution issues caused by corporations for which the corps and gov are responsible – and NOT doing their jobs to mitigate or clean up to the extent they should, as for example the 33 acre benzene plume under a poor Hispanic neighborhood in the town next to mine. We just can’t get gov to clean it up, so people there are dying from leukemia and other conditions, including small children and the unborn. And they do have the technology to clean it up. The court made a gas station clean up their 3-acre portion caused by them. The other 30 acres caused by others is under the auspices of the Texas gov and they are doing nothing, but heel-dragging.

However, with climate change the only solution is for most people on earth to do their part and reduce their own GHG emissions at the household level, in their schools, churches, workplaces. etc. The gov and corps can do much to help (which some are doing), but most of the effort is going to have to come from regular people.

Like turning off lights not in use. There are lists of 100s of things that can be done by individuals, families, schools, churches, and businesses (most of which don’t cost or even save $$). It is a matter of picking those things that are feasible.

It is a long-term process, even if one is keen about doing all they can, and takes years even decades to implement all of those things. So it is a good idea to start now with some baby-steps. For instance, one of the many small things I do is take a hanky to dry my hands in public restrooms. Not much, but something. The Little Way of Environmental Healing. As Mother Teresa said, it isn’t how much or little you do, it is your love that makes it infinite.

I drove by a landfill not that long ago. Gas accumulates from rotting vegetable matter and other waste. The solution? Install a pipe and let it burn off. The place is the size of a large hill. It’s not “economically feasible” to use this low-grade gas. I don’t operate/own any landfills.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

For climate change sceptics, any move away from fossil fuels is good. Cleaner air, less acidified oceans, and eventually isolate the Saudis and Gulf Arab countries, who have used the high oil prices in the past to promote Islamist extremism and fund the acts. If only the world could run only on oil from countries that haven’t created so much of the world’s misery as them.

If it’s all about money, the Saudis have a plan.

wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabias-cabinet-approves-economic-reform-package-1465252667

Ed

 

[abelville]

The climate alarmists effectively say “If a house is on fire, should we put it out”. There’s just one problem. There is no fire. Climate change is fiction, and of no relation to any real phenomenon.

Totally agree,. The scientist slant the data because they are funded by the Progressives. I believe God’s planet goes through cycles of climate change, but I don’t believe we affect it.

 

[ATraveller]

If it’s all about money, the Saudis have a plan.

wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabias-cabinet-approves-economic-reform-package-1465252667

Ed

But not the Gulf states. And that plan will take time to work and hopefully a bunch of bumps on the way.

 

[Upgrade25]

I’m undecided, but we can all agree that geothermal power is the best power.
Seriously though, seems like there is a lot of blunder and a few good arguments on each side. Like any other debate, you cut past the blunder and examine the arguments.

 

[lynnvinc]

I drove by a landfill not that long ago. Gas accumulates from rotting vegetable matter and other waste. The solution? Install a pipe and let it burn off. The place is the size of a large hill. It’s not “economically feasible” to use this low-grade gas. I don’t operate/own any landfills.

Ed

When I got really involved in seeking solutions some 25 yrs ago, I contacted the sewer dept to suggest that they turn the sewage into useful gas that can be used to generate electricity. And guess what, they said they were already doing that & using that electricity to offset the electricity required for their operations, and that’s why our sewage bill was a bit lower…from the money saved from doing that.

Also I’ve heard of landfills (when completed) turn them into golf courses, and use the gas emitted from them to make electricity to sell back to the electric company.

There are so many things that can be done.

When 3M was confronted with stricter env regs to kick in within a few years, the CEOs called a meeting of everyone in the company, from engineers to assembly line workers, to janitors, etc. They told them to look for solutions to the pollution that wouldn’t cost them too much. After some times solutions started flooding in from people in all those positions, and when implemented not only did they reduce their pollution well below what the regs called for, but they did so in a way that saved them $millions. They call it their 3P program - Pollution Prevention Pays.

Even Exxon has found ways to greatly reduce its GHG emissions in money-saving ways – despite the fact that they are one of the chief companies funding the CC denial industry. Go figure.

 

[Ender]

I would say this observation is equally irrelevant. (And therefore so is Lynn’s observation about Carteret Islands, which might be sinking.) The most accurate way to measure the global average sea level rise is based on satellites. And GPS data can help to measure when the land rises and falls, and so use that data to correct tide gauge measurements. You can start here.

If we throw out all the tide gauge measurements in favor of satellite readings shouldn’t we throw out all the land based temperature measurements in favor of satellite readings as well? NOAA doesn’t seem to think tide gauges measurements are useless. Just because they don’t support the argument that sea level rise is accelerating is no reason to dismiss them as irrelevant. We have 30 years of measurements specific to the exact issue being discussed taken less than 200 miles from islands supposedly affected by sea level rise, and the best approach is to…ignore the data? In this case there is not even the acknowledgement that we should “hide the decline”; we can just act as if the readings were never taken.

Ender