Arctic ice melt could trigger uncontrollable climate change at global level

[LeafByNiggle]

Why do you keep harping on this? Isn’t it great that the gov gives subsidies for good things and life-saving things, …So I have no problem at all with the subsidies we did receive for good things, and I would have bought them anyway without the subsidies.

Lynn, I think I have to agree with Ridgerunner on this one. Subsidies may have some value in very temporary and limited circumstances. But as a general solution to a long-term problem they are very questionable. If renewable energy cannot become competitive without subsidies, it is wrong to continue them indefinitely. It is especially inaccurate to include them in arguments meant to show the cost-effectiveness of using renewable energy. Cost-effectiveness calculations should include the costs to everyone - not just to you as a subsidized end-user.

I think you would have a much better argument focusing on the externalities of fossil fuel use, and on other forms of oil subsidies, so that the unsubsidized cost of renewable energy can be compared with the total cost of fossil fuel use.

 

[vz71]

I am astounded by some of the responses I see to this issue. It was demonstrated in the 1820’s that CO2 trapped long wave radiation in the atmosphere. It has been demonstrated that 1/4 of the CO2 in the atmosphere was put there by us. The thermometers show that the temperature has been rising. The three hottest years on record are the last three years. The Arctic sea ice has dropped 40% since it has been measured. The oceans are several centimetres higher.

What would it take to convince people this is happening? To paraphrase one posters signature:

Facts clearly don’t matter.

Which ocean?

 

[Theo520]

This thread keeps going on and on, apparently trying to convince either non-believers of global warming, sceptics, or cautious watchers that global warming is accelerating at an unprecedented rate and we are doomed unless we take immediate action of some kind.

So once again, I ask you as I did earlier-bottom line after all this rhetoric:

1-What do want the Untied States and the rest of the world to do. A, B, C…
2-What are you personally doing besides talking on this forum to counteract your claims
of the pending climate change? A, B, C…

The developed world should sell pollution control technology to the developing world,
they should have NOX scrubbers on their smokestacks to reduce harmful particulates that do actually impact health. CO2 as a pollutant is a fairy tell, used to sell carbon credits.

Recent research at CERN is showing the model feedback assumptions were pulled out of some coders hind quarters, Climate warming projections will start dropping in the next 1-2 yrs as the research is mainstreamed.

I always try to avoid wasteful behavior.

 

[lynnvinc]

…CO2 as a pollutant is a fairy tell, used to sell carbon credits…

Not quite true. CO2 has been found to actually harm some crops – never mind the warming.

• In higher amounts it causes rice paddy floret sterility
• Altho in greater quantities CO2 in general helps plants, it tends to help C3 plants a lot more than C4 plants. C4 plants include important food crops and the C3 weeds are harming those crops.
• CO2 has been found to make some crops more toxic, like cassava (an important crop for many poor countries in Africa and Asia), making its cyanide levels jump (blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/fertilizationeffect/).
• It causes the oceans to become less alkaline, threatening shell fish, coral (the biodiverse “rainforests” of the oceans), etc.
• It has been found to harm the sense of smell among fish putting them in harm, and other harms to sea life (scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-acidification-can-m/)

There are probably other harms as well, but these are some I remember.

Too much of a good thing (plants need CO2 and it is part of our bodies) can be a bad thing.

 

[lynnvinc]

Which ocean?

The oceans are interconnected, so the sea is rising everywhere, tho certain factors create some differences in that rise.

The more important point is that heat expands water, contributing to the rise, then ice above sea level melting (e.g., in glaciers and snow packs) contributes to the rise, so we can expect several feet of sea rise by century’s end.

But even right now even the small amount of sea rise causes problems. When you combine that small amount of sea rise with high tide and Superstorm Sandy that extra sea water causes a surf or sliding effect and you get inundation much farther inland.

Also the salty water table rising kills crops, palm and coconut trees near the sea, also harming people’s drinking water. On some islands all their land is fairly near the sea.

There are islands in the South Pacific that are being evacuated…due to us emitting abundant GHGs into the atmosphere. See the trailer for “Sun Come Up” regarding sea rise in the Carteret Islands, and their painful move to other hostile islands and ruination of their community and way of life.

 

[meltzerboy]

Not quite true. CO2 has been found to actually harm some crops – never mind the warming.

• In higher amounts it causes rice paddy floret sterility
• Altho in greater quantities CO2 in general helps plants, it tends to help C3 plants a lot more than C4 plants. C4 plants include important food crops and the C3 weeds are harming those crops.
• CO2 has been found to make some crops more toxic, like cassava (an important crop for many poor countries in Africa and Asia), making its cyanide levels jump (blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/fertilizationeffect/).
• It causes the oceans to become less alkaline, threatening shell fish, coral (the biodiverse “rainforests” of the oceans), etc.
• It has been found to harm the sense of smell among fish putting them in harm, and other harms to sea life (scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-acidification-can-m/)

There are probably other harms as well, but these are some I remember.

Too much of a good thing (plants need CO2 and it is part of our bodies) can be a bad thing.

Thanks for your wealth of information on this topic.

I guess some fairy tales can be grim (pun intended).

 

[lynnvinc]

I keep saying it because, with all due respect, you keep bringing it up. Not everyone who sees the current posts viewed the ones a few years back when it turned out the total of subsidies, credits, etc to do all of that was in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. It shouldn’t be made to seem easier or less expensive than it is. Nor is it likely the government can afford to do the same for every Jack and Jill in the country.

Oh, I thought you were speaking of the tax breaks I got for the solar panels and for the Volt.

So it is the gov’s R&D (?? and GM bail-out money ??), but only on products that help solve environmental problems. I know the gov spends a lot on R&D (directly and thru grants, etc) on medicine and the military (which is used to protect our oil interests, for one).

Furthermore, the R&D calculated into the Volt’s 1st year (or 2) of sales is fancy calculations to make the Volt look very bad. What it means to me is that everyone for whom a Volt if feasible (those who have places to plug them in) should now buy one, and that would help bring down the R&D costs per vehicle

I, for one, am not going to pay back the gov for our share of the R&D costs on the Volt, but I do thank the gov for chipping in on this. It is a great car. We not only reduce our GHG emissions, but it saves us about $1000 a year, which really helps in our retirement.

However, ultimately it all comes from God, including our priceless salvation, and it is to God that I owe my all, which can never be repaid, except thru the sacrifice of Jesus.

 

[vz71]

The oceans are several centimetres higher. .

Which ocean?

The oceans are interconnected, so the sea is rising everywhere, tho certain factors create some differences in that rise.

The more important point is…

The important fact is that there is a claim to the oceans* being several centimeters higher*.
This is a falsehood.

This is indicative of the entirety of the MMGW advocates and their case. Falsehoods presented as fact, believed by a bunch of followers that believe it is more important to defend the lies to the benefit of their belief.

If your viewpoint requires you to defend falsehood, or even accept it, than you are wrong.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The important fact is that there is a claim to the oceans* being several centimeters higher*.
This is a falsehood.

This is indicative of the entirety of the MMGW advocates and their case. Falsehoods presented as fact, believed by a bunch of followers that believe it is more important to defend the lies to the benefit of their belief.

If your viewpoint requires you to defend falsehood, or even accept it, than you are wrong.

No, it is not a falsehood. It is a fact. The average global sea level has been rising an average of 0.6 inches per decade throughout most of the 20th century. And since 1992, satellite altimeters have indicated that it has risen to 1.2 inches per decade. It is accelerating. Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to local factors such as land subsidence from natural processes and withdrawal of groundwater and fossil fuels, changes in regional ocean currents, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.

So it correct to say that sea level has risen several centimeters.

 

[vz71]

No, it is not a falsehood. It is a fact. The average global sea level has been rising an average of 0.6 inches per decade throughout most of the 20th century. And since 1992, satellite altimeters have indicated that it has risen to 1.2 inches per decade. It is accelerating. Sea level rise at specific locations may be more or less than the global average due to local factors such as land subsidence from natural processes and withdrawal of groundwater and fossil fuels, changes in regional ocean currents, and whether the land is still rebounding from the compressive weight of Ice Age glaciers.

So it correct to say that sea level has risen several centimeters.

Sorry, but everything I find indicates rises measured in millimeters. Not several centimeters.
The several centimeter rise is a falsehood, much like the MMGW argument.

 

[lynnvinc]

The important fact is that there is a claim to the oceans* being several centimeters higher*.
This is a falsehood.

This is indicative of the entirety of the MMGW advocates and their case. Falsehoods presented as fact, believed by a bunch of followers that believe it is more important to defend the lies to the benefit of their belief.

If your viewpoint requires you to defend falsehood, or even accept it, than you are wrong.

Actually it is only false because the rise is several inches (not a few centimeters), about 8 inches from 1870 and 2004 and some more since then. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

And it is expected to rise several feet more by century’s end.

See the trailer for “Sun Come Up” at vimeo.com/11537535 – about Carteret Islanders having to evacuate their island due to sea level rise.

It’s fairly well known that heat expands things and melts ice. It’s a no-brainer.

However, I guess anything that is an “inconvenient truth” is, ergo, false.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sorry, but everything I find indicates rises measured in millimeters. Not several centimeters.

Show me where you got your information about “only millimeters”.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Sorry, but everything I find indicates rises measured in millimeters. Not several centimeters.
The several centimeter rise is a falsehood, much like the MMGW argument.

climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Here are some nice charts on it:

columbia.edu/~mhs119/SeaLevel/

For the record 81. 2 mm = 8.12 cm = several cms.

Considering the only satellites measuring it are monitored by NASA and CNES, any sources you could provide countering this claim would have to get their data from one of these sources. You would have to provide evidence of why their claims are to be preferred other than, “I like this answer more.” I am curious how “everything you find” can contradict the source data.

 

[Theo520]

Not quite true. CO2 has been found to actually harm some crops – never mind the warming.

• In higher amounts it causes rice paddy floret sterility
• Altho in greater quantities CO2 in general helps plants, it tends to help C3 plants a lot more than C4 plants. C4 plants include important food crops and the C3 weeds are harming those crops.
• CO2 has been found to make some crops more toxic, like cassava (an important crop for many poor countries in Africa and Asia), making its cyanide levels jump (blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/fertilizationeffect/).
• It causes the oceans to become less alkaline, threatening shell fish, coral (the biodiverse “rainforests” of the oceans), etc.
• It has been found to harm the sense of smell among fish putting them in harm, and other harms to sea life (scientificamerican.com/article/ocean-acidification-can-m/)

There are probably other harms as well, but these are some I remember.

Too much of a good thing (plants need CO2 and it is part of our bodies) can be a bad thing.

Lynn,
I’ve read rice production increases with higher CO2 levels, not sure your source about it causing rice paddy floret sterility. Link please

Oceans have proven their adaptability to less alcaline

Quite a few environmental stressors raise cyanide levels in Cassava, it will be some time before CO2 goes above 700ppm, time for breeding a better version.

Regarding fish smelling, by how much and how quickly did they raise the CO2 levels in their experiment? I couldn’t find any details at your link.

Nothing you provided shows CO2 as a pollutant and I’m confident of our world’s ability to adapt to future swings in CO2 levels, like it has in the past.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Oceans have proven their adaptability to less alcaline

That is too broad a statement to make without some qualifications. Certainly not every aspect of ocean life has proven itself adaptable to a lower pH.

Nothing you provided shows CO2 as a pollutant and I’m confident of our world’s ability to adapt to future swings in CO2 levels, like it has in the past.

Except that it never has swung so fast before. There have been large excursions, but they have all been much more gradual, making time for adaptation.

 

[TheCuriousCat]

Recent research at CERN is showing the model feedback assumptions were pulled out of some coders hind quarters, Climate warming projections will start dropping in the next 1-2 yrs as the research is mainstreamed.

I always try to avoid wasteful behavior.

Okay, I found this research, and I read through it. The only conclusion I can reach is that you haven’t. It deals with cloud cover given a limited number of factors in the complete absence of fossil fuel particulates. Not remotely what you said it said.

 

[Ender]

Actually it is only false because the rise is several inches (not a few centimeters), about 8 inches from 1870 and 2004 and some more since then.

Sea level rise has been pretty much unchanged since measurements began. The longest tide gauge data record NOAA has is at the Battery, NY; it goes back 160 years. The rate of sea level rise it has recorded has been constant. It is not increasing.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

And it is expected to rise several feet more by century’s end.

The measured rates are about a foot per century (2.84 mm/yr)

See the trailer for “Sun Come Up” at vimeo.com/11537535 – about Carteret Islanders having to evacuate their island due to sea level rise.

The more likely reason is that those islands are sinking, a phenomenon noted by Darwin back in the 19th century.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sea level rise has been pretty much unchanged since measurements began. The longest tide gauge data record NOAA has is at the Battery, NY; it goes back 160 years. The rate of sea level rise it has recorded has been constant. It is not increasing.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/clip_image00210.jpg

The sea level rise that is accelerating is the global average sea level - not the sea level at one particular location, which is all this graph addresses.

 

[lynnvinc]

Lynn,
I’ve read rice production increases with higher CO2 levels, not sure your source about it causing rice paddy floret sterility. Link please

Oceans have proven their adaptability to less alcaline

Quite a few environmental stressors raise cyanide levels in Cassava, it will be some time before CO2 goes above 700ppm, time for breeding a better version.

Regarding fish smelling, by how much and how quickly did they raise the CO2 levels in their experiment? I couldn’t find any details at your link.

Nothing you provided shows CO2 as a pollutant and I’m confident of our world’s ability to adapt to future swings in CO2 levels, like it has in the past.

Oh, I forgot to mention the biggy – increasing CO2 causes global warming!

It’s been years since I had those links and the ones I provided I just got by googling now. The rice floret sterility was in an IPCC report (not the current one).

So anyway, you google these or do the research. I’m retired now and busy studying caste Catholics who hate, detest, oppress, and grossly abuse financially, physically, and sexually Dalit (untouchable) Catholics, whom they consider are inherently polluted – an imaginary pollution. And the Indian bishops and cardinals basically go along with it, tending to favor their own caste people, or the best among them just don’t correct it. This is really big, since 70% of Catholics in India are Dalit, but Dalit priests are less than 10% of the priests – and they too are discriminated against or punished if they speak out.

This is a continuation of my studies on Hindu Dalits and intercaste relations. And this is big, since about 1 in 6 people are Indian and 1 in 6 people are Dalit (Hindu, Christian, Muslim, etc), which makes it about every 36th person in the world a Dalit.

Most of them suffering at the hands of people who imagine they have some harmful, contagious pollution, while people in general around the world mostly ignore real environmental pollution that harms and kills.

---

RE rice paddy, there is another study that shows for S. Asia and SE Asia the warming (not the CO2) will be harming it within a couple of decades. Right now the more rapidly increasing minimum diurnal (night) temps are harming it, while the maximum diurnal temps are helping it, but in a few decades both will be harming it. That one I have on hand:

Welch, J., J. R. Vincent, M. Auffhammer, P. F. Moya, A. Dobermann, and D. Dawe. 2010. “Rice Yields in Tropical/Subtropical Asia Exhibit Large but Opposing Sensitivities to Minimum and Maximum Temperatures.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(33):14562-14567. at pnas.org/content/107/33/14562.abstract?sid=d0834a63-85de-453c-b427-526f3afdd93f

 

[edwest2]

So, we’ll all be dead. I guess I will have not paying taxes to look forward to. Has anyone passed this on to the companies that pollute the planet?

Ed