Global Warming a fake?

[carlton-temple]

Its a little of topic but relevant. Being interested in all thing nautical, when I lived in the south of France, one could see from the shore line that the water level of the Mediterranean had historically been several meters higher than today, so much so that the Greeks and Phoneticians were then able to use harbours and navigate rivers and coastal lakes no longer available for such use, either being now high and dry or being far to shallow. So what caused the sea levels to rise to such an extent historically then and what caused the sea levels to gradually go down again (after the Greeks), to their present levels ? It certainly wasn't industrial pollution. Excuse my interruption.

[freeztar]

Its a little of topic but relevant. Being interested in all thing nautical, when I lived in the south of France, one could see from the shore line that the water level of the Mediterranean had historically been several meters higher than today, so much so that the Greeks and Phoneticians were then able to use harbours and navigate rivers and coastal lakes no longer available for such use, either being now high and dry or being far to shallow. So what caused the sea levels to rise to such an extent historically then and what caused the sea levels to gradually go down again (after the Greeks), to their present levels ? It certainly wasn't industrial pollution. Excuse my interruption.

 

That's interesting, Carlton. Do you have a source explaining this? I'd like to read more about it.

[CraigD]

Its a little of topic but relevant. Being interested in all thing nautical, when I lived in the south of France, one could see from the shore line that the water level of the Mediterranean had historically been several meters higher than today, so much so that the Greeks and Phoneticians were then able to use harbours and navigate rivers and coastal lakes no longer available for such use, either being now high and dry or being far to shallow. So what caused the sea levels to rise to such an extent historically then and what caused the sea levels to gradually go down again (after the Greeks), to their present levels ? It certainly wasn't industrial pollution. Excuse my interruption.

I’d have to look at photos or charts of the coast you’re discussing to do more than guess, CT, but my guess is what you’re perceiving as a higher ancient shoreline is actually not due to higher ancient sea levels in the area, but due to other factors, primarily sediment filling the harbors, their approaches, and costal rivers and lakes you describe.

 

Such sedimentation, and other influences such as breakwaters, tidal floodgate systems, and land built up from shallow or deep sea floors, can strongly influence daily and other period high tide heights, reducing the difference between high and low tide height. I’ve no reference with specific numbers on hand, but think such changes can suddenly affect tide heights. Obviously, undredged sediment in disused harbors and waterways can reduce their depth so much they become unusable, or even high and dry.

 

Near where I live, one can walk or bike the edge of the Anacostia river (a tidal estuary) and see a half dozen or so shallow (2-3 m) recreational boat marinas dredged in the 1970s that have since filled in completely at all tides, dilapidated piers, floating docks, and buildings sitting far from water in marshy fields. I lived for a while in a house in Riversdale Maryland that was in the 17th century a tidal bay of the Anacostia, becoming a freshwater lake by the 19th century, before being drained and filled in 1947 by the developer who built my house and its many neighbors.

 

The key point here is that local sea level is determined by many complicated factors, and may change by large amounts, suddenly. The global average sea level, which increases when glaciers melt, as sediment slowly adds to the ocean floor, and other factors, changes by small amounts, gradually.

 

PS: If there are no objections, I’ll move these last few posts to their own Earth Science thread, as they’re unrelated to this thread’s subject, the question of whether global warming is or is not fake.

[maikeru]

I like CO2, it tickles my nose. I don't want to see us suppress economic activity (fossil fuel production and use) unless it's necessary. Let's study this another fifty or 100 years, to get a good handle on the problem.

 

Another 50 or 100 years? Most of us will be dead then and fossilized like the dinosaurs.

[maikeru]

Its a little of topic but relevant. Being interested in all thing nautical, when I lived in the south of France, one could see from the shore line that the water level of the Mediterranean had historically been several meters higher than today, so much so that the Greeks and Phoneticians were then able to use harbours and navigate rivers and coastal lakes no longer available for such use, either being now high and dry or being far to shallow. So what caused the sea levels to rise to such an extent historically then and what caused the sea levels to gradually go down again (after the Greeks), to their present levels ? It certainly wasn't industrial pollution. Excuse my interruption.

 

If you get a chance, read Dirt: The Erosion of Civilizations, in which he discusses the massive erosion during Classical times by the Greek and Roman empires, filling in of valleys, lowlands, and rivers by increasing loads of silt and runoff. Several famous historical seaports, such as Ur, Rome, etc. no longer are close by the sea and are miles inland. Is it that the sea levels have lowered or that we have raised the seabed? Or maybe both?

[BrianG]

Please don't move the posts, sea level rise or land level fall have the same effect on humans.

 

... It rare, in my experience, to encounter scientifically knowledgeable people who still seriously caution against slowing the increase in or decreasing atmospheric [ce]CO2[/ce], rather I find it now mostly among people who distrust professional scientists, and Americans who self-identify as conservative and/or Republican...

 

Science is advanced by questions, not blind trust. We know so little about our climate that restricting fossil fuel use for climate change mitigation seems more a faith based venture than sound policy. All mankind is protected by our atmosphere, even the ISS uses Earth's exosphere for magnetic shielding against high energy charged particles.Heat regulation for the ISS depends on Earth's shadow.

 

The primary effect of restricting fossil fuel production and use will be economic hardship, rather than a better climate.

 

...While I think its accurate to say that most of the carbon in fossil fuels has passed through the atmosphere as , and carbon in the atmosphere will eventually be buried in the earth to form far future fossil fuels, it’s important to understand that it wasn’t all in the atmosphere at the same time....

 

I didn't mean to suggest that all carbon was atmospheric CO2 at the same time, I merely observe that higher levels of CO2 were common in Earth's history. Atmospheric CO2 is more likely to become calcified, rather than forming future fossil fuel.

[Donk]

The primary effect of restricting fossil fuel production and use will be economic hardship, rather than a better climate.

Rubbish! I've taken steps to reduce my energy use over the last few years. Rather than causing "economic hardship", I'm at least 30% better off than I would have been.

 

Burning fuel usefully can make us richer, but wasting it can only make us poorer. Simple logic, no?

[C1ay]

The primary effect of restricting fossil fuel production and use will be economic hardship, rather than a better climate.

 

You need to support that claim with some hard evidence!

[BrianG]

Rubbish! I've taken steps to reduce my energy use over the last few years. Rather than causing "economic hardship", I'm at least 30% better off than I would have been.

 

Burning fuel usefully can make us richer, but wasting it can only make us poorer. Simple logic, no?

 

Reducing energy usage, or calorie intake might be a laudable personal goal, but as public policy, it's horrendous. Too many hundreds of millions have never had the luxury of flipping a light switch, use biofuel (dried dung usually) to cook food. Restricting fuel and energy production is great for producers, these commodities aren't helped by advertising,

 

A thirty percent reduction in fuel and energy price would give you the same benefits, and help the poor as well. It's easier for you to enjoy the benefits of conservation than those who are too poor to access energy.

 

But I forgot, most warmists really don't like the poor since they believe our problems come from overpopulation. The idea of starving the poor with ethanol mandates is just an added bonus.

[BrianG]

You need to support that claim with some hard evidence!

 

I'm not advocating a policy of restricting fuel and energy, I'm skeptical that it would help the climate. Do you think that it's logical restricting fuel production will increase fuel price?

[C1ay]

I'm not advocating a policy of restricting fuel and energy, I'm skeptical that it would help the climate. Do you think that it's logical restricting fuel production will increase fuel price?

 

Wrong answer. You made a statement of fact that, "The primary effect of restricting fossil fuel production and use will be economic hardship, rather than a better climate." Per the rules of the forum you need to support your claim or withdraw it!

[BrianG]

Restricting fuel production and use will mean less energy production and use, less heat in winter, more expensive transportation for goods and services. Isn't it self evident? If you believe it will benefit the climate, go ahead and prove it.

[maikeru]

Rubbish! I've taken steps to reduce my energy use over the last few years. Rather than causing "economic hardship", I'm at least 30% better off than I would have been.

 

Burning fuel usefully can make us richer, but wasting it can only make us poorer. Simple logic, no?

 

No! If I must chop down and burn down a forest or two to heat my home, who's going to stop me? And you ask what about Bambi? Well, there's always venison...

[freeztar]

But I forgot, most warmists really don't like the poor since they believe our problems come from overpopulation. The idea of starving the poor with ethanol mandates is just an added bonus.

 

This remark is an overgeneralization as well as being inflammatory, of the trollish kind.

 

What makes you think this? Can you show support for this idea, that warmists do not like the poor? I'm not asking for more rhetoric, but actual data that supports this idea.

 

These requests from C1ay and myself, to support your claims, are not idle requests. If you do not support your claims, per site rules, you will receive infractions which can limit your ability to make posts here.

[Donk]

Rubbish! I've taken steps to reduce my energy use over the last few years. Rather than causing "economic hardship", I'm at least 30% better off than I would have been.

 

Burning fuel usefully can make us richer, but wasting it can only make us poorer. Simple logic, no?

Reducing energy usage, or calorie intake might be a laudable personal goal, but as public policy, it's horrendous. Too many hundreds of millions have never had the luxury of flipping a light switch, use biofuel (dried dung usually) to cook food. Restricting fuel and energy production is great for producers, these commodities aren't helped by advertising,

 

A thirty percent reduction in fuel and energy price would give you the same benefits, and help the poor as well. It's easier for you to enjoy the benefits of conservation than those who are too poor to access energy.

 

But I forgot, most warmists really don't like the poor since they believe our problems come from overpopulation. The idea of starving the poor with ethanol mandates is just an added bonus.

This has nothing to do with the hundreds of millions who can't flip lightswitches. They aren't the problem, and never have been. The problem is being caused by people like us, who flip switches for just about everything. Turn on a TV... open a gate... warm or cool a room... Throughout your brief stay here you've been campaigning for Business as Usual, trying to say that the developed world isn't to blame for anything. I'm afraid I don't believe in your sudden conversion to caring for the have-nots.

Restricting fuel production and use will mean less energy production and use, less heat in winter, more expensive transportation for goods and services. Isn't it self evident? If you believe it will benefit the climate, go ahead and prove it.

No, it isn't self-evident. Restricting fuel production might mean less heat, more expensive transportation... restricting fuel USE, as I did, saves money and makes my lifestyle better, not worse.

[Michaelangelica]

Do you believe the world is in a warming or cooling phase?--no matter what the cause-

What is your likely projections for the next 10-20-30 years?

[CraigD]

I didn't mean to suggest that all carbon was atmospheric CO2 at the same time, I merely observe that higher levels of CO2 were common in Earth's history.

Many reliable “temperature proxies” (as obviously people with thermometers have been around to directly record temperature only for a tiny fraction of Earth’s history) indicate that [ce]CO2[/ce] levels have been much higher in the distant past, reaching a maximum concentration of about 0.003 (3000 PPM, about 20 times present levels, near the fatal level for modern plants, and high enough to be dangerous to present day humans) around 0.5 billion years ago. Mean sea level was much higher – 200 to 400 m – then. Most of present day North America is less than 400 m above sea level.

 

For the last 0.5 million years, Earth has had a lot of land area because much of its water is held above sea level in glaciers. Were atmospheric [ce]CO2[/ce] as high as they were before these glaciers existed, sea levels would be as high as they were then, and total land area would be roughly half its present value.

 

No geophysical model of which I’m aware suggest that [ce]CO2[/ce] levels could become so high that surface temperature rose so high that all present day glaciers melted, increasing sea level by hundreds of meters. However, the argument that it would be inconsequential to humans were conditions to be as they were 0.5 billion years ago is not, I think, supported by even the most approximate models. Under these conditions, many present day wealthy countries would be completely submerged. It’s had to imagine that this would be other than very consequential.

 

Sources: ; Google Earth

Atmospheric CO2 is more likely to become calcified, rather than forming future fossil fuel.

Do you have a link or reference supporting your claim, Brian :QuestionM

 

Though I doubt it’s of much importance on human time scales, I’d be interested in seeing a comprehensive, high level description of “the fossil fuel carbon cycle”, showing where, when, and how much atmospheric carbon goes on geological time scales.