Global Warming and Lands That Will FLOOD in Our Lifetime

[chad kincham]

Right. For example, we're in a solar minimum right now. If natural cycles were the major forcing, it would be getting colder with more stable weather. Instead, we're seeing record high global temperatures and increasing atmospheric instabilities.

Wrong. It’s s big planet with huge heat sinks called oceans, and has tremendous inertia in changing temperature, therefore there’s a sizable lag between sun output changes, and correspond change in the earth’s temperature.
Next.

 

[The Barbarian]

Right. For example, we're in a solar minimum right now. If natural cycles were the major forcing, it would be getting colder with more stable weather. Instead, we're seeing record high global temperatures and increasing atmospheric instabilities.

Wrong.

No, it's very right. For the reason you mention:

Wrong. It’s s big planet with huge heat sinks called oceans, and has tremendous inertia in changing temperature,

In fact, the vast majority of heat so far, has been absorbed by the upper levels of oceans. This is because water has a remarkably high specific heat. But it's a huge amount of thermal energy being absorbed. Consequently, the temperature of the oceans is rising:

So why should that matter? Because even a fraction of one degree increase in ocean surface temperature will increase the power of storms and increase instabilities in the atmosphere. This is partially just a matter of increased temperature of the ocean surface, but also involves increased water vapor content of the air over warmer ocean surfaces.

This is why we don't yet have many more tropical storms than before, but the ones we do have tend to be more powerful. This was predicted 16 years ago:

Nature: 31 July 2005
Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years
Theory1 and modelling2 predict that hurricane intensity should increase with increasing global mean temperatures, but work on the detection of trends in hurricane activity has focused mostly on their frequency3,4 and shows no trend. Here I define an index of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes based on the total dissipation of power, integrated over the lifetime of the cyclone, and show that this index has increased markedly since the mid-1970s. This trend is due to both longer storm lifetimes and greater storm intensities. I find that the record of net hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature, reflecting well-documented climate signals, including multi-decadal oscillations in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and global warming. My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential, and—taking into account an increasing coastal population—a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty-first century.

As you see, his predictions for the Atlantic storms are remarkably close to the observed data.

therefore there’s a sizable lag between sun output changes and correspond change in the earth’s temperature.

At this point, the cooling effect of lower solar output is not sufficient to moderate the rise in temperature because of atmospheric CO2. So it's getting hotter, not cooler, as it would if variation in solar output were the major forcing.

Next.

Next? Probably an increase in storms also. And more periodic torrential rains like the unprecedented torrents and flooding in Europe. More snow in winter, as the warmer, saturated air moves over continents. And disruption in global prevailing winds, such as the current events bringing more moisture to the southern edge of the Sahara desert, with a resulting conversion of desert land to arable ground.

Not every place will be a loser. But this is not the time to buy a home on the Gulf coast, or a ranch in northern Colorado.

 

[chad kincham]

Right. For example, we're in a solar minimum right now. If natural cycles were the major forcing, it would be getting colder with more stable weather. Instead, we're seeing record high global temperatures and increasing atmospheric instabilities.

CO2 completely derailed the natural cooling that would ordinarily come with lower solar output.



That's a testable assumption. Let's take a look...

No, turns out, you're wrong. CO2 began to rise before global temperatures.



Which is like saying if you fill a class almost to the rim, and then add a few ounces more, it won't overfill the glass. But that's not the only fallacy in that argument. You see, carbon dioxide traps heat at wavelengths that other greenhouse gases do not. So it has a disproportionate effect on temperatures.

No, that's a faulty assumption, too. As you know, Hanson's prediction of warming, based only on increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, were surprisingly accurate, decades ahead of the trend. See #18.



That's actually a testable assumption,too...

The range of opinions and the many factors affecting belief in anthropogenic climate change cannot be covered here. The variety of opinion can be illustrated by one graph from the 2013 repeat of the Bray and von Storch survey showing the degree of belief that recent or future climate change is due to or will be caused by human activity. A value of 1 indicates not convinced and a value of 7 is very much convinced. The top three values add to 81%, roughly in the range of several other surveys.
View attachment 304885


Even though belief is clearly below 97%, support over 80% is strong consensus. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about anthropogenic global warming to abandon their views and advocate unrestricted burning of fossil fuels? I think not. Even the 2016 Cook paper says “From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%.”
Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Right. For example, we're in a solar minimum right now. If natural cycles were the major forcing, it would be getting colder with more stable weather. Instead, we're seeing record high global temperatures and increasing atmospheric instabilities.

CO2 completely derailed the natural cooling that would ordinarily come with lower solar output.



That's a testable assumption. Let's take a look...

No, turns out, you're wrong. CO2 began to rise before global temperatures.



Which is like saying if you fill a class almost to the rim, and then add a few ounces more, it won't overfill the glass. But that's not the only fallacy in that argument. You see, carbon dioxide traps heat at wavelengths that other greenhouse gases do not. So it has a disproportionate effect on temperatures.

No, that's a faulty assumption, too. As you know, Hanson's prediction of warming, based only on increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, were surprisingly accurate, decades ahead of the trend. See #18.



That's actually a testable assumption,too...

The range of opinions and the many factors affecting belief in anthropogenic climate change cannot be covered here. The variety of opinion can be illustrated by one graph from the 2013 repeat of the Bray and von Storch survey showing the degree of belief that recent or future climate change is due to or will be caused by human activity. A value of 1 indicates not convinced and a valuable ue of 7 is very much convinced. The top three values add to 81%, roughly in the range of several other surveys.
View attachment 304885


Even though belief is clearly below 97%, support over 80% is strong consensus. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about anthropogenic global warming to abandon their views and advocate unrestricted burning of fossil fuels? I think not. Even the 2016 Cook paper says “From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%.”
Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

I found five or six articles that confirm CO2 increase lags behind temperature increases - this one from scientific American, shows that research shows that the lag time is less than first thought to be - it’s been reduced to a 200 year lag of CO2 behind temperature increases.

The fact that it lags behind temperature increases, falsifies the claim that carbon dioxide causes warming:

Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mystery

And this exposes how charts and graphs are manipulated:

 

[loveofourlord]

I found five or six articles that confirm CO2 increase lags behind temperature increases - this one from scientific American, shows that research shows that the lag time is less than first thought to be - it’s been reduced to a 200 year lag of CO2 behind temperature increases.

The fact that it lags behind temperature increases, falsifies the claim that carbon dioxide causes warming:

Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mystery

And this exposes how charts and graphs are manipulated:

BZZZT wrong, it's called forcing, CO2 causes temperature to rise, as temperature rises levels of CO2 go up, warm water can't hold as much Co2, so as the oceans warm the release more Co2, which in turn increases the temperature, then you get forest fires releasing more carbon into the air, and other things create a feedback loop.

 

[The Barbarian]

I found five or six articles that confirm CO2 increase lags behind temperature increases

The data, as you just learned, say that CO2 precedes temperature increases.

this one from scientific American, shows that research shows that the lag time is less than first thought to be - it’s been reduced to a 200 year lag of CO2 behind temperature increases.

It doesn't say what you want it to say:
“The idea that there was a lag of CO2 behind temperature is something climate change skeptics pick on,” says Edward Brook of Oregon State University’s College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences. “They say, ‘How could CO2 levels affect global temperature when you are telling me the temperature changed first?’”
...
Scientists use air trapped in the ice to determine the CO2 levels of past climates, whereas they use the ice itself to determine temperature. But because air diffuses rapidly through the ice pack, those air bubbles are younger than the ice surrounding them.

This means that in places with little snowfall—like the Dome C ice core—the age difference between gas and ice can be thousands of years.
Ice Core Data Help Solve a Global Warming Mystery

The fact that it lags behind temperature increases, falsifies the claim that carbon dioxide causes warming:

It's not just the ice core data that show you're wrong. It's the real time monitoring of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last half century. Turns out, the temperature follows rises in carbon dioxide. This isn't a surprise to anyone; it was predicted by several scientists over a hundred years ago.

One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down.
Temperature Change and Carbon Dioxide Change | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) formerly known as National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

I don't think claiming that all the scientists are lying, and all the denier bloggers are telling the truth, is a very effective argument.

BTW, the guy in your video?

Edenhofer is a proponent of carbon pricing. He points out that both cap-and-trade and a direct carbon tax can be implemented to reduce greenhouse emissions and encourage innovation to preserve the climate.[45] He feels strongly that moving the global economy to a low-carbon threshold requires huge increases in the use of renewable energy across all economic sectors.

Regarding climate change he says: "Denying out and out that climate change is a problem for humanity, as some cynics do, is an unethical, unacceptable position."
Ottmar Edenhofer - Wikipedia

 

[chad kincham]

BZZZT wrong, it's called forcing, CO2 causes temperature to rise, as temperature rises levels of CO2 go up, warm water can't hold as much Co2, so as the oceans warm the release more Co2, which in turn increases the temperature, then you get forest fires releasing more carbon into the air, and other things create a feedback loop.

Feedback loop scenarios do not negate the fact that if temperature increases always precede the increase of CO2, it absolutely falsifies the claim that carbon dioxide drives temperature increases,

And there are many climatologists who agree that this is a fact.

Not only that, but data from ice core sampling shows temperatures, actually dropping over several decades at the same time CO2 levels were increasing markedly.

They can’t put the cart before the horse, no matter how they try to explain facts away with science double-speak.

 

[The Barbarian]

Feedback loop scenarios do not negate the fact that if temperature increases always precede the increase of CO2, it absolutely falsifies the claim that carbon dioxide drives temperature increases,

Which is, as you learned, that carbon dioxide levels rise before warming. Here, I'll show you again...

And there are many climatologists who agree that this is a fact.

Well, that's a testable assumption...

In 2014, Bart Verheggen of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency surveyed 1,868 climate scientists. They found that, consistent with other research, the level of agreement on anthropogenic causation correlated with expertise - 90% of those surveyed with more than 10 peer-reviewed papers related to climate (just under half of survey respondents) explicitly agreed that greenhouse gases were the main cause of global warming. They included researchers on mitigation and adaptation in their surveys in addition to physical climate scientists, leading to a slightly lower level of consensus compared to previous studies.
...
Cook et al. examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.[15] They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus.
...
In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 998 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) or the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists, and 489 returned completed questionnaires. Of those who replied, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know.
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia

 

[Job 33:6]

There are still people who don't think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that because we are driving up CO2 that we aren't warming the planet?

What are we back in the 1950s?

We are the most environmentally dominant and transformative species to walk this earth in the last 4 and a half billion years, and people doubt that our actions might actually change our surrounding climate?

CO2 levels are higher now than they've been in the last 4 million years but "I guess it's just a coincidence that it coincides with the industrial revolution". Please.

 

[chad kincham]

There are still people who don't think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that because we are driving up CO2 that we aren't warming the planet?

What are we back in the 1950s?

We are the most environmentally dominant and transformative species to walk this earth in the last 4 and a half billion years, and people doubt that our actions might actually change our surrounding climate?

CO2 levels are higher now than they've been in the last 4 million years but "I guess it's just a coincidence that it coincides with the industrial revolution". Please.

Except it doesn’t.

Here’s what 25 NASA scientists say. There are those out there countering the bogus anthropogenic global warming propaganda.

 

[Job 33:6]

Except it doesn’t.

CO2, a greenhouse gas, doesn't warm the planet?

Surely you can see how absurd your response sounds.

 

[The Barbarian]

Here’s what 25 NASA scientists say. There are those out there countering the bogus anthropogenic global warming propaganda.

December 2, 2014- In today's EPW Committee Hearing, Dr. Drew Shindell, PhD discusses the overwhelming evidence of climate change. He notes that evidence such as shrinking ice caps, rising oceans, and rising temperatures are seen by satellites.

NASA scientists accurately predicts global warming decades in advance, using only rise in carbon dioxide:

And yeah, we know...
"Hey, no fair! He's using evidence again!"

 

[Aussie Pete]

We'd be very lucky if it was only 38 centimeters and also that mark not until 2100.

Even this one may be lacking sufficient inclusion of feedback loops:
"In 2019, a study projected that in low emission scenario, sea level will rise 30 centimeters by 2050 and 69 centimetres by 2100, relative to the level in 2000. In high emission scenario, it will be 34 cm by 2050 and 111 cm by 2100."
Sea level rise - Wikipedia

Most of coastal land was supposed to be underwater by 2016. Just ask Michael Moore. God promised never to flood the whole earth again. I'm inclined to believe that, not godless scientists continually getting it wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

Most of coastal land was supposed to be underwater by 2016. Just ask Michael Moore.

Might be smarter to ask a climatologist. And God never promised to never flood the whole Earth again. He didn't say the flood of Noah was worldwide.

Fact is, until the continental glaciers started to melt rapidly, almost all of the sea rise so far was by thermal expansion as the oceans warmed up.

Now that Greenland is losing its glaciers (it just rained over the center of the ice cap for the first time in recorded history, look for that to pick up a bit in coming decades.

 

[Halbhh]

Most of coastal land was supposed to be underwater by 2016. Just ask Michael Moore. God promised never to flood the whole earth again. I'm inclined to believe that, not godless scientists continually getting it wrong.

Well, Michael Moore isn't a research scientist, right?

To 'flood the whole world' (or the great majority of land) would not take 50 cm rising ocean, but more like 200,000 cm of ocean rise.

That's like getting up there more on the order of 4,000 times as much as the projected ocean rise by 2100.

Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

Meanwhile, we get commonplace "King Tide" flooding around Miami and other low coastal areas that is increasing a lot already, because when oceans warmed up they expand (the water itself expands to take up more room), and the rise in any one location can vary, so that some areas rise a lot more than others. E.g. --

Despite tranquil weather to start this week, flooding has affected coastal communities from the Florida Keys to Maine. Long stretches of shoreline along the East Coast were inundated, water levels running a foot or more above normal. The swollen sea temporarily claimed streets, parking lots and public parks, and even seeped into homes, reminiscent of a storm surge.
...
“I think of this like a stacking of phenomena,” said William Sweet, an oceanographer with NOAA specializing in sea-level rise and flooding issues. “We didn’t flood 30 or 40 years ago, but since then … sea levels have been a half-foot to a foot higher.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/10/20/king-tides-east-coast/

So, it's nowhere even faintly like a massive regional flood or world wide flood, but it's not going to be nice for residents of low elevation coastal areas. Illustrative example: if 1% of land in the world floods, that means a lot of people get flooded, even while 99% of land does not flood.


How are you doing today down there??

 

[Halbhh]

And God never promised to never flood the whole Earth again.

Well, in the text actually He does promise that. (Gen 9:11, so no more ice comets hitting the deep pacific ocean at a low angle, etc.) Instead, the next time is by 'fire', we hear in the NT.

But generally a good post otherwise.

This was of interest --

Greenland is losing its glaciers (it just rained over the center of the ice cap for the first time in recorded history

Wow. Very interesting. I tend to occasionally check on Greenland re the ice, and now I think I'll be doing some of that the next few days and weeks.

 

[The Barbarian]

Well, in the text actually He does promise that.

No more floods to punish mankind, but He never sad that any flood was worldwide.

 

[The Barbarian]

Wow. Very interesting. I tend to occasionally check on Greenland re the ice, and now I think I'll be doing some of that the next few days and weeks.

A team of 96 polar scientists from 50 international organisations contributed to the findings published in the Nature journal.

The scientists studied satellite data of Greenland's ice sheets between 1992 and 2018.

They found that the region has lost 3.8 trillion tonnes of ice since 1992 - adding around 10.6 mm to the global sea levels.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/50729990

Less than an inch, so far. Most of the ocean rise has been thermal expansion. But that's about to change, if the melting continues.

 

[Paradox.79]

We live in a sin cursed Earth that is destined to go down hill no matter how much men are under the illusion they can turn it around!

So we should do nothing...kill of all the animals...burn down all the forests, since were all destined to fail. I noticed something about revelations, it never says it has to happen...it happens because of mans idiocy. We are at a point in human history that we can cure disease, end poverty, end hunger...the only thing stopping this is mans idiocy. I do not want to take a vaccine...its of the devil...or its my god given right to say no. Your freedoms should not allow you to endangers someone else life...your freedom ends and begins at my freedoms and reverse. If someone uses there freedom to make a decision that endangers my child's life...then I will use a parents right to protect my child and remove that threat one way or another. Make know mistake I would give my life to protect my child, and I sure as heck would kill to protect them

 

[Aussie Pete]

Well, Michael Moore isn't a research scientist, right?

To 'flood the whole world' (or the great majority of land) would not take 50 cm rising ocean, but more like 200,000 cm of ocean rise.

That's like getting up there more on the order of 4,000 times as much as the projected ocean rise by 2100.

Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

Meanwhile, we get commonplace "King Tide" flooding around Miami and other low coastal areas that is increasing a lot already, because when oceans warmed up they expand (the water itself expands to take up more room), and the rise in any one location can vary, so that some areas rise a lot more than others. E.g. --

Despite tranquil weather to start this week, flooding has affected coastal communities from the Florida Keys to Maine. Long stretches of shoreline along the East Coast were inundated, water levels running a foot or more above normal. The swollen sea temporarily claimed streets, parking lots and public parks, and even seeped into homes, reminiscent of a storm surge.
...
“I think of this like a stacking of phenomena,” said William Sweet, an oceanographer with NOAA specializing in sea-level rise and flooding issues. “We didn’t flood 30 or 40 years ago, but since then … sea levels have been a half-foot to a foot higher.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/10/20/king-tides-east-coast/

So, it's nowhere even faintly like a massive regional flood or world wide flood, but it's not going to be nice for residents of low elevation coastal areas. Illustrative example: if 1% of land in the world floods, that means a lot of people get flooded, even while 99% of land does not flood.


How are you doing today down there??

I'm fine. I've had my first COVID jab. No side effects of note. I will get the second head surgically removed when it gets too big. I argue with myself enough as it is.

The climate has always been changing. And yes, global warming is a thing. The world, as always, seeks to apply the wrong remedies. And use terror tactics, lies, half truths and deception to bully people into accepting those remedies. The panic merchants have been proven wrong all too often and that destroys the credibility of the whole climate change debate. According to one of Australia's leading scientists, where I live was never going to have rain again. He was wrong. So the biggest desal plant in the southern hemisphere was built on his advice. The twelve year drought broke just before it went live. It's being run anyway as the cost of production is little more than the cost of care and maintenance. Multiply that by many other follies, including excessive immigration, and global warming is a minor problem in comparison.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think that one of the significant issues with climate change is that it will only get worse and worse until we do something about it. CO2 can last in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, and mankind ingenuity can take decades when it comes to rolling out new technology. So if people never responded, we would just continue to pack to atmosphere with CO2, indefinitely. Which means that the globe itself would be driven to return to mesozoic like temperatures and climate.

Now, the dinosaurs loved the Mesozoic, and it's fair to believe that some people could enjoy the warm weather too. But we wouldn't get here without something like 99% of Earth's animal kingdom dying off, given that things like corals do not have AC units like we do.

And we are already seeing an incredible die off of animal life. And if we don't respond, it will only get worse and worse, until our fish food supply chain will collapse. Climate will dry out climate in the west, meaning that the land in which America keeps all it's cattle, will become a desert. So beef prices will blow out the roof and the market for cattle will collapse.

Sea level won't just magically stop rising until we stop it. So those shore homes will begin experiencing more and more flooding and structural issues due to a rising surficial water table.

And then by the time we do realize that it's costing us billions to repair and fend off these damages, we will still have decades further to research
technologies to correct things, then more decades further to roll these technologies out.

It's going to cost us a lot of money. It's going to damage properties. It's going to drive up food prices. And so the question is, how bad are we going to let it get before we respond? And thankfully our nation is beginning to respond now rather than later with things like Electric cars and renewables.