[Oneiric 3]

Oh I do want to be beside the seaside...

[Oneiric 3]

Originally Posted by Banana Republic 1

The weather and climate are not the same.

They actually are. Consider, for example, when the hurricane season gets going and anything passed Cat 3 develops, or a heatwave in Europe occurs, or we get a few windy and wet days here in Ireland. These weather events become further proof that climate change is happening and not about weaving up a lucrative narrative at all.

[Banana Republic 1]

Additionally, global heating caused by climate change leads to warmer water temperatures, which in turn causes the water to expand and for sea levels to rise.

As sea levels rise, certain parts of Ireland that are currently on land may soon find themselves at risk of severe flooding as the coast line encroaches inward, with some urbanised areas of the country even expected to be entirely below sea level as soon as 2030.

Originally Posted by Danno

Yes. Hence why I posted the link. Highlighted above is the complete hyperbole of a prediction made. Let's check back here in little under 9 years to see if its hyperbole or truth.

You wrote the first quote yourself, put that text in quotations to make it seem like you read the mirror article and not just the headline.

[Banana Republic 1]

Originally Posted by Oneiric 3

They actually are. Consider, for example, when the hurricane season gets going and anything passed Cat 3 develops, or a heatwave in Europe occurs, or we get a few windy and wet days here in Ireland. These weather events become further proof that climate change is happening and not about weaving up a lucrative narrative at all.

NASA piece on the difference between weather and climate.
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/n...e_weather.html

[Danno]

Originally Posted by Oneiric 3

Oh I do want to be beside the seaside...

I'm still well inland and away from those nasty marine layers turning my snow to rain under that scenario.

[M.T. Cranium]

Originally Posted by Banana Republic 1

What is your opinion on this, it’s a report from channel 4 news last night, link contain 4min clip.
https://www.channel4.com/news/oceans...atures-in-2020

My views were laid out in another thread, climate change 3 -- an alternative to both orthodox climate change and skeptical positions commonly taken.

It has been locked recently after about the fourth off-topic bun fight between the two groups I am trying to join with my third option. That third option basically says considerable warming seems inevitable, whether it's the fault of human beings or not, and the best response is mitigation, not economic disruptions on a huge scale.

So without watching the link, I can already tell you that I accept it's quite likely that ocean temperatures are rising, and I don't think that in realistic terms there's much if anything we can do to prevent it.

As to one-metre, three-metre or ten-metre sea level rises, let's take each in turn. Considerable land ice marginal melting in Greenland, arctic Canada, Svalbard, northern Russia etc will likely raise sea levels one metre to 1.5m.

That amount of sea level rise can be mitigated by coastal defensive installations. Just raise the existing seawalls or build new ones where that level of increase would cause problems. A lot of shorelines can handle a 1.5 m rise without anyone noticing much change. When you get to three metres, that's more like a third to a half of Greenland ice gone, that would take the rest of this century probably, if not longer. Defensive measures plus staged moving away from coastlines well in advance would be my suggestion there.

A ten metre sea level rise would require all northern ice gone and a considerable start to Antarctic ice melt (if all that goes, then I believe we're looking at 17 metres). That would obviously have major impacts around the world. I don't think things will get that bad, whether it's human caused or natural variability, I think the atmosphere has certain limits beyond which natural feedback processes would kick in, such as enhanced arctic snowfall which would partly slow down the process.

I don't claim to be clairvoyant or have definitive answers. My approach is more holistic -- do we prefer to mitigate or destroy the existing economic structure in favour of drastic changes that might not even have any actual effect?

The one good thing about the COVID emergency is that it rather answers my question indirectly.

[M.T. Cranium]

I could add that I am very concerned about recent news reports that Bill Gates and others want to fund aerosol based solutions to climate change. The last thing we need is some impossible-to-research engineering solutions to problems that might have other causes. A decrease in the incoming solar radiation might plunge the northern hemisphere into a little ice age or even a big ice age, some people say we shouldn't play God, and I add we shouldn't play Milankovitch.

If one wanted to try a major engineering solution, damming the Bering Straits might be less risky. That should have some of the desired effects, while being reversible if it then became obvious that the move had resulted in unintended consequences. I would envisage a pair of dams on either side of the Diomede islands at the narrowest point of the Bering Straits, whereas some other proposals call for a longer and deeper based dam two hundred kilometers south of that. My concept (not very much developed to be honest) would include locks for the passage of ocean vessels, and perhaps variable flow gates if some predictive science developed about the cause and effect created. Basically the idea is that if the Beaufort, Chuckchi and Laptev Seas froze sooner and remained frozen longer, arctic air masses might be stronger, and the circulation as a whole might cool down slightly. Although there would be little direct effect on the eastern arctic or the north Atlantic sectors, some symmetry of response could be expected as processes already underway responded to that new variable. The arctic circulation would try to balance the new disparity introduced, meaning there should also be stronger arctic air masses at times in the rest of the subarctic.

A dam across the Bering Straits also has benefits for world trade and international co-operation should it be integrated into new road or rail links between Asia and North America.

Not sure how easy it would be to remove the Bill Gates aerosols if we didn't want them around after half a century, I suppose they would be designed to settle out over time or to require periodic reinforcement. My guess is that it wouldn't do what the designers think it might do, a criticism that also applies to the Bering Straits concept.

It has to be said that sea level rises so far have been relatively subtle and nowhere near as large as some that occurred after the peak of the Little Ice Age.

[Gaoth Laidir]

We should be alright for now, though, as the Greenland mass balance shows no increasing trend for nearly two decades now. This is somewhat at odds with what we tend to hear in the propaganda and it was of course not mentioned in the C4 clip. Like the Svalbard sea ice trends, Greenland melt seems to follow the sign of the AMO trend, increasing as the AMO becomes positive, which is what happened in the mid-late '90s.

[Danno]

Originally Posted by M.T. Cranium

If one wanted to try a major engineering solution, damming the Bering Straits might be less risky. That should have some of the desired effects, while being reversible if it then became obvious that the move had resulted in unintended consequences. I would envisage a pair of dams on either side of the Diomede islands at the narrowest point of the Bering Straits...

I think this would be a worthwhile project, it would be relatively easy to hit the "undo" button on this one.

If it meant returning Arctic Sea Ice levels to 1970s levels it would be a great achievement.

[Banana Republic 1]

There was 13 paragraphs to your response to my question so Im going to respond in this post to several points raised.

Originally Posted by M.T. Cranium

climate change 3, has been locked recently after about the fourth off-topic bun fight between the two groups .

The reason for this was that the climate change skeptics on that thread were resorting to personal attacks and insults, trying to solicit documental proof from the "orthodox" crowd and then refusing to read same afterward. Also the "moderator" used a racial slur, and a third moderator had to be brought in to mop up after his/her underlings transgressions. Interestingly that "moderator" is modding this thread also. People are entitled to their opinions but to spew them out in that fashion is totally counter to the role of a moderate.

Originally Posted by M.T. Cranium

So without watching the link,

Sounds familiar but at least you admitted it, however you couched your follow up with

Originally Posted by M.T. Cranium

it's quite likely that ocean temperatures are rising

.

Originally Posted by M.T. Cranium

My approach is more holistic

Not a scientific one? I admit I use a sarcastic tone.

Originally Posted by M.T. Cranium

do we prefer to mitigate or destroy the existing economic structure in favour of drastic changes

Our current economic structure is what's causing the problem.

I looked into the Bearing Straits proposal and while it appears legitimate in the sense that the guy works at Utrecht University a search of him brought to his web page were the main image is of him in a topless Vlad Putin pose.http://www.rolfschuttenhelm.nl

That said I read through what was proposed, unusual perhaps for this forum to exaim opposition suggestions, in a paper called "Diomede Crossroads
Saving the Arctic sea ice? Thoughts on plausibility", published in 2008 and several things stood out.

On page 3, Schuttenhelm, the main guy, laid out three things damming would change and three engineering solutions to achieve same. There are of course several negative effects that could occur from damming the 85km wide Bearing Straits.

Ive taken this extract from an Anchorage Daily News article

Still, perhaps anticipating the public reaction to meddling with Mother Nature on such a scale, Schuttenhelm realized that it might be hard to tell whether blocking the gap between North America and Asia is an exercise in stupidity -- or one of simple genius. Acting rashly with too many unknowns wouldn't be wise, he acknowledged.

. Several are listed in Schuttenhelm paper as mentioned above.

The above section brings me to this point,

Originally Posted by M.T. Cranium

the last thing we need is some impossible-to-research engineering solutions to problems that might have other causes.

How can you then dump on the aerosol solution whist at the same time advance an another perhaps outlandish plan, they are researching not implementing it. The reason its has advanced is exactly because they a getting private investment and not waiting for the cooperation of international players, which consistently fails, as per the Straits idea. Speaking of International players, the first guy to come up with the idea of damming the Bearing Straits was a a Soviet lad called Petr Michailovich Borisov in the 60s who offered it as a solution to the difficulty of extracting oil and gas from the Sakhalin oil fields.

Post Script: From all that Ive read a watched about the aerosol plan it is consistently said that there is no money to be made from it hence it may not actually happen.

[Gaoth Laidir]

Originally Posted by Banana Republic 1

The reason for this was that the climate change skeptics on that thread were resorting to personal attacks and insults, trying to solicit documental proof from the "orthodox" crowd and then refusing to read same afterward. Also the "moderator" used a racial slur, and a third moderator had to be brought in to mop up after his/her underlings transgressions. Interestingly that "moderator" is modding this thread also. People are entitled to their opinions but to spew them out in that fashion is totally counter to the role of a moderate.


Sounds familiar but at least you admitted it, however you couched your follow up with .


Not a scientific one? I admit I use a sarcastic tone.


Our current economic structure is what's causing the problem.

I looked into the Bearing Straits proposal and while it appears legitimate in the sense that the guy works at Utrecht University a search of him brought to his web page were the main image is of him in a topless Vlad Putin pose.http://www.rolfschuttenhelm.nl

That said I read through what was proposed, unusual perhaps for this forum to exaim opposition suggestions, in a paper called "Diomede Crossroads
Saving the Arctic sea ice? Thoughts on plausibility", published in 2008 and several things stood out.

On page 3, Schuttenhelm, the main guy, laid out three things damming would change and three engineering solutions to achieve same. There are of course several negative effects that could occur from damming the 85km wide Bearing Straits.

Ive taken this extract from an Anchorage Daily News article

. Several are listed in Schuttenhelm paper as mentioned above.

The above section brings me to this point,


How can you then dump on the aerosol solution, they are researching not implementing it. The reason its has advanced is exactly because they a getting private investment and not waiting for the cooperation of international players, which consistently fails, as per the Straits idea. Speaking of International players, the first guy to come up with the idea of damming the Bearing Straits was a a Soviet lad called Petr Michailovich Borisov in the 60s who offered it as a solution to the difficulty of extracting oil and gas from the Sakhalin oil fields.

Post Script: From all that Ive read a watched about the aerosol plan it is consistently said that there is no money to be made from it hence it may not actually happen.

That and it's nigh on impossible, but don't let that get in the way.

But going back to your first graceful paragraph above, I'd suggest you have a rethink about exactly who is resorting personal attacks and insults. That's almost the only thing that you did.

Also the "moderator" used a racial slur, and a third moderator had to be brought in to mop up after his/her underlings transgressions. Interestingly that "moderator" is modding this thread also. People are entitled to their opinions but to spew them out in that fashion is totally counter to the role of a moderate.

[Pa ElGrande]

Originally Posted by Danno

Irish Mirror: Map shows how much of Ireland could be under water by end of decade - with one city in trouble.
https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/iris...eland-23320870

Little under 9 years left to go. Save the date. Can't wait to take the fishing boat out on main street Youghal.

That's the usual scaremongering with computer models using representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5 radiative forcing scenario. The diminutive Eva links to a site that claims to use projections based on Kopp et all 2014.. The truth is, we don’t know what the climate will be doing, any time you see scary headlines about future climate, it's going to be assumptions based on RCP 8.5, the media never cautions about the limits of knowledge or accurately relays the caveats tied to highly abstract computer models.

[Thelonious Monk]

Originally Posted by M.T. Cranium

My approach is more holistic -- do we prefer to mitigate or destroy the existing economic structure in favour of drastic changes that might not even have any actual effect?

The one good thing about the COVID emergency is that it rather answers my question indirectly.

The existing economic structure will spell the end of the world as we know it anyway. The current model is constant growth and consumption of resources.
So if we want to keep going we have to do something differently.

[Pa ElGrande]

Originally Posted by Thelonious Monk

The existing economic structure will spell the end of the world as we know it anyway. The current model is constant growth and consumption of resources.
So if we want to keep going we have to do something differently.

Constant growth and consumption of resources has been the human model for at least 12,000+ years.

When I first came to Ireland it was to a farmhouse with no central heating that used an open fire burning turf and wood with a bit of coal thrown in, cooking was done on Calor gas. The house was modernised and oil fired central heating installed, they even had a solid fuel range installed at one stage, over the years the house has been knocked and rebuilt using better insulation methods, heating using back burner boilers and wood pellets. In that period of time efficiency gains have changed consumption patterns, we use less energy to heat our houses and live much more comfortable lives. There is no one size fits all solution, Ireland is a cold and damp island for much of the year, we will continue to adjust in the future, without economic growth our energy consumption patterns must logically revert to those of a prior economy. With global warming we can reduce our energy consumption further, something to think about, it not a one way trade.

[Birdnuts]

Originally Posted by Thelonious Monk

The existing economic structure will spell the end of the world as we know it anyway. The current model is constant growth and consumption of resources.
So if we want to keep going we have to do something differently.

Maybe - but I would rate the likes of plastic contamination of the worlds oceans, degradation of soil via intensive farming, loss of biodiversitry via habitat destruction etc. as far graver threats in that space than the hysteria generated by climate alarmists.