Human Caused Global Warming Will Not Happen

[seedload]

I think there is worry that the increase in temperature will accelerate the melting of the polar ice caps raising sea levels. A 1-2 degree although small to us is significant overall. There's a lot of concern by coastal towns and low-lying islands or island nations.

But we are currently coming out of an ice age! Of course the polar caps will melt!

AFAIK: Frozen water at the poles of this planet is the exception, not the norm. We are IN an ice age.. (at least, the tail end of one)... and at some stage in the future won't be any more!

What are you talking about?

[TDPerk]

"San Diego was not the west coast hub, it is Long Beach."

Clearly, you would be surprised by the proprietary attitude San Dieagans have for Long Beach. Of course San Francisco claims to be northern California when plainly it isn't, so maybe I shouldn't trust what the Californians I know tell me...

"You should read some of the history of the major European ports, and engineering them. "

I was proposing a hypothetical that vitiated that history, wasn't I?

"The amalgamate as a whole is what has allowed the US to dominate economically. The US built a fully integrated infrastructure well ahead of anyone else. I personnally think that New Orleans relevance as a major shipping port is losing ground. "

True as far it goes, but it doesn't go that far. The New Orleans shipping lanes still take the largest share of US seaborne traffic, and even if they now no longer stop in N.O., that shipping channel is needed. Moving it all 80 miles west would be extremely problematic.

[djolds1]

San Diego was not the west coast hub, it is Long Beach. Seattle also does a healthy trade.

The East coast Baltimore/Philly hub and NY, New Jersey Hubs are massive. Yes New Orleans completes the access chain to the Midwest and Central states, via the river, but do not underestimate the east/west rail and roads system. The amalgamate as a whole is what has allowed the US to dominate economically.

The agricultural wealth exported via N.O. and both finished and raw industrial goods imported via it as far north as the lakes are what allowed that economic dominance to develop, and maintain it.

Absent the Mississippi, transportation arrangements in North America are capital-intensive and FAR more expensive. River barges are C.H.E.A.P.

Absent the Mississippi, the US is never anything more than Brazil.

"The amalgamate as a whole is what has allowed the US to dominate economically. The US built a fully integrated infrastructure well ahead of anyone else. I personnally think that New Orleans relevance as a major shipping port is losing ground. "

True as far it goes, but it doesn't go that far. The New Orleans shipping lanes still take the largest share of US seaborne traffic, and even if they now no longer stop in N.O., that shipping channel is needed. Moving it all 80 miles west would be extremely problematic.

Yup.

There are MASSIVE sunk costs involved with the New Orleans port infrastructure.

[chrismb]

But we are currently coming out of an ice age! Of course the polar caps will melt!

What are you talking about?

Sounds like someone hasn't bothered to point that out to you! Fancy that! Not quite the story of global warming the mainstream wants you to hear, is it!

[JLawson]

I wouldn't even begin to argue in favor of New Orleans though, they're aware of their plight, the fact they keep rebuilding in the same place is their own mess.

The fact they keep rebuilding in the same place is inevitable. The Mississippi River and Drainage Basin is THE critical import-export transportation artery-capillary network of North America. Without it, American power does not exist, because capital costs skyrocket. That main artery MUST have a port servicing it, and that port MUST be more or less where New Orleans is located.

And concrete is cheap. Build massive berms/barriers/levees, raise the roads and rails going in, and in 20 years you could raise the levee system up twenty feet or more, which should take care of any problems with the sea level rising. Just make sure the usual corruption-riddled construction companies are kept under an engineering and financial microscope.

But as has been pointed out, the sea level... isn't really rising much.

That's been one of the problems I've seen with the supposed problems with flooding. They take a specific period (say, 100 years), apply an arbitrary temperature increase (say, 3c) and go "see how much land will flood because the sea level will increase by 75 (or some other arbitrary number) feet!"

But the sea level isn't going to go from 0 one day to +75 the next. Over 100 years there's time to do a lot of mitigation... AND observe to see if the sea level is, indeed, actually rising or the temperature is actually increasing. If, as the current sunspot evidence (and colder temps in the north, and increasing snowpacks in the ski regions) seem to indicate us going into a Maunder Minimum scenario... we could be praying for global warming before it's all over.

Do I think we ought to get off carbon-based fuels? Yep - they're too useful as chemical feedstocks. But we don't need to panic and install mega-acres of solar cells and windmills - there's time to build fission and (hopefully) Polywell plants to provide electricity, and shift over to an all-electric infrastructure. Running off in the wrong direction because someone is yelling "OMG OMG WE'RE GONNA BURN GOTTA STOP ALL CARBON RIGHT NOW!!!!" isn't sensible at all, yet it seems like that's what's happened.

There's time to determine if there's a problem, while researching the tech needed to cope with it. If there isn't - then great, and we've got new stuff that might be better than the old. (I'm looking forward to inexpensive LED bulbs, myself, though one reason incandescents cost so little was an economy of scale...)

But the whole thrust of the AGW folks is that there isn't time to do anything but accept their recommendations - 'the science is settled' (anyone else get a kind of creepy feeling when they started spouting that?) and that's worried me right from the start on this. That's what a con man or used car salesman does - tell you you've got to accept the deal right now, without thinking about it.

As I said - we're adaptable... we just have to see what's really out there we need to adapt to.

[Skipjack]

And people always forget that only ice that is currently on land will raise the sea level when melting, if it does not form lakes on the land where it currently resides.
Ice on water floats. So it displaces the same amount of water already. So when it melts, nothing changes.
With that, the entire north pole has already been ruled out as a source of water. You will get some from greenland ice that is melting for sure.
I do think thout that a warmer and more habitable Greenland could be very welcome and could house those displaced by (maybe) rising oceans.
Plus, there could be lots of interesting things hidden underneath the ice.

[djolds1]

The fact they keep rebuilding in the same place is inevitable. The Mississippi River and Drainage Basin is THE critical import-export transportation artery-capillary network of North America. Without it, American power does not exist, because capital costs skyrocket. That main artery MUST have a port servicing it, and that port MUST be more or less where New Orleans is located.

And concrete is cheap. Build massive berms/barriers/levees, raise the roads and rails going in, and in 20 years you could raise the levee system up twenty feet or more, which should take care of any problems with the sea level rising. Just make sure the usual corruption-riddled construction companies are kept under an engineering and financial microscope.

The "problem" with the Mississippi River is that it wants to move to the west. But all the port and supporting social infrastructure (schools, homes, stores, etc.) are in N.O.

But as has been pointed out, the sea level... isn't really rising much.

Yup.

But the sea level isn't going to go from 0 one day to +75 the next. Over 100 years there's time to do a lot of mitigation... AND observe to see if the sea level is, indeed, actually rising or the temperature is actually increasing. If, as the current sunspot evidence (and colder temps in the north, and increasing snowpacks in the ski regions) seem to indicate us going into a Maunder Minimum scenario... we could be praying for global warming before it's all over.

HERETIC!

Hush.

Reasonableness will not profit you.

Do I think we ought to get off carbon-based fuels? Yep - they're too useful as chemical feedstocks.

Dunno. The ease of the recent algeal biofuel processes, and the fact that "natural" hydrocarbon reserves look good for at least five centuries of consumption, makes the choice arbitrary.

And the true hilarity is that the biofuel routes are "carbon neutral" or even "carbon negative" - i.e. they might accelerate the coming cold spell.

There's time to determine if there's a problem, while researching the tech needed to cope with it. If there isn't - then great, and we've got new stuff that might be better than the old. (I'm looking forward to inexpensive LED bulbs, myself, though one reason incandescents cost so little was an economy of scale...)

But the whole thrust of the AGW folks is that there isn't time to do anything but accept their recommendations - 'the science is settled' (anyone else get a kind of creepy feeling when they started spouting that?) and that's worried me right from the start on this. That's what a con man or used car salesman does - tell you you've got to accept the deal right now, without thinking about it.

"The science is settled" in a field that emerged c.1970? ROFL!

What CAGW stands to do discredit science in general

Nice way to extract funds from the gullible for 20 years tho. Apocalyptic panics and their Savonarolas are always profitable.

As I said - we're adaptable... we just have to see what's really out there we need to adapt to.

Again - the problem with the Mississippi isn't CAGW -its that the river wants to move.

[chrismb]

The ease of the recent algeal biofuel processes, and the fact that "natural" hydrocarbon reserves look good for at least five centuries of consumption, makes the choice arbitrary.

I don't think these are a given. There probably are reasonably [read; 'possibly'] accessible hydrocarbons for 500 years, but they would be from reserves so difficult to get to that people just wouldn't bother and prefer to die out (viz. not breed). [There must be hydrocarbon deposits equiv to >10,000 years, but it'd prob take more energy to recover them than the recovered quantities can generate.]

This will be a self-stabilising thing - the price goes up, no-one can afford to live with offspring in tow also, and the population in the countries that are heavy consumers of petrochemicals diminishes. It is already happening. You could argue that it is for other reasons, but it always boils down to one thing... the cost of living... which is a function of the cost of energy, which is a function of the availability of energy...

[djolds1]

The ease of the recent algeal biofuel processes, and the fact that "natural" hydrocarbon reserves look good for at least five centuries of consumption, makes the choice arbitrary.

I don't think these are a given. There probably are reasonably [read; 'possibly'] accessible hydrocarbons for 500 years, but they would be from reserves so difficult to get to that people just wouldn't bother and prefer to die out (viz. not breed). [There must be hydrocarbon deposits equiv to >10,000 years, but it'd prob take more energy to recover them than the recovered quantities can generate.

Relatively easy to access. Note the source.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_ ... ssil_fuels

Tho I think the new synthetic routes make the geologic reserves somewhat superfluous. I continue to await the Greens bemoaning biofuels - since they have succeeded.

This will be a self-stabilising thing - the price goes up, no-one can afford to live with offspring in tow also, and the population in the countries that are heavy consumers of petrochemicals diminishes. It is already happening. You could argue that it is for other reasons, but it always boils down to one thing... the cost of living... which is a function of the cost of energy, which is a function of the availability of energy...

There are lot of artificial restraints driven by idiotic ideals that have been stapled onto the economics of fuel availability and supply these last two generations. But I think that idiocy is coming to a conclusion now.

[chrismb]

Relatively easy to access. Note the source.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_ ... ssil_fuels

I took a quick scan, but 'fraid I don't really buy it. If it were that easy, companies in the business wouldn't be currently spending orders of mag more than they were prepared to do a few decades ago by drilling 3 miles under the sea. They'd go to wherever these 'easy access' points are.

[MSimon]

Disregarding the global warming aspect of the post, I want to say that the solar cycle only has a very limited affect on the temperatures on earth.

Unless it affects cloud formation. Then it will have a LOT of effect. There is some evidence that it does by modulating cosmic ray flux reaching Earth.

[MSimon]

nowadays, we make news when a small snowfall accumulating 5cm, the first "so big accumulation" in 10 years happens, and I even see Global Warming deniers saying this 5cm of snow is proof Global Warming is not happening

Of course it is happening. It is mostly not man made. Probably a rebound from the Little Ice Age.

The "effect" predicted depends on the amplification factor of the system. The warmists think it is in the 2X to 5X range. Some of us think it is in the .4 to .6 range currently. There is evidence for this.

And in fact the historical record shows CO2 ppms in the thousands with declining temps.

But who knows? We do know that cutting energy supplies will kill people now vs some uncertain danger 50 or 100 years hence.

[MSimon]

There are islands in the Pacific where indigenous people live and are unaware of such effects or are aware and are actually trying to get the rest of the world to see what they're doing.

Some one should teach them about boats. Could come in handy.

[MSimon]

Of course if any of you are really concerned you could help me with this:

http://waveengines.blogspot.com/2011/06 ... -wave.html

Or you could just hang around here bitching.

BTW I need links to relevant pdfs for the sidebar. If any one cares.

[MSimon]

There probably are reasonably [read; 'possibly'] accessible hydrocarbons for 500 years, but they would be from reserves so difficult to get to that people just wouldn't bother and prefer to die out (viz. not breed).

We are now extracting massive quantities of natural gas from reserves that were nominally useless 10 years ago. Technology improves.