Terraforming the Earth

Maxx said:

Greenland seems almost too close to call. It seems to be only over the central ice sheet that current temperatures are still definitely cooler than during the MWP. Of course it would be nice if the solar cooling worked out, but it would have to happen much faster than in the past to keep the oats from coming back to Greenland.

Click to expand...

If Greenland were warmer than during the MWP, then the oats would be able to ripen; but the growing season is not adequate for the oats to ripen. I have searched and inquired, and the only oats that has ripened in Greenland since the MWP was grown in a greenhouse.

Plus, I suspect some rather frenetic geo-engineering will get under way just as the oats reach their prime in about 2025, which might or might not be bad for the oats.

Click to expand...

The one thing that I feaar about the whole climate change matter is that some clown will convince the U.S. Congress or some other gevernmental body somewhere that somethng has to be done about rising temperatures, and he will procede to start an Ice Age. It wouldn't be difficult to drop teemperatures by a few degrees, and it might lead to more cooling. I think that it would be best for everyone, if temperatures were to rise to the level of the MWP. That would certainly help farmers in Greenland.

And sea levels are already going up faster than during the MWP:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620183242.htm

Click to expand...

I'd love to see the raw data on sea level rise. The most thorough study that I have seen indicated that it was too close to call, because the land had subsided in some places and risen in other places. The study of docking facilites in the Mediterrarean area suggested that through 2000 CE there hadn't been any real change in sea level.

Snick said:

I'd love to see the raw data on sea level rise. The most thorough study that I have seen indicated that it was too close to call, because the land had subsided in some places and risen in other places. The study of docking facilites in the Mediterrarean area suggested that through 2000 CE there hadn't been any real change in sea level.

Click to expand...

It doesn't exist. Humans have been watching sea levels with any accuracy for how long? Other than that, it is largely anecdotal and a lot of guesswork. We DO however know two things: continents continue to subduct while elsewhere new land is being made, and isostatic rebound of the formerly glacially overburdened continents is continuing. If you factor in variable volume of seawater based on temperature, large scale flow (such as greater or lesser power currents going over subsea topography), and the like, it's all guesswork.

What is needed is a far more in-depth analysis over a much longer time span. It would require computer models totally blowing away the very limited ones we have now. The number of variables involved and the area and volume being covered is ridiculous. We could field a whole new army of Earth-facing satellites and dedicate a good portion of the planet's computational power to this one thing alone. I'm in favor of more such basic science spending, and before we engage in ignorant terraforming attempts on an already pretty well organically balanced system.

Let's not pretend that terraforming in response to the AGW scare is any better than the damning of rivers, draining of wetlands, redirecting of waterways, and other assorted terraforming we regularly find fault with. If we're going to be intellectually honest and consistent, we can't say one terraforming is bad and the other okay. What happens entirely by accident is one thing. When we engage in large projects because we arrogantly think we know better than nature, whether the Three Gorges Dam or putting plastic wrap over glaciers, that's wrong.

Wojciehowicz said:

It doesn't exist. Humans have been watching sea levels with any accuracy for how long? Other than that, it is largely anecdotal and a lot of guesswork. We DO however know two things: continents continue to subduct while elsewhere new land is being made, and isostatic rebound of the formerly glacially overburdened continents is continuing. If you factor in variable volume of seawater based on temperature, large scale flow (such as greater or lesser power currents going over subsea topography), and the like, it's all guesswork.

Click to expand...

Yep, subsidence in some places and rising in other places, and the only fair evidence is man-made structures and shorelines. There is excellent evidence that shorelnes were much lower in the past, but it appears that ssea level is about as high as it gets, and there isn't all that much ice left to melt.

What is needed is a far more in-depth analysis over a much longer time span. It would require computer models totally blowing away the very limited ones we have now. The number of variables involved and the area and volume being covered is ridiculous. We could field a whole new army of Earth-facing satellites and dedicate a good portion of the planet's computational power to this one thing alone. I'm in favor of more such basic science spending, and before we engage in ignorant terraforming attempts on an already pretty well organically balanced system.

Click to expand...

Yes, a good time machine would be somewhat better than the recent guesses, but the people with those aren't offering to asist in the research.

Let's not pretend that terraforming in response to the AGW scare is any better than the damning of rivers, draining of wetlands, redirecting of waterways, and other assorted terraforming we regularly find fault with. If we're going to be intellectually honest and consistent, we can't say one terraforming is bad and the other okay. What happens entirely by accident is one thing. When we engage in large projects because we arrogantly think we know better than nature, whether the Three Gorges Dam or putting plastic wrap over glaciers, that's wrong.

Click to expand...

Maxx said:

The article I indicated shows that, compensating for known subsidence and so on, sea levels are already going up faster than during the MWP.

Here's some satellite data:

http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/es/da...feb-10-2011-high-mediterranean-sla/index.html

Click to expand...

The article that you posted a link to did not give raw data; it gave assertions of conclusions based on the data. That's most of what the AGW people do: they say what they want the data to say, rather than providing the actual data.

And this new article also just makes claims and shows some colored pictures, but there are no comparison of the colored photos and actual sea level as demonstrated by the relationship between water and things that are near the water. Has there been tidal flooding in Venice, for example? Several years ago Venice looked to be near the end, but the tidal flooding ended, and apparently the water level has dropped in that area.

Either the data viewing page isn't woring, or the Anomalies have gone away. After looking at some more of the data diagrams I suspect that the images on that page were specially selected. I don't know whether therre was a storm or a full Moon, but they are not typical. Try several differnt dates.

Maxx said:

I assume the anomalies are anomalous and that's why they are more interesting visually than images that show the ocean looking normal. So yes, they aren't typcial; in fact they are labeled as anomalies. I think the point is that the satellites can spot these variations.

Click to expand...

Good point, they are anomalies, so they aren't everyday things. I wonder why anyone wpuld be interested in things that appear rarely. Perhaps they are like ghost-hunters; they do odd, pointless things because they are odd.

In any case, it doesn't make any difference if the water level is high or unusual, f that happens only on rare accasions. If sea level were rising, then it would rise, not vary in an irregular way.

Maxx said:

They are rising. That is the finding of the article at:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2...html?sid=0be74196-5fde-4881-bb12-1c3fbbbf336a

Supporting info at:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/13/1015619108/suppl/DCSupplemental

Click to expand...

That is a lot better, but it seems to indicate that sea level has changed a little in response to the cylic change in global temperatures, which is to be expected. I'll read the rest of the srticle later.


The supporting data doesn't support much. There isn't much data, but there is a description of methodology. They largely used salt marsh sediment for data, and I know enough about salt marshes to know that they don't stay put very long. Salt marshes are frequently altered by storms. They also used data fro Revere, Massachusetts, but the shore of that town has been developed since before 1700, so there is no old shore to be found.

As I wrote earlier, I would like to see some actual data rather than claims that the data shows something.