6 ms·

Sea levels are projected to rise from 0.6 to 6 meters this century. [1] So while urban sinking is a much bigger immediate threat, climate change will pose a si

by pje 9y ago

Sea levels are projected to rise from 0.6 to 6 meters this century. [1] So while urban sinking is a much bigger immediate threat, climate change will pose a significant problem in the near future, and—crucially—will affect every coastal city in the world, not just Jakarta. [1]: https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/projections/empirical-projections https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/projection...

mrighele 9y ago
> Sea levels are projected to rise from 0.6 to 6 meters this century. I think you mixed up the units, the article says > 0.2 meters to 2.0 meters (0.66 to 6.6 feet)
- oldandtired 9y ago
  Storm surges are more problematic than ocean level rises. Storm surges can be on the order of 10 to 20 metres. But still as per my comment above, energy equation please.
- pje 9y ago
  Yes, thank you! I did mix up the units, and I can no longer edit my original comment :\
oldandtired 9y ago
I've said in quite a number of times, whenever any prediction of the magnitudes given, it behooves those making the such predictions to answer the energy equation first. Until they do in any sort of reasonable way, all such predictions are completely bogus and do not do give those promulgating such predictions any veracity. The politically correct dogma of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) has given rise to a situation where those who believe in climate change and who believe that it is mostly natural are classified as climate change deniers by ACC dogmatists and are classified by climate change deniers as climate change freaks. Climate change is inevitable. However, we do not know what we can mitigate and what we have to endure. We need honest research and not this current politically correct based research being undertaken today. It is an unfortunate reality that greed is a cause of many human and social related problems and that any natural climate change the planet is undergoing only enhances those human social problems. If we continue on the politically correct bender of trying to lower CO2 levels without understanding the long term consequences, we are going to kill ourselves. Within very specific limits there is a broad range of CO2 levels (much higher than current levels) that would be highly beneficial to the planet and to us. This is based on evidence released in the last couple of years. There is much to recommend not polluting our planet, but focussing of the furphy that is CO2 mitigation is wrong in oh so many ways. We need to look at a holistic methodology to agriculture and manufacturing to ensure that these areas can be highly productive without the current attendant problems. There is more than enough capacity to feed and clothe the human population of this fair planet, but as people are, on the whole, greedy and self-serving, this is not going to happen any time soon.
- rainbowmverse 9y ago
  You used a lot of words to hide the lack of any support for your argument.
  - oldandtired 9y ago
    Do the simple calculations yourself and see what they need to explain.
    - rainbowmverse 9y ago
      These simple calculations and the data needed for them would be a great thing for you to provide to support your claims.
      - oldandtired 9y ago
        I have provided this information in detail in the past and those who have challenged me to do so haven't even bothered to check it or respond. The information is freely available in all sort of resources. The bits you need are the surface area of the earth and the surface area of the oceans, the volume of land based ice required to melt to fill the appropriate surface area to whatever level you require (in my case 1 metre), the amount of energy required to do the phase change of 1 kg of solid H2O to liquid H2O (which is approx equivalent raising 1 Kg of liquid H2O from 0 degrees Celsius to 84-85 degrees Celsius) and viola you have your results. This give an approximation to the energy required and even if you were 20% out in any of your figures, the amount is of such a magnitude that those errors are fundamentally insignificant for the planetary effects that such an amount of energy would do. That amount of energy on the lower bounds would have caused all life to become extinct before we would see the oceans rise by any significant amount. Many years ago, I gave these calculations to a senior climate scientist and he noted at the time that the results were interesting and he would get back to me after he had analysed those figures. That was what 15 or more years ago and I have never heard anything back since those discussions. I have provided such figures in detail to various climate scientists asking for their analysis and basically no response. Not even to the extent of saying that the calculations were flawed. So when ever any fool climate scientist or their supporters promulgate any scenario that says we should expect any significant ocean level rises inside of 100 years (significant being anything above 0.5 metre - especially those who promulgate 1 to 10 metres) due to human activity then the onus is on them to demonstrate where the energy processes are occurring. They have not done so to date and based on their dogma, I suspect that they cannot. The problem with all of this politically correct dogma is that they (the climate scientists en bulk) are not doing any science. I have said it in the past - there are no stupid questions. It seems to be today that funding is the driver to follow the crowd and to not do actual science. We need to know what is happening in our climate. This is irrespective of any ideological standpoint you may hold. If you challenge the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) dogma then you are anathema. Even if you believe in climate change, if you do not follow the party line then you are an infidel that needs to be destroyed. Jihad not only occurs in extreme Islam but is alive and well in Climate Science as well. This whole matter is simple enough for a fifth grader to solve, let alone an adult who should be able to do this in 20 minutes (including looking up the information). Scepticism has its place and we need a few more sceptics when it comes to the lack of rigour that is being used by those who promulgate such scenarios. If you want to follow a fool where he leads without at least a cursory look at the base of what they are saying then you are free to do so. When someone says that you need to look at what they are saying, you don't need to listen, you can just follow blindly. end rant.
katastic 9y ago
>will affect every coastal city in the world, not just Jakarta. 1) No duh. Who was that statement for? Nobody is debating that GW is terrible. But we're not talking about global warming. 2) You're doing exactly what he's talking about. Shoehorning in global warming where it's not needed. You can discuss murder rates of a single city without shoehorning in murder rates of the "highest murder rate city in the world" every time. You can discuss diseases without having to shoehorn in that "cancer is the worst disease" into every conversation. The only connection to global warming in this case... is water. "Well, Atlantic City is experiencing low tourism rates." "THAT WON'T MATTER WHEN GLOBAL WARMING WASHES IT INTO THE OCEAN!" (etc)
- kbenson 9y ago
  While I agree with the sentiment that spurious connections should be avoided, I'm not really sure how to make sense of your examples. They seem to apply to a different type of article. This one is about Jakarta, which is anologous to the murder capital for costal problems. That said, while a spurious connection need not be drawn I. The article, it is relevant to compare and Co Trasylol the rate of change with global sea level rise (while pointibg out the distinction). Similarly to if we were talking about the murder capital of the world it would be relevant to compare and contrast to worldwide averages, and possibly less unique causes for that city.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    > That said, while a spurious connection need not be drawn I. The article, it is relevant to compare and Co Trasylol the rate of change with global sea level rise Isn't that the very argument though, that the article wasn't just making reference to global warming endangering Jakarta, but was leading the article with saying Jakarta was primarily in trouble because of global warming, when the biggest immediate issue is sinking due to use of groundwater?
    - kbenson 9y ago
      That's all just a setup to make it obvious how large the problem is. It easily overshadows climate change for this one city, and they use climate change to illustrate that. After the talk about global warming in the first couple of paragraphs, it says this: But global warming turned out not to be the only culprit behind the historic floods that overran Rasdiono’s bodega and much of the rest of Jakarta in 2007. The problem, it turned out, was that the city itself is sinking. In fact, Jakarta is sinking faster than any other big city on the planet, faster, even, than climate change is causing the sea to rise — so surreally fast that rivers sometimes flow upstream, ordinary rains regularly swamp neighborhoods and buildings slowly disappear underground, swallowed by the earth. The main cause: Jakartans are digging illegal wells, drip by drip draining the underground aquifers on which the city rests — like deflating a giant cushion underneath it. About 40 percent of Jakarta now lies below sea level.
averagewall 9y ago
Actually the lower bound for sea level rise by 2100 predicted by IPCC (0.2 m) is about the same as the natural rate of rise that's been happening since the ice age. So, no, we're not sure climate change will cause significant sea level rise in the near future, although we are pretty sure it'll rise.

by pje 9y ago

mrighele 9y ago

> Sea levels are projected to rise from 0.6 to 6 meters this century. I think you mixed up the units, the article says > 0.2 meters to 2.0 meters (0.66 to 6.6 feet)

oldandtired 9y ago
Storm surges are more problematic than ocean level rises. Storm surges can be on the order of 10 to 20 metres. But still as per my comment above, energy equation please.
pje 9y ago
Yes, thank you! I did mix up the units, and I can no longer edit my original comment :\

oldandtired 9y ago

I've said in quite a number of times, whenever any prediction of the magnitudes given, it behooves those making the such predictions to answer the energy equation first. Until they do in any sort of reasonable way, all such predictions are completely bogus and do not do give those promulgating such predictions any veracity. The politically correct dogma of anthropogenic climate change (ACC) has given rise to a situation where those who believe in climate change and who believe that it is mostly natural are classified as climate change deniers by ACC dogmatists and are classified by climate change deniers as climate change freaks. Climate change is inevitable. However, we do not know what we can mitigate and what we have to endure. We need honest research and not this current politically correct based research being undertaken today. It is an unfortunate reality that greed is a cause of many human and social related problems and that any natural climate change the planet is undergoing only enhances those human social problems. If we continue on the politically correct bender of trying to lower CO2 levels without understanding the long term consequences, we are going to kill ourselves. Within very specific limits there is a broad range of CO2 levels (much higher than current levels) that would be highly beneficial to the planet and to us. This is based on evidence released in the last couple of years. There is much to recommend not polluting our planet, but focussing of the furphy that is CO2 mitigation is wrong in oh so many ways. We need to look at a holistic methodology to agriculture and manufacturing to ensure that these areas can be highly productive without the current attendant problems. There is more than enough capacity to feed and clothe the human population of this fair planet, but as people are, on the whole, greedy and self-serving, this is not going to happen any time soon.

rainbowmverse 9y ago
You used a lot of words to hide the lack of any support for your argument.
- oldandtired 9y ago
  Do the simple calculations yourself and see what they need to explain.
  - rainbowmverse 9y ago
    These simple calculations and the data needed for them would be a great thing for you to provide to support your claims.
    - oldandtired 9y ago
      I have provided this information in detail in the past and those who have challenged me to do so haven't even bothered to check it or respond. The information is freely available in all sort of resources. The bits you need are the surface area of the earth and the surface area of the oceans, the volume of land based ice required to melt to fill the appropriate surface area to whatever level you require (in my case 1 metre), the amount of energy required to do the phase change of 1 kg of solid H2O to liquid H2O (which is approx equivalent raising 1 Kg of liquid H2O from 0 degrees Celsius to 84-85 degrees Celsius) and viola you have your results. This give an approximation to the energy required and even if you were 20% out in any of your figures, the amount is of such a magnitude that those errors are fundamentally insignificant for the planetary effects that such an amount of energy would do. That amount of energy on the lower bounds would have caused all life to become extinct before we would see the oceans rise by any significant amount. Many years ago, I gave these calculations to a senior climate scientist and he noted at the time that the results were interesting and he would get back to me after he had analysed those figures. That was what 15 or more years ago and I have never heard anything back since those discussions. I have provided such figures in detail to various climate scientists asking for their analysis and basically no response. Not even to the extent of saying that the calculations were flawed. So when ever any fool climate scientist or their supporters promulgate any scenario that says we should expect any significant ocean level rises inside of 100 years (significant being anything above 0.5 metre - especially those who promulgate 1 to 10 metres) due to human activity then the onus is on them to demonstrate where the energy processes are occurring. They have not done so to date and based on their dogma, I suspect that they cannot. The problem with all of this politically correct dogma is that they (the climate scientists en bulk) are not doing any science. I have said it in the past - there are no stupid questions. It seems to be today that funding is the driver to follow the crowd and to not do actual science. We need to know what is happening in our climate. This is irrespective of any ideological standpoint you may hold. If you challenge the anthropogenic climate change (ACC) dogma then you are anathema. Even if you believe in climate change, if you do not follow the party line then you are an infidel that needs to be destroyed. Jihad not only occurs in extreme Islam but is alive and well in Climate Science as well. This whole matter is simple enough for a fifth grader to solve, let alone an adult who should be able to do this in 20 minutes (including looking up the information). Scepticism has its place and we need a few more sceptics when it comes to the lack of rigour that is being used by those who promulgate such scenarios. If you want to follow a fool where he leads without at least a cursory look at the base of what they are saying then you are free to do so. When someone says that you need to look at what they are saying, you don't need to listen, you can just follow blindly. end rant.

katastic 9y ago

>will affect every coastal city in the world, not just Jakarta. 1) No duh. Who was that statement for? Nobody is debating that GW is terrible. But we're not talking about global warming. 2) You're doing exactly what he's talking about. Shoehorning in global warming where it's not needed. You can discuss murder rates of a single city without shoehorning in murder rates of the "highest murder rate city in the world" every time. You can discuss diseases without having to shoehorn in that "cancer is the worst disease" into every conversation. The only connection to global warming in this case... is water. "Well, Atlantic City is experiencing low tourism rates." "THAT WON'T MATTER WHEN GLOBAL WARMING WASHES IT INTO THE OCEAN!" (etc)

kbenson 9y ago
While I agree with the sentiment that spurious connections should be avoided, I'm not really sure how to make sense of your examples. They seem to apply to a different type of article. This one is about Jakarta, which is anologous to the murder capital for costal problems. That said, while a spurious connection need not be drawn I. The article, it is relevant to compare and Co Trasylol the rate of change with global sea level rise (while pointibg out the distinction). Similarly to if we were talking about the murder capital of the world it would be relevant to compare and contrast to worldwide averages, and possibly less unique causes for that city.
- mistermann 9y ago
  > That said, while a spurious connection need not be drawn I. The article, it is relevant to compare and Co Trasylol the rate of change with global sea level rise Isn't that the very argument though, that the article wasn't just making reference to global warming endangering Jakarta, but was leading the article with saying Jakarta was primarily in trouble because of global warming, when the biggest immediate issue is sinking due to use of groundwater?
  - kbenson 9y ago
    That's all just a setup to make it obvious how large the problem is. It easily overshadows climate change for this one city, and they use climate change to illustrate that. After the talk about global warming in the first couple of paragraphs, it says this: But global warming turned out not to be the only culprit behind the historic floods that overran Rasdiono’s bodega and much of the rest of Jakarta in 2007. The problem, it turned out, was that the city itself is sinking. In fact, Jakarta is sinking faster than any other big city on the planet, faster, even, than climate change is causing the sea to rise — so surreally fast that rivers sometimes flow upstream, ordinary rains regularly swamp neighborhoods and buildings slowly disappear underground, swallowed by the earth. The main cause: Jakartans are digging illegal wells, drip by drip draining the underground aquifers on which the city rests — like deflating a giant cushion underneath it. About 40 percent of Jakarta now lies below sea level.

averagewall 9y ago

Actually the lower bound for sea level rise by 2100 predicted by IPCC (0.2 m) is about the same as the natural rate of rise that's been happening since the ice age. So, no, we're not sure climate change will cause significant sea level rise in the near future, although we are pretty sure it'll rise.