After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

a reply to: Phage

letting florida sink is cheaper still. Either kill the over-development or the sea will do it for you

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Glacial melt and thermal expansion. Warmer water is "bigger" than cooler water. I think that in the case of Hawaii, warmer water is the principle cause. My opinion, in part, is a result of my conversation with Dr. Fletcher (SOEST).

And what about the times the sea levels have risen previously?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

However, the globe has been warming since the little ice age!

Not really. It warmed up a bit (not to where it was before the LIA), then started cooling a bit. Then the industrial revolution started. It's also not at all clear how global temperatures were affected during that period.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

You mean like at the end of the last glacial period? That was mostly glacial melt. Definitely. But some thermal expansion as well.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Yeah. Continued development in coastal areas should stop immediately. Places prone to flooding, like Houston, should be abandoned. Along with the combustion of fossil fuels.

Trouble is, that's not going to happen. But not many expect them to.

a reply to: Phage

And what is totally unclear is that any warming is catastrophic or even significant.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

I suppose it would depend upon what you call catastrophic. If you're talking about something really bad happening everywhere all at once, yeah. Probably not catastrophic any time soon, next 100 years anyway.

On the other hand there are slower catastrophes. It's pretty clear that they will happen. Places becoming uninhabitable, or unsuitable over a period of decades due to things like seawater infiltration of drinking water supplies. Places once suitable for agriculture becoming not so suitable due to changing precipitation patterns. Lots and lots of people involved.

So, get moving now. I guess. Get out while the getting's good before you get got. Trouble is, what isn't very clear is where would be a good place to move to. In the meantime, deal with the hand we're being dealt. That can get expensive.

a reply to: seasonal

don't you get that estimates can be off

a reply to: Phage

AND THAT is exactly the same situation that existed 100 years ago and will exist 100 years from now! Think Venice

Change is a constant. Where there is subsidence, there is also accretion. Where there is loss, there is gain. etc etc etc

There is no need, nor is it possible for man to mitigate all risk. We are alive and at the same time, we are at risk of death or disease or calamity.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Venice is taking mitigation measures. The Netherlands is taking mitigation measures.

Suckers.

a reply to: Phage


And florida is even now, planning the very same mitigation measures!

It has all happened before. It will all happen again. And mankind is still hanging around.

Do you imagine that living on earth with dynamic plate tectonics, melting/freezing ice, weather cycles, weather events etc can somehow be made risk free if we only throw enough money around and fall to our knees wailing about the children?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Ah. A strawman argument what a surprise.

Mitigation is not the same thing as removal of risk, actually. But you don't want to waste money on it because # happens.

How do you suppose we got out of our "caves?" By just accepting things as the way they are? We figured out that with fire we could mitigate the cold. We figured out that with agriculture we could mitigate starvation.

Granted, we messed up a lot. Maybe, just maybe, we can do better.

After 30 years, AGW deniers are still posting nonsense.

Well, okay, maybe they haven't really been "posting" for 30 years. Maybe it just feels like 30 years.

a reply to: Phage

ah what a surprise! We know the answers and just need money to implement them.

But AGW is unprecedented (no its not). The world reached the tipping point in 2004, no 2010, no its 20126 etcetc etc

NO i do not want to spend money on it. Its not my problem. Let the people of Florida spend their money on it if they want to live there!

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

We know the answers and just need money to implement them.

Know the answers? Hardly. But developing plans and implementing them does indeed take money.

But AGW is unprecedented (no its not).

Yes. It is. AGW has never happened in the entire history of the planet, until the last 100 years.

NO i do not want to spend money on it. Its not my problem. Let the people of Florida spend their money on it if they want to live there!

Right. It's not your problem. Yet. Good luck with that.

a reply to: Phage

Now its just opinion against mine. I say the MWP is a global event, you thnk it isn't. I say that seas have been rising for a very long time, you say they haven't. I say CO2 rising has, so far, been a happy event with crop increases and greening of the earth, you say it hasn't.

Got news for you Phage. Its already over but the crying. AGW has always been a money scam and now that Trump has turned off the money, AGW as a theory is falling out of favor.

You cry over rising seas, Al Gore buys beachfront property
You wail over increases of CO2 in the environment, your masters fly around the world for another conference. Al Gore buys another jet.

etc etc

By their actions, shall you know them

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

by the way - neither the Venetions or the Netherlands needed others to pay for their local problems

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Now its just opinion against mine.

No. It's your opinion against physics and data.

I say the MWP is a global event, you thnk it isn't.

No. I say that the data is not clear that it was a global warming event.

I say CO2 rising has, so far, been a happy event with crop increases and greening of the earth, you say it hasn't.

Green is good, I guess. As far as increased crop productivity, that probably has more to do with the increased use of herbicides, irrigation, and fertilizer than increased CO2 levels. But climate change means that. It means climates change. Places that were favorable won't be. This will affect a whole lot of people. But not you. Of course.

By their actions, shall you know them

And by their inaction?

a reply to: Phage

No - some scientists agree with me and some scientists agree with you. I asked you for data and you had none, You offered an anecdote.

a reply to: Phage

No. I say that the data is not clear that it was a global warming event.

Not that long ago, you were absolutely sure, beyond any doubt that it was a regional event