Sea level rise could hit 2 metres by 2100 - much worse than feared

a reply to: johnb

Anytime you see the word "COULD" in a title/headline, interpret it to mean "Probably Won't".

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: johnb

Anytime you see the word "COULD" in a title/headline, interpret it to mean "Probably Won't".

I interpret it to mean

"We mean to scare hell out of you to fleece you for your gold and assets"!

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: lakenheath24
However, this would mean Commifornians and New Dorkers would be moving inland....polluting the Midwest with their holier than thou mindset.

Are they smart enough to move?

No.

They're not.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I wonder where they are going to move NASA to?

To the sea!

sputniknews.com...

spaceflightnow.com...

Or a rich Saudi or Qatar prince,Chinese will just build them a new island.



'Murica eff Yeah!

en.wikipedia.org...(launch_platform)

originally posted by: onthedownlow

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: johnb


Fact.

The sun is getting warmer as it get's older and some estimates state that natural warming caused by an increase in solar radiation may turn earth into a second Venus were life as we know it will no longer be able to survive in anywhere between 500 million to 2 billion years meaning that the earth is not only in what we call a Goldilocks zone around our star but also in a Goldilocks period in time after which time life here will be unsustainable through natural process.

Hard to take this kind of science seriously. Are these the same people that tell us that our globe is warming? Could you please tell me for what length of time we have been capable of accurately measuring the sun's surface temperature?

And I need to be beg your pardon, but did you say there would always be climate change deniers? Call it what it is... what you think it is... global warming. You seem to deny that climate changes, and in Fact, you declare that the sun is warming as it ages. Here's a point of significance- they changed the name to climate change because um...yeah. And then you pontificate and claim the moral high ground, what a fraud

Look I am not your teacher, if I were I would send you home with a LOT of homework to perform.

Our SUN is a G2 Mid Sequence star commonly referred to as a Yellow Dwarf, it is about half way through it's life cycle and as it get's older it consumes more and more of it's Hydrogen which is the main fuel that powers the Sun through a process called Nuclear Fusion, basically hydrogen the simplest and most common known element in the universe is Crushed and as it is crushed at the heart of our Sun under immense pressure and gravity it's nuclei are forced to collide - as they collide they are FUSED into HELIUM the next simplest atom of matter and some excess energy is released in the form of HEAT, LIGHT and other RADIATION including particle radiation.

As the sun get's older it's core get's heavier and more dense, it starts to fuse HELIUM as well as it's remaining hydrogen causing the sun both become a little larger - because the Atom's of the fused (heavier than hydrogen) materials in a gaseous and plasmatic state occupy more volume and this causes the sun to swell a little and also to produce more heat and other radiation's - as the sun approaches the end of it's life cycle it will start to swell even bigger and this will accelerate exponentially until the sun become's what is called a RED GIANT type star, this is the sun's death throes and it will eventually be unable to compress any more of the increasingly dense matter at it's core into now material's but in one final throw of life it will suddenly explode in what is called a Super Nova type event, as our sun even then will not have the mass to become a black hole it may - may leave behind a neutron star at the core of an expanding gas cloud which was once our sun and it's now destroyed solar system.



But you know some people would still happily teach there kid's that the stars are pin prick's in a big blanket and the moon is made of cheese.

And for the record, read my statement again, global climate change is real it has always happened and human's are indeed playing a part in it but were we are now - except for the abominable pollution we have caused to the ocean's - is were the climate was likely to get at some point during this interglacial period anyway, however we may have tipped the balance a little too far in too short a time BUT there have been times in the earth's history when there has been up to 60 percent more greenhouse gas than there is today though most of those were hundreds of millions of years ago, the planet had lots and lot's of shallow sea's back then as well.

And by the way I am a Christian not an atheist, there are some Fundamentalist's that do a lot more harm than good when in fact it is Our lord that said "You shall know them by there fruit" which is actually also the basis of scientific observation and empirical research - at least if you also apply it to science it is.


By the way Natural sources such as Vulcan-ism actually still out put more greenhouse gas than human's, were we are doing the worst damage is plastic's, chemical's and other pollutant's and poison's damaging our eco system, currently my blood is boiling over China destroying coral reef's and basically killing regional fisheries which rely upon those coral reef's for there food supply so that they could pour concrete on them and build military installations, most if not all of that plastic is not America or Western Europe either it is China and the emergent economy's which are pouring there crap into the ocean and do not have the infrastructure to deal with there own waist production.

And here is a very interesting Skeptical approach to global warming, the guy is not denying it he is merely pointing out a theory that human interaction has less impact on TEMPERATURE - not ecology - than has been claimed by those War Profiteers I mentioned earlier.

originally posted by: BlissSeeker
Florida is doing what it can:

sealevelrise.org...

I don't think Florida is doing what they can.

If they really believed these predictions, the first thing they should do is stop issuing building permits for new construction in low-lying areas projected to be flooded in the future, but as far as I can tell they continue issuing such building permits, which seems crazy if they really believed the projections.

As far as spending billions to fix the problem, how much would it cost them to just say "no" to building permits in areas projected to be underwater? But if they issue the permits, the properties get built and then if they do get encroached by the water, the building owners are going to be lobbying for the state to spend billions to protect them with expensive sea walls etc. If there was any logic it would be cheaper to just stop the new construction which by the way adds weight to the ground and may contribute to subsidence, a man-made problem which makes the sea-level rise an even worse problem if the land is sinking at the same time.

Your source says the sea level rise at one key in Florida has been 8 inches since 1950. Maybe the authorities issuing building permits look at that when issuing the permits and think that doesn't seem like a reason to panic. Could that be why they are still issuing building permits in low-lying areas?

Something that comes to mind for me is this. If our biggest polluters had actual, real knowledge that there were disastrous effects from their processes that could at some future point destroy all life on earth, how would they react? I expect exactly as they are now, by funding opposition studies and trying to make as much as they can in the meantime. At any rate, it’s interesting to me that most often those who espouse “personal responsibility “ and “survival of the fittest” are also those who give industry a pass on all the destruction it is causing. And whether you believe in anthropogenic climate change or not, they are causing massive destruction.

Yes, the climate has changed before. But the rate of environmental destruction and species extinctions far surpasses that of any time in history other than meteor impacts or caldera explosions.

The very “survival of the fittest” crowd fail to realize that we, as a species, are on track to fail the galactic “survival of the fittest” test for ourselves and every other species of this planet, if not by climate change then by nuclear war or pollution and ecological irresponsibility and destruction.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: BelowLowAnnouncement
I believe in man made climate change. The correlation between heightened co2 levels and the industrial age is compelling to me personally. I don't know how much it has affected it, it's just my opinion that it has.

Sounds like a religion to me.

An original and well reasoned response from an undoubtedly keen mind.

originally posted by: pexx421
Something that comes to mind for me is this. If our biggest polluters had actual, real knowledge that there were disastrous effects from their processes that could at some future point destroy all life on earth, how would they react? I expect exactly as they are now, by funding opposition studies and trying to make as much as they can in the meantime. At any rate, it’s interesting to me that most often those who espouse “personal responsibility “ and “survival of the fittest” are also those who give industry a pass on all the destruction it is causing. And whether you believe in anthropogenic climate change or not, they are causing massive destruction.

Yes, the climate has changed before. But the rate of environmental destruction and species extinctions far surpasses that of any time in history other than meteor impacts or caldera explosions.

The very “survival of the fittest” crowd fail to realize that we, as a species, are on track to fail the galactic “survival of the fittest” test for ourselves and every other species of this planet, if not by climate change then by nuclear war or pollution and ecological irresponsibility and destruction.

So why is the solution always a tax, and not something meaningful? Everyone else partaking in the Paris climate accord have failed to reach their targets, despite the rhetoric of how important the climate is.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

He who Controls the " Data " , Controls the " Spice " !

a reply to: Wardaddy454

I’d expect because a tax is more palatable than a ban? Maybe because the taxes are a way to fund the tech that’s supposed to replace the current, non sustainable industry, so as one declines we can have another rising in its place? These are just spitballing, as I don’t necessarily think a tax should always be the solution. In fact a tax is only a small part of the plans they laid out. I’d prefer a little more extremity myself. If your oil pipes busted because you weren’t maintaining them according to code and were bribing the inspectors, a lifetime sentence for you and your whole executive group. If you’re products are polluting the oceans or rainforests, 100% tax on your profits until it’s completely cleaned up. If your pollution is responsible for the deaths and cancers of nearby townsfolk, you and those responsible in your organization join them in the afterlife.

Let’s also keep in mind that any taxes we are talking about levying on these industries, be it coal or oil or what have you. We’ve already given them massively more than any proposed amount in subsidies over their history. So it would be poetic for them to have to give the public back its money to be reinvested into the next generation of “cleaner” energy or whathaveyou.

Too many 'if this and if that's for my liking.
If a million alien motherships shot water cannons at the earth continuously for five years then the earth would collapse in under the weight of the water.

2 meters by 2100...ok. That's 6.56 feet in just over 80 years. That's 0.082 feet per year or 0.98 inches per year. Humans can't adapt to less than an inch of water rise per year? BS. Evolution is predicated on "adapt or die", and humans have proven to be the most adaptable species we know of on this planet. 99% of all species have become extinct, yet we're still here.

Yes, coastal cities are in danger of rising ocean levels. That's not in question, they have always been subject to that. From what I've found, roughly 40% of the entire population lives on/near the coastline. Humans have always flocked to the sea because of ease of access to food and trade opportunities. That hasn't changed for all of human history. 250k-ish years ago when homo sapien first emerged it was the same story and most of those villages/communities are now underwater today. Humans adapted and moved inland to the current coastal regions. We can and will do so again, or we go extinct.

originally posted by: Phoenix
Didn't big AL predict polar ice caps melt by 2013

And also Ted Turner predicted we would be cannibals by now due to climate change. Talk about irrational histrionics. And now AOC is telling us that the world is going to end in 10
Years if we don’t ban airplanes and cows. It’s been the same histrionics all the time.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The truth of the matter and the real reason why the rise of sea level has occurred is because we sent 50k troops to guam. Good old hank tried to warn us , the extra weight from the troops caused a displacement of the sea.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Wardaddy454

He who Controls the " Data " , Controls the " Spice " !

Oh no doubt.

Its laughable right now.

Climate scientists = The Catholic Church

Climate data/computer models = The Bible

Average millennial/Democrat/environmentalist ( ) = Faithful congregation

And any skeptics are branded heretics.

a reply to: johnb

Is al manbearpig Gore at it again time to get cereal . But cereally that clown state more than 20 years ago where I am living would be beach front property by 2020 well I do not see the ocean moving 30 miles inland in next 7 months unless we get an asteroid strike or that island in the canary group I think it's called papas has half of it fall into sea. Ocean is exact same distance away as when he made that statement more than 20 years ago.

a reply to: johnb

Is al manbearpig Gore at it again time to get cereal . But cereally that clown state more than 20 years ago where I am living would be beach front property by 2020 well I do not see the ocean moving 30 miles inland in next 7 months unless we get an asteroid strike or that island in the canary group I think it's called papas has half of it fall into sea. Ocean is exact same distance away as when he made that statement more than 20 years ago.

a reply to: johnb

Is al manbearpig Gore at it again time to get cereal . But cereally that clown state more than 20 years ago where I am living would be beach front property by 2020 well I do not see the ocean moving 30 miles inland in next 7 months unless we get an asteroid strike or that island in the canary group I think it's called papas has half of it fall into sea. Ocean is exact same distance away as when he made that statement more than 20 years ago.