Climate Change Causes Sea Level Rise to Accelerate 50 Percent in Past 20 years

[Endus]

Probably a little overblown in terms of effect, but we still need to get to work on cutting pollution further.

I'd be interested in what kind of technology can literally suck co2 out of the atmosphere

It's not so much "technology" for the most part. There are some plants (there's a type of fern, off the top of my head) that lock-in a high amount of carbon as they grow, and live a long time. They absorb that carbon out of the atmosphere; that's why plants "breathe" carbon dioxide, in the first place. So the idea is you grow massive fields of these ferns in areas that are normally arid or inhospitable (one proposal was the newly-unfrozen permafrost areas in the Arctic).

You're not going to make an appreciable effect with a couple farms of this stuff, though, which is where you get into the massive infrastructure costs.

[Orby]

Cool, those cities can adapt over the next century. If they want to.

We could but more likely it will be this because people will keep denying it :P


I am just saying when a crazy Dennis Hopper starts becoming a post apocalyptic pirate, you know we have problems :P

[Hammerfest]

I say, let the sea levels rise. I go fishing every couple of weekends.

[PC2]

That is the entire point. It's going to take a lot of effort and a lot of money to adapt to those changes, and there is going to be a lot of needless social and political upheaval in the meantime due to resource shortages.

First we need to deal with more pressing issues. Like building the wall and securing the border.

[Nasuuna]

It's not so much "technology" for the most part. There are some plants (there's a type of fern, off the top of my head) that lock-in a high amount of carbon as they grow, and live a long time. They absorb that carbon out of the atmosphere; that's why plants "breathe" carbon dioxide, in the first place. So the idea is you grow massive fields of these ferns in areas that are normally arid or inhospitable (one proposal was the newly-unfrozen permafrost areas in the Arctic).

You're not going to make an appreciable effect with a couple farms of this stuff, though, which is where you get into the massive infrastructure costs.

Neat. Even if one person everywhere plant one, it'd probably make a slight effect

[PC2]

We could but more likely it will be this because people will keep denying it :P
[IMG]http://cdn.fishki.net/upload/post/2016/12/22/2171789/31-01.jpg[IMG]

I am just saying when a crazy Dennis Hopper starts becoming a post apocalyptic pirate, you know we have problems :P

Waterworld isn't comparable to Earth though, because most land is above the 220ft sea increase upper limit.

[Deathcries]

A few critical points;

First:

We're already past the tipping point in terms of CO2 emissions; unless we find a way to scrub it out of the atmosphere (all proposals with any chance of having an effect are priced in, literally, tens of trillions of dollars or more) or reduce sunlight hitting the Earth (big orbital mirrors or something, again, MASSIVE investment cost, and huge secondary effects on plant growth to boot), without something like that, warming will continue, and it will tend to accelerate, since there are exacerbating factors that pile on;
- Reduced ice caps mean that the poles are less "white" and thus less reflective, and absorb more solar energy, increasing warming (particularly in the oceans).
- Melting permafrost generally releases trapped methane pockets; methane is a FAR stronger greenhouse gas in the short term than CO2, though it only lasts in the atmosphere for a decade or two after release
Etc. So it's a snowball effect, and the accelerating sea level rise reflects that, basically. It should continue to accelerate, so it won't be at 3.3mm/year in 2090, it'll be higher.

Second:

There's two measures to be aware of, when evaluating sea level rise; the basic sea level (which is what you're talking about) and the storm surge level. Storms are low-pressure areas, and between pushing the ocean ahead of them with winds and the low pressure tending to "suck" the ocean up, you can get significant temporary increases in sea level rise. The case study I'm using in my thesis work had a storm in 1999 that saw nearly 4 meters of storm surge;



If you see the pole on the right (apologies for the quality; took this with my camera while I was there), the line you can see on it is the high water mark during that storm. The water level you see there is a normal high tide level. That line's about shoulder-high if you're standing next to it. That isn't a possible extreme; that's where the water actually was in 1999, during that storm, due to storm surge. It caused a lot of flooding, obviously. And that's not the highest wave point, either; that's the resting water level, wave action is on top of that.

Coastal cities are already mostly built right on the limits they could have expected with storm surges in the past. Even 6 inches of additional sea level, especially combined with stronger storms, and you get significant flooding of the city when the storm hits at high tide, which is a matter of time.

If you've never done this kind of flood mapping, you'd be shocked by how quickly this scales up, in terms of impacts.

So what year do you predict the polar ice caps melt and Florida will be under water? I forgot what Gore and his scientist predictions were but since it never happened people moved on to other climate change saviors. Just curious when you think the world is going to come to it's fire and brimstone. Due to all the wrong speculations over the years Scientist have been pushing it for a hundred years or so in the future to move the goal post a little more. I believe you're probably in that area. Couple hundred years?

- - - Updated - - -

The more pressing issue is global warming/climate change. The pointless wall may as well be forgotten about. Although, seeing an entire wall of solar panels could be cool.

You know how I know you don't live in America. Didn't you guys just do a brit exit for one of the reasons because of the refugee issues? The Brits I talk to say they voted for it because of that and to make your government more accountable instead of blaming everything on the EU.

[Shadee]

Probably a little overblown in terms of effect, but we still need to get to work on cutting pollution further.

I'd be interested in what kind of technology can literally suck co2 out of the atmosphere

Plant life

[Deathcries]

Plant life

In all seriousness as a Conservative I want to see the planet be healthy. I just believe the Paris Treaty was a boot up the ass to America. Americans would have to reduce their carbon foot print by 26%, while China, and other 3rd world countries could up their's (Can't remember the figure but it was ridiculous) with no oversight on them (Like they give two shits after the deals done to fix anything) Plus the American tax payer would be on the hook for billions of dollars to said 3rd world shit holes over the coarse of a decade. All to reduce the climate by less than a percentage.

Americans would get hammered on this deal. On the coal side which would lose thousands of coal jobs. Even Obama was for clean coal before he was against it. My wife who works for a coal burning plant said the price of energy would go up astronomically. This deal would HAMMER the middle class here in America.

I know what some on here will say, but what it all boils down to Fuck America. That's all I hear when I argue this stuff with the left. The only people who are for this is ones who want to see America burn.

I want to see a better deal where EVERYONE chips in. Not just mainly America.

[Theinquisition]

Quick, someone call dennis quad and jake gillenhall.

[Shadee]

In all seriousness as a Conservative I want to see the planet be healthy. I just believe the Paris Treaty was a boot up the ass to America. Americans would have to reduce their carbon foot print by 26%, while China, and other 3rd world countries could up their's (Can't remember the figure but it was ridiculous) with no oversight on them (Like they give two shits after the deals done to fix anything) Plus the American tax payer would be on the hook for billions of dollars to said 3rd world shit holes over the coarse of a decade. All to reduce the climate by less than a percentage.

Americans would get hammered on this deal. On the coal side which would lose thousands of coal jobs. Even Obama was for clean coal before he was against it. My wife who works for a coal burning plant said the price of energy would go up astronomically. This deal would HAMMER the middle class.

I know what some on here will say, but what it all boils down to Fuck America. That's all I hear when I argue this stuff with the left.

I agree with you, I was just giving a smart ass answer to that person's question. The Paris Treaty was a shit deal for the US but of course we are still the villain for the "blame America" crowd.

[Theinquisition]

In all seriousness as a Conservative I want to see the planet be healthy. I just believe the Paris Treaty was a boot up the ass to America. Americans would have to reduce their carbon foot print by 26%, while China, and other 3rd world countries could up their's (Can't remember the figure but it was ridiculous) with no oversight on them (Like they give two shits after the deals done to fix anything) Plus the American tax payer would be on the hook for billions of dollars to said 3rd world shit holes over the coarse of a decade. All to reduce the climate by less than a percentage.

Americans would get hammered on this deal. On the coal side which would lose thousands of coal jobs. Even Obama was for clean coal before he was against it. My wife who works for a coal burning plant said the price of energy would go up astronomically. This deal would HAMMER the middle class.

I know what some on here will say, but what it all boils down to Fuck America. That's all I hear when I argue this stuff with the left.

Pretty much nails it on the head.

The Paris agreement was non-binding. We would give all this money to the shitholes of the earth, with little to no accountability and no mechanism to penalize a country for not upholding their commitments.

I've always felt that if leftists were truly serious about addressing climate change, they would be steadfast advocates for safe, dependable, and cost effective nuclear power.

for the most part though, they use the excuse of climate change to advocate policies which would adversely effect the American economy, while giving freebees to other countries.

[Deathcries]

I don't see your point. We're not advocating for a wall on our borders that we'll somehow make (and fail) another country pay for. The wall, should it ever happen, will do nothing for the US. Unless Trump legit makes it out of solar panels, then you might get some energy benefits going on.

And good for you, talking to some British people. I'm sure you spoke to a great many and they all wanted Brexit for all the same reasons. Shame they most likely bought into all the lies and fear-mongering. It's not like the vote to leave won by just a few percentage points or anything. I'd bet you everything I own that if another vote were held, you'd see the remain vote win.

Well you already had that vote. Sorry your side lost. Over 60% of illegals come across the border. If we shut down even half of that with a wall I'd be happy. Nothing says stay the fuck out then a big sized wall surrounding your country.

- - - Updated - - -

Pretty much nails it on the head.

The Paris agreement was non-binding. We would give all this money to the shitholes of the earth, with little to no accountability and no mechanism to penalize a country for not upholding their commitments.

I've always felt that if leftists were truly serious about addressing climate change, they would be steadfast advocates for safe, dependable, and cost effective nuclear power.

for the most part though, they use the excuse of climate change to advocate policies which would adversely effect the American economy, while giving freebees to other countries.

Ayup. I'm all about clean energy and making things better. There could have been much better ways of doing so then the Paris Climate accord. All that was, was a big fuck you to the American people. This is why we have Trump now. All Trump is, is a big middle finger to the left, and to corrupt government. That's why a lot of Americans voted him in.

[Shadee]

First we need to deal with more pressing issues. Like building the wall and securing the border.

Not only are those more pressing issues but they are actually real issues.

[Deathcries]

I agree with you, I was just giving a smart ass answer to that person's question. The Paris Treaty was a shit deal for the US but of course we are still the villain for the "blame America" crowd.

I want to see a good deal. If we're to believe the climate scientist as Endus would like us to take their word for, then we're already done for. This world is done in about 100 years unless we go carbon negative. Not just America, but the entire world. Ain't going to happen.

[Gorgodeus]

Probably a little overblown in terms of effect, but we still need to get to work on cutting pollution further.

I'd be interested in what kind of technology can literally suck co2 out of the atmosphere

There already several technologies being used that convert CO2 in the atmosphere into other products such as fuel and fertilizer.

https://www.sciencealert.com/a-canad...t-into-pellets
https://www.fastcompany.com/40421871...climate-change
http://www.iflscience.com/environmen...to-fertilizer/

[Shadee]

I want to see a good deal. If we're to believe the climate scientist as Endus would like us to take their word for, then we're already done for. This world is done in about 100 years unless we go carbon negative.

Yeah, people like that talking about "being past the tipping point" in terms of CO2 levels are just laughably ignorant.

[Gorgodeus]

I agree with you, I was just giving a smart ass answer to that person's question. The Paris Treaty was a shit deal for the US but of course we are still the villain for the "blame America" crowd.

The Paris Treaty was custom written specifically for the US, and agreed to everything the US wanted in the treaty. Trump simply wants to remove any and everything he can that was done under Obama.

[Deathcries]

Who says which side I voted for? I could have voted leave for reasons other than immigration

I'm sorry that you think immigration is a bad thing and isolation is a good thing.

Immigration can be good up to a certain extent. When big businesses uses it instead of paying their fellow countrymen proper wages of what the job is worth, because it's cheaper, that's a form of slave labor. I'm against that.

A lot of big businesses do that. If you have to pay people better wages then raise the price of the product. If people can't afford that price because they're trying to be greedy then I guess that place goes out of business and someone else picks up the slack. Market demand.

Yes I'm conservative, but I'm also a nationalist. Once we no longer have poor people relying off of government hand outs and the majority of my countries working, and you still need workers, then immigration isn't a bad thing.

[Shadee]

Shouldn't this thread be in the politics sub forum? Climate change is really more of a political "issue" than a scientific or any other issue.

- - - Updated - - -

The Paris Treaty was custom written specifically for the US, and agreed to everything the US wanted in the treaty. Trump simply wants to remove any and everything he can that was done under Obama.

There might be some truth to Trump wanting to undo a lot of things under Obama but it was still a bad deal for the US.

- - - Updated - - -

Immigration can be good up to a certain extent. When big businesses uses it instead of paying their fellow countrymen proper wages of what the job is worth, because it's cheaper, that's a form of slave labor. I'm against that.

A lot of big businesses do that. If you have to pay people better wages then raise the price of the product. If people can't afford that price because they're trying to be greedy then I guess that place goes out of business and someone else picks up the slack. Market demand.

Yes I'm conservative, but I'm also a nationalist. Once we no longer have poor people relying off of government hand outs and the majority of my countries working, and you still need workers, then immigration isn't a bad thing.

Yup, America first. Let's get our own off relying on government hand outs first. We actually cause a disservice to other nations when we allow their best and brightest to come to the US, those people should stay in their own countries to help build a better future there. Can't blame them on wanting to come to the US though!