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

[Orbitus]

When you have actual proof let me know.

I wont be holding my breath.

Coming from someone that ignores everything that you put in front of him? I am not even going to bother. I mean, you continually ignore everything that I have posted. Tim Ball working for the Heartland Institute is enough for anyone with a working brain.

[Aehl]

Yeah, obviously it is so terrible that the whole fucking world including Syria managed to come to an agreement on it except for the emotionally rather than scientifically and rationally driven Trump administration.

Go figure.

Syria. Mate do you know what the words "lip service" mean? Syria cant give two hoots about "climate change:" as they are busy with chemical weapon manufacture.

Syria has been engaged in a horrific civil war since 2011, and the areas under government control are tightly ruled by President Bashar al-Assad. The United Nations has implicated Assad in war crimes, including sarin-gas attacks on Syrian children. Assad’s family has run the country since 1971.

SYRIA??

Really?

[Scathbais]

Yeah, obviously it is so terrible that the whole fucking world including Syria managed to come to an agreement on it except for the emotionally rather than scientifically and rationally driven Trump administration.

Go figure.

Wow, you should go read the treaty or at least an analysis of it. From what I read:

1) the US would face significant economic pain to comply with the voluntary, non-enforceable treaty, that anyone could break at any time without recourse
2) China and India, the two largest polluters, did not have to reduce their emissions.
3) the projected reductions in carbon emissions would not significantly reduce the rise in global temperatures to keep us from hitting that magic 2 degrees C (or what ever the number was) required to keep us from hitting the point of no return.

So why exactly should we comply with a treaty that hurts America, helps the biggest polluters, and does nothing to alleviate the threat of destroying our planet?

[Silver Forte]

Two things;

Stuff we build now, when we're talking about roads and highways and buildings, are likely to survive for a minimum of 50 years before major maintenance or such is required, if it'll be impacted in that period, you shouldn't even be considering building it there.

Second, that's 50 years as a minimum. Think of how many houses you know of that are 100+ years old, in downtowns. Do you think skyscrapers are all going to get torn down and never replaced? Etc.

Third, if you constantly build for the next 20 years, you have to rethink your plan every 20 years, and re-invest. You might spend less each time, but you'll spend far more in the long term. Ignoring inflation for the moment, in a big city, spending $200 million on an adaptation measure today that will keep the city safe for the projected changes over the next century is way smarter than spending $50 million for one that only protects against the next 20 years. Especially because if you're pushing for that minimum, there's far more chance that some exceptional event will exceed that capacity. And prevention is far cheaper than restoration. As an example, NYC is building some measures to protect against storm activity. The damages caused by Hurricane Sandy in NYC topped $19 billion. They're currently working on a few seawall projects to mitigate future events; those are costing in the half-billion-dollar range, far less. There's another proposal for a massive storm-surge barrier across the outer harbor entrance, which would cost potentially $25 billion, but even that massive cost would be justified if it prevented even two Sandy-level impacts in its lifespan.

Fourth, we're not talking about 200 years down the line. A lot of major coastal cities are already facing impacts. Scientists were saying in the '90s that the time to act was then. We're already late.

Wow, no. I've had roads built in front of my homes (expansions) over my life that have decayed and needed maintenance repeatedly. Roads don't last 50 years without maintenance lol...

[Orlong]

It's only games if you don't understand science, which apparently you don't - and now think is a religion. Not really patting myself on the back so much as congratulating myself on confirming a science denier. Do you "believe" in gravity?

You are being absurd. Its a ridiculous comparison. He can put water in a pot and set it on his stove-top set at 212°F and actually see the water boil (unless he lives at a high elevation or below sea level). He can also climb to the top of the Seattle Space Needle and drop an apple and watch it splat on the ground to observe gravity. What he CANT see is Jeremy Waterford and his 34 cousins all stop driving their hummers and ride a bike instead, and observe any noticeable affect on Earth's climate, and neither can 95% of the worlds population (and Im willing to bet neither can you), so we are just supposed to take what the "smart scientists" tell us at face value, trust that their research is 100% correct and true, and not altered or presented in a certain way to maximize research grants, or politically motivate people, and use inferior green product substitutions and waste way too much money to fight something we cant observe. I think you can see why many people are either skeptics of some or all of the climate change information being shoved down our throats, or we just dont care because we want to keep more of our money and use products that perform the best.

Perhaps if all the prior doomsday predictions came true, we may be more likely to give a shit. In the 70s we were headed for an ice age. In the 80s we were all going to die because of acid rain. In the 90s New York City was supposed to be underwater by 2010 because of global warming and melting of the ice caps (NASA shows they are actually growing - https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses ), and yet none of this happened. Why should we believe these politically motivated scientists now?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, obviously it is so terrible that the whole fucking world including Syria managed to come to an agreement on it except for the emotionally rather than scientifically and rationally driven Trump administration.

Go figure.

Of course they did!! They all wanted a nice big piece of US money pie since we were expected to finance more of it than anyone else. All those poor countries wanted to get rich

[Najnaj]

You are being absurd. Its a ridiculous comparison. He can put water in a pot and set it on his stove-top set at 212°F and actually see the water boil (unless he lives at a high elevation or below sea level). He can also climb to the top of the Seattle Space Needle and drop an apple and watch it splat on the ground to observe gravity. What he CANT see is Jeremy Waterford and his 34 cousins all stop driving their hummers and ride a bike instead, and observe any noticeable affect on Earth's climate, and neither can 95% of the worlds population (and Im willing to bet neither can you), so we are just supposed to take what the "smart scientists" tell us at face value, trust that their research is 100% correct and true, and not altered or presented in a certain way to maximize research grants, or politically motivate people, and use inferior green product substitutions and waste way too much money to fight something we cant observe. I think you can see why many people are either skeptics of some or all of the climate change information being shoved down our throats, or we just dont care because we want to keep more of our money and use products that perform the best.

Perhaps if all the prior doomsday predictions came true, we may be more likely to give a shit. In the 70s we were headed for an ice age. In the 80s we were all going to die because of acid rain. In the 90s New York City was supposed to be underwater by 2010 because of global warming and melting of the ice caps (NASA shows they are actually growing - https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses ), and yet none of this happened. Why should we believe these politically motivated scientists now?

Science is never 100% correct and I am the first to say that the predictions are often wrong when it comes to climate change. Especially predictions that are sensationalist and often reprinted in less serious media. This does not mean that you can simply throw it all out.

In science you work with the best information you have and yes, it is not always correct. This does not mean that you can ignore all scientific research.

THe way I see it is that there are 3 parts to this debate.

1. The very basic facts. We have dug up huge amounts of carbon and released some of it as co2 (a well known and documented greenhouse gas) into our atmosphere by burning it. If you deny this part you are a moron.

2. The predictions, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, usually at least sincere.

3. Media representation! This is where it gets stupid and less scrupulous sources do huge damage to the debate. This is the part that most deniers use as a tool to..well deny. Unfortunately this has very little to do with actual science in most cases and more to do with click bait and selling ad space.

[Orlong]

Yeah so all the actually developped countries who already pay so much more than they have to in order to achieve a balanced footprint on the earth like Denmark signed it because they want the US to get hurt. Right.

Hint - no we don't want the US to fail or lose money, simply for the fact that we know we need you. Stop the conspiracy.

I didnt say they wanted the US too fail. I said they want the US to foot the majority of the bill so they get all the benefits and dont have to pay for it

[Rasulis]

You are being absurd. Its a ridiculous comparison. He can put water in a pot and set it on his stove-top set at 212°F and actually see the water boil (unless he lives at a high elevation or below sea level). He can also climb to the top of the Seattle Space Needle and drop an apple and watch it splat on the ground to observe gravity. What he CANT see is Jeremy Waterford and his 34 cousins all stop driving their hummers and ride a bike instead, and observe any noticeable affect on Earth's climate, and neither can 95% of the worlds population (and Im willing to bet neither can you), so we are just supposed to take what the "smart scientists" tell us at face value, trust that their research is 100% correct and true, and not altered or presented in a certain way to maximize research grants, or politically motivate people, and use inferior green product substitutions and waste way too much money to fight something we cant observe. I think you can see why many people are either skeptics of some or all of the climate change information being shoved down our throats, or we just dont care because we want to keep more of our money and use products that perform the best.

Perhaps if all the prior doomsday predictions came true, we may be more likely to give a shit. In the 70s we were headed for an ice age. In the 80s we were all going to die because of acid rain. In the 90s New York City was supposed to be underwater by 2010 because of global warming and melting of the ice caps (NASA shows they are actually growing - https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses ), and yet none of this happened. Why should we believe these politically motivated scientists now?

- - - Updated - - -



Of course they did!! They all wanted a nice big piece of US money pie since we were expected to finance more of it than anyone else. All those poor countries wanted to get rich

This is such a backward view of science. Scientists had just recently proved the existence of gravitational wave. More than 100 years after Einstein theorized the existence of such construct in 1915. Imagine if those scientists had taken your attitude of “Can’t see it, don’t believe it”.

Skepticism is healthy, but outright denial is just foolish. I am not a climate expert, but I see it’s impact in many of the things that I do. From simple things like HEC analysis for a park located in a flood basin, storm surge and tidal analysis for an ocean outfall, etc. We are seeing that recent data dominates the 90th percentile data points. A fluke? Maybe. However, to dismiss it outright is foolish.

[Scathbais]

1) That's what happens when you live above the standard of what you can actually handle, also see #2
2) That's simply not true, see here per capita:

and in absolute numbers:

3) So you're saying that you're not willing to start the process of improvement, because it is not amibitous enough? Isn't that a bit contradictory to the excuses you've made in the previous points?

What I am saying is that is would be an economic disaster for the US to comply with a non-enforceable treaty that doesn't limit China or India and does almost nothing to alleviate the problem.

[Aehl]

Skepticism is healthy, but outright denial is just foolish. I am not a climate expert, but I see it’s impact in many of the things that I do. From simple things like HEC analysis for a park located in a flood basin, storm surge and tidal analysis for an ocean outfall, etc. We are seeing that recent data dominates the 90th percentile data points. A fluke? Maybe. However, to dismiss it outright is foolish

Rasulis: a while back Australia had some bad bushfires and I mean bad. The usual cry "its climate change" went up...and most of the idiot media AND "scientists"went along with it. Two small problems.

1. I didnt know climate change caused people to commit arson. Didnt get that memo,

2. The fires ravaged areas that should never have had a problem..why? The Greenies used lawfare and stalling tactics and the areas were never cleared properly before what we KNOW to be bushfire season.

Even when approached, "There is no link to climate change in these events" yet we have climate change alarmists screaming just that.

Climate change / global warming. whatever has jack shit to do with some lunatic deliberately lighting fires in which PEOPLE DIED

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/gr...0211-84mk.html

It wasn't climate change which killed as many as 300 people in Victoria last weekend. It wasn't arsonists. It was the unstoppable intensity of a bushfire, turbo-charged by huge quantities of ground fuel which had been allowed to accumulate over years of drought. It was the power of green ideology over government to oppose attempts to reduce fuel hazards before a megafire erupts, and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation to protect themselves.

http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/201...limate-change/

It is not possible to link any one bushfire to climate change.

Is the climate changing? Maybe. Has Man a part to play in it? Maybe. Will we see massive floods and fires and disasters and cities under water in 2100 who the hell knows?

We DONT KNOW and thats the key element here..yet here we have people telling us "this is scientific fact that this is what will happen in 100 years?"

Gimme a BREAK.

[Deianeira]

If you see scientists agree on a topic more than they do on "smoking is bad for your health", you better believe it's real.



Such source, much science.

The thing is this is probably true, if i remember correctly i read some chart similar to this. BUT the thing is that we have started releaseing carbon faster then the planet can bind it(plants taking it up etc) And the rate has been getting faster and faster since the start of the industrial revolution. Before man the Environment had a cycle if you will that spanned long periods but since the Idustrialization we have speed up this process faster then what the planet can retain it.

Atleast this is what i remember of that article.

[Allybeboba]

1) That's what happens when you live above the standard of what you can actually handle, also see #2
2) That's simply not true, see here per capita:

and in absolute numbers:

3) So you're saying that you're not willing to start the process of improvement, because it is not amibitous enough? Isn't that a bit contradictory to the excuses you've made in the previous points?

Would have never have thought Australia would have competed with us per capita. Those numbers are 17 years old now. Could be much different by now.

[HumbleDuck]

The thing is this is probably true, if i remember correctly i read some chart similar to this. BUT the thing is that we have started releaseing carbon faster then the planet can bind it(plants taking it up etc) And the rate has been getting faster and faster since the start of the industrial revolution. Before man the Environment had a cycle if you will that spanned long periods but since the Idustrialization we have speed up this process faster then what the planet can retain it.

Atleast this is what i remember of that article.

That chart is accurate, however it doesn't justify the lack of context and source links in the original post.
I assume the original poster chose not to present any additional info on the chart, so they can advance their agenda, hence my sarcastic comment.

[Stonecloak]

I like how the argument against climate change is mostly that humans aren’t causing it (which is wrong) This still doesn’t change the facts about the climate changing, and it affecting us on a huge scale soon enough. So we all need to shift to the idea of “what do we do know?”

I swear politicians will be the end of us. Along with these mass hallucinations. I mean how in the world could the most influencial species on planet earth not have an effect on it? I mean at least the way it’s living in the present. I don’t get it.

[Laerrus]

Perhaps if all the prior doomsday predictions came true, we may be more likely to give a shit. In the 70s we were headed for an ice age. In the 80s we were all going to die because of acid rain. In the 90s New York City was supposed to be underwater by 2010 because of global warming and melting of the ice caps (NASA shows they are actually growing - https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...er-than-losses ), and yet none of this happened. Why should we believe these politically motivated scientists now?

- - - Updated - - -

Of course they did!! They all wanted a nice big piece of US money pie since we were expected to finance more of it than anyone else. All those poor countries wanted to get rich

That's old data. Things change constantly and you cannot cherrypick your data and expect it to be valid. That data does not account for the fact that the poles are decresing in ice volume. (yes, surface area can increase even when the volume of a melting object decreases.)

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...-at-both-poles

We should be expected to finance a large portion of it, we leave one of the largest carbon footprints in the world. The Chinese also should pay their share too and so should the people in the EU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...xide_emissions

All I know is that I have not seen a cold winter in ages. It is impossible for me to explain why Oklahoma, home to massive tornadoes and icestorms, got to 100 degrees last February. I grew up on the high plains, it should be in the 40's and 50's at that time of year. I cannot explain why Chicago did not have a real cold Winter last season, no snow for the first time in it's recorded weather history. Many people I know said it felt more like springtime all Winter. Why are areas that normally don't even need to use A/C during the Summer, all of a sudden having major heatwaves that are killing thousands of people?

I have always had a fascination with atmospheric science from a young age. Weather patterns have been something that I have monitored closely over the years. It is not hard for me to see just how much things have changed over the years. Winters are not as cold, summers are much hotter, something must be wrong.

I don't know how quickly our climate will continue to warm, as there are so many variables that can affect each new outcome, but I do know that we can expect;

-Sea levels will continue to rise.
-The oceans will continue to acidify.
-Unusual weather events will continue to increase with intensity and frequency. (When you are as old as me, it's not that fucking hard to notice shit ain't right even on a local level.)
-Major coral bleaching events will continue.
-Bees will continue to die off and disappear. (A major part of our food chain)
-Expect shortages of specific heat sensitive crops that were once common.
-Expect the growing season to continue to begin earlier and end later each year.
-Permafrost will continue to melt in the Arctic.
-Release of methane from previously "permanently" frozen areas will continue.
-Glaciers will continue to decrease in volume.
-Polar icecaps will continue to decrease in volume.
-Diversity of flora and fauna will continue as more species go extinct.
-Disease will continue to show up in areas of the planet where they are not normally found as the climate continues to become more habitable for the vectors of their transmission.

[Deianeira]

That's old data. Things change constantly and you cannot cherrypick your data and expect it to be valid. That data does not account for the fact that the poles are decresing in ice volume. (yes, surface area can increase even when the volume of a melting object decreases.)

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...-at-both-poles

We should be expected to finance a large portion of it, we leave one of the largest carbon footprints in the world. The Chinese also should pay their share too and so should the people in the EU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...xide_emissions

All I know is that I have not seen a cold winter in ages. It is impossible for me to explain why Oklahoma, home to massive tornadoes and icestorms, got to 100 degrees last February. I grew up on the high plains, it should be in the 40's and 50's at that time of year. I cannot explain why Chicago did not have a real cold Winter last season, no snow for the first time in it's recorded weather history. Many people I know said it felt more like springtime all Winter. Why are areas that normally don't even need to use A/C during the Summer, all of a sudden having major heatwaves that are killing thousands of people?

I have always had a fascination with atmospheric science from a young age. Weather patterns have been something that I have monitored closely over the years. It is not hard for me to see just how much things have changed over the years. Winters are not as cold, summers are much hotter, something must be wrong.

I don't know how quickly our climate will continue to warm, as there are so many variables that can affect each new outcome, but I do know that we can expect;

-Sea levels will continue to rise.
-The oceans will continue to acidify.
-Unusual weather events will continue to increase with intensity and frequency. (When you are as old as me, it's not that fucking hard to notice shit ain't right even on a local level.)
-Major coral bleaching events will continue.
-Bees will continue to die off and disappear. (A major part of our food chain)
-Expect shortages of specific heat sensitive crops that were once common.
-Expect the growing season to continue to begin earlier and end later each year.
-Permafrost will continue to melt in the Arctic.
-Release of methane from previously "permanently" frozen areas will continue.
-Glaciers will continue to decrease in volume.
-Polar icecaps will continue to decrease in volume.
-Diversity of flora and fauna will continue as more species go extinct.
-Disease will continue to show up in areas of the planet where they are not normally found as the climate continues to become more habitable for the vectors of their transmission.

Seems to me that many people dont really care about this, OR want to take care of the repercussions of this when it happens. /sad