Rising Sea Level Threatening Coastal Areas

[flogger]

Sea levels have been rising for the last 15,000 years at least and the last century is quite unremarkable in the great scheme of things . The way some talk here you would think this phenomenon had only just started and of course we must (as ever) be at fault for it :roll:

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Kiribati: A Nation Going Under | The Global Mail

Sea level rise and the ongoing Battle of Tarawa - Donner - 2012 - Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union - Wiley Online Library

Couldn't access the second link but the first one was interesting. Kiribati is a cess pool no doubt and sea level rise is the least of its problems but it does appear to be going under. Nothing new here as the sea level has been rising since the last ice age ended but I asked for an example of a nation at immediate risk and you found one, well done.

 

[flogger]

Couldn't access the second link but the first one was interesting. Kiribati is a cess pool no doubt and sea level rise is the least of its problems but it does appear to be going under. Nothing new here as the sea level has been rising since the last ice age ended but I asked for an example of a nation at immediate risk and you found one, well done.

Thinking that there is anything we can do to prevent this or that we are somehow responsible for it is ludicrous beyond comprehension. When the time comes they will have to move as doubtless many other now submerged atoll communities have had to over the recent millenia. Sh*t happens

 

[mbig]

I don't think they have much of a case against Exxon, but it IS Another instance (like Sandy in the OP) of Warming-climate-caused damage. (not to mention the many more damaging storms)
We all know whats happening to Arctic Ice.
The fabled 'Northwest Passage' is coming soon, but of course there Are consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kivalina_v._ExxonMobil_Corporation

Kivalina v. ExxonMobil Corporation, et al. is a lawsuit filed on February 26, 2008, in a United States district court. The suit based on the common law theory of nuisance claims monetary damages from the energy industry for the destruction of Kivalina, Alaska by flooding caused by climate change. The damage estimates made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Government Accountability Office are placed between $95 million to $400 million.

The suit was dismissed by the United States district court on September 30, 2009, on the grounds that regulating greenhouse emissions was a political rather than a legal issue and one that needed to be resolved by Congress and the Administration rather than by courts.[1] An appeal was filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in November 2009.[2][3][4][5][6] In September 2012, the panel of appeals judges decided not to reinstate the case.[7] The city appealed the court of appeals decision to the U.S. Supreme Court and on May 20, 2013 the Supreme Court justices decided not hear the case, effectively ending the city's legal claim.[8]

Village Issue

Kivalina is a traditional Inupiat Eskimo community of about 390 people and is located about 625 miles northwest of Anchorage. It is built on an 8-mile barrier reef between the Kivalina River and the Chukchi Sea.[9]
Sea ice historically protected the village, whose economy is based in part on salmon fishing plus subsistence hunting of whale, seal, walrus, and caribou.
But the Ice is forming Later and Melting Sooner because of Higher Temperatures, and that has left it unprotected from fall and winter storm waves and surges that pummel coastal communities.[9]

"The village is being wiped out by global warming and needs to move urgently before it is destroyed and the residents become global warming refugees", Kivalina's attorney, Matt Pawa of suburban Boston said. "It's battered by winter storms and if residents don't get some money to move, the village will cease to exist."[9]."..."

In 1953 the size of the village was roughly 54 acres but due to accelerating erosion activity, the village is currently at 27 acres.".."[10]

EDIT: Below is yet another GOOFY deflection/Strawman by SawyerLoggingon.
More posting Blight.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I don't think they have much of a case against Exxon but it IS Another instance (like Sandy in the OP) of Warming-climate-caused damage. (not to mention the many more damaging storms)
We all know whats happening to Arctic Ice.
The fabled 'Northwest Passage' is coming soon, but of course there Are consequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kivalina_v._ExxonMobil_Corporation

Do you have any idea how many towns, villages, cities even entire civilizations are under the ocean and have been since well before the industrial revolution?

 

[flogger]

Do you have any idea how many towns, villages, cities even entire civilizations are under the ocean and have been since well before the industrial revolution?

It was because of the land bridge that once existed linking Alaska with Siberia during the last glacial period that human beings were ever able to populate North America at all before the Europeans arrived !

 

[mbig]

Thinking that there is anything we can do to prevent this or that we are somehow responsible for it is ludicrous beyond comprehension. When the time comes they will have to move as doubtless many other now submerged atoll communities have had to over the recent millenia. Sh*t happens

Unlike several of the Clowns posting here you don't correct, in fact even thank.... You know better.

The Vast Majority of climate scientists (97%) agree that humans are in good part responsible for Global Warming, ergo, AGW.

 

[flogger]

Unlike several of the Clowns posting here you don't correct, in fact even thank.... You know better.

The Vast Majority of climate scientists (97%) agree that humans are in good part responsible for Global Warming, ergo, AGW.

Nonsense, and that 97% figure has been debunked ad nauseam umpteen times now

 

[Lord of Planar]

Unlike several of the Clowns posting here you don't correct, in fact even thank.... You know better.

The Vast Majority of climate scientists (97%) agree that humans are in good part responsible for Global Warming, ergo, AGW.

Quantify, good part please.

My reading of the polling says otherwise.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

It was because of the land bridge that once existed linking Alaska with Siberia during the last glacial period that human beings were ever able to populate North America at all before the Europeans arrived !

To many camp fires I suspect. Burning all that wood released C02 and made the sea level rise. No more land bridge.

 

[longview]

To many camp fires I suspect. Burning all that wood released C02 and made the sea level rise. No more land bridge.

Sort of like indirectly burning one's bridges.:mrgreen:

 

[flogger]

To many camp fires I suspect. Burning all that wood released C02 and made the sea level rise. No more land bridge.

Bloody humans ! Why cant we just get rid of them ? Oh I forgot our green friends are working hard on that one already arent they ?

 

[mbig]

Quantify, good part please.

My reading of the polling says otherwise.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...nge-stronger-and-stronger.html#post1059520332

 

[Lord of Planar]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...nge-stronger-and-stronger.html#post1059520332

That argument has been proven not to say as you repeated it to.

 

[mbig]

That argument has been proven not to say as you repeated it to.

And are you going to post Proof/Evidence of that as I did for my claim?
Or, as the VAST majority of your Goofy/EMPTY posts, Not going to source Anything at all.
Where's the beef?
This 'debate' is the usual Empty Clownery vs Facts.

These posts, which are basically just 'no', are juvenile and gratuitous last-wording/trolling and Contrary to the purpose of this board.
There are parts of this board where Your EMPTY comebacks are appropriate, this is NOT one of them.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And are you going to post Proof/Evidence of that as I did for my claim?
Or, as the VAST majority of your Goofy/EMPTY posts, Not going to source Anything at all.
Where's the beef?
This 'debate' is the usual Empty Clownery vs Facts.

These posts, which are basically just 'no', are juvenile and gratuitous last-wording/trolling and Contrary to the purpose of this board.
There are parts of this board where Your EMPTY comebacks are appropriate, this is NOT one of them.

I find it laughable how "97%" seems to be some magical number, and with two different studies flaunting it as if it means something it didn't. Ot maybe, you are telling me there is a third 97%...

The two I know if is that one poll asked scientists if they believed in AGW. Part of that poll asked if mankind contributed. There wasn't a signgle question asking scientists if man was the primary reason for global warming, yet they claim 97% because they can say that 97% of the scientists polled, believe mankind "contributes" to warming. Contributing to warming can be less than 0.01% of the warming, with 99,99% being natural variations, and the statement is still accurate! To twist it to say 97% of the scientists believe AGW is a bad thing is rediculous.

Now the other study had 97% to 98% of the peer reviewed papers supporting AGW. There are two flaws one should immediately see with extrapolating what warmists do from that. First is that more scientists try to prove AGW than try to disprove it, because more money by far, is granted for such studies. The second is that they have to use any loosely defined criteria to "support."

Now if you have actually seen something definitive, I would love to see your evidence.

 

[jmotivator]

I find it laughable how "97%" seems to be some magical number, and with two different studies flaunting it as if it means something it didn't. Ot maybe, you are telling me there is a third 97%...

The two I know if is that one poll asked scientists if they believed in AGW. Part of that poll asked if mankind contributed. There wasn't a signgle question asking scientists if man was the primary reason for global warming, yet they claim 97% because they can say that 97% of the scientists polled, believe mankind "contributes" to warming. Contributing to warming can be less than 0.01% of the warming, with 99,99% being natural variations, and the statement is still accurate! To twist it to say 97% of the scientists believe AGW is a bad thing is rediculous.

Now the other study had 97% to 98% of the peer reviewed papers supporting AGW. There are two flaws one should immediately see with extrapolating what warmists do from that. First is that more scientists try to prove AGW than try to disprove it, because more money by far, is granted for such studies. The second is that they have to use any loosely defined criteria to "support."

Now if you have actually seen something definitive, I would love to see your evidence.

As I have said here a few times, based on the wording of the original "97%" study I WOULD BE AMONG THE 97%. Subsequent studies have attempted to prove the 97% number and have failed. The abysmal SkepticalScience study is so corrupted that their methodology simply can not be replicated, and it's been shown that only a handful of the crowd doing the crowd sourcing actually contributed. Cook spent most of his time in meetings discussing the marketing of the results that he expected rather than administering the study as a scientist.

 

[Lord of Planar]

As I have said here a few times, based on the wording of the original "97%" study I WOULD BE AMONG THE 97%. Subsequent studies have attempted to prove the 97% number and have failed. The abysmal SkepticalScience study is so corrupted that their methodology simply can not be replicated, and it's been shown that only a handful of the crowd doing the crowd sourcing actually contributed. Cook spent most of his time in meetings discussing the marketing of the results that he expected rather than administering the study as a scientist.

I also said I would be among the 97% for the questions they asked in a poll.

 

[flogger]

I also said I would be among the 97% for the questions they asked in a poll.

Count me in that 97% too. A bucket of water thrown into a river technically 'contributes' to its volume. That doesnt mean its automatically going to burst its banks any time soon because of it

 

[Lord of Planar]

Count me in that 97% too. A bucket of water thrown into a river technically 'contributes' to its volume. That doesnt mean its automatically going to burst its banks any time soon because of it

I don't understand the 3%...

 

[flogger]

I don't understand the 3%...

Niether did Saddam Hussein when he got his last election result. He thought he'd rigged it better than that ! :lol:

 

[mbig]

That argument has been Proven not to say as you repeated it to.

And are you going to post Proof/Evidence of that as I did for my claim?
Or, as the VAST majority of your Goofy/EMPTY posts, Not going to source Anything at all.
Where's the beef?
This 'debate' is the usual Empty Clownery vs Facts.

These posts, which are basically just 'no', are juvenile and gratuitous last-wording/trolling and Contrary to the purpose of this board.
There are parts of this board where Your EMPTY comebacks are appropriate, this is NOT one of them.

So the answer is 'no' you will not/cannot back your claim, just continue the keyboard abuse.
The usual.

 

[mbig]

Probably just a short term anomaly.
One would Not want to draw conclusions from blips as the Climate Deniers do. ('Going down the Up Escalator')

Has The Rate Of Sea Level Rise Tripled Since 2011? | ThinkProgress

You may recall a couple years ago the climate disinformers trumpeted the (very) short-term slowdown in sea level rise. We can hardly wait for their posts on the recent speed up.."

 

[mbig]

Melting giving Climate Deniers the Finger

Sea Levels Is One Finger Higher
Worldwide Sea Level Is One Finger Higher : Discovery News
JUN 2, 2013 01:19 PM ET // BY LARRY O'HANLON

Satellite tracking of the oceans and the melting of ice sheets and glaciers from 2005 to 2011 now confirms that the seas worldwide have risen 2.39 millimeters per year over that seven-year period, and hasn’t stopped. That’s almost 17 millimeters over those seven years, or more than 5/8ths of an inch, about the width of a typical adult index finger at the first knuckle.

It seems small until you add it up over decades past and those to come. It’s especially no small matter to those people living near sea level, on an atoll or along a coast, where every inch is of concern. All one needs is a storm surge — as that seen during Superstorm Sandy — and the steady rise of sea level becomes painfully clear."..."

 

[longview]

Melting giving Climate Deniers the Finger

Sea Levels Is One Finger Higher
Worldwide Sea Level Is One Finger Higher : Discovery News
JUN 2, 2013 01:19 PM ET // BY LARRY O'HANLON

You have to ask yourself if something is strange when the satellite numbers and the
gauge numbers disagree by so much.
Sea Level Trends
If one scans all of the NOAA tide gauges, you only see a few RED up arrows which
the legend says are rises between 9 and 12 mm/yr.
The Satellite data shows an average rise of just under 10 mm/yr.
Shouldn't a 2 cm rise in 2 years show up on the standard gauges also?
We could have a separate whole discussion on the errors within satellite measurement.