• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Increase in extreme sea levels could endanger European coastal communities

The real issue is, how much CO2 added is even our fault? That's the question climate, change deniers never want to answer

How so? I am not so much interested right now in "if" as in the costs assuming that the "if" is positively answered. How large will the hit to my life style be? In Germany the public media are already rife with propaganda for stopping meat consumption and making it expensive in the meantime. The reasons mentioned are usually other, but meat must go off the menu for the poor, if the Paris goals are to be met. Travel will have to stop relying on flight and automobiles. Plastic will be difficult. Tractors in agriculture will be difficult.

So tell us. How much will this cost us at today's technology? And how will it impact which income groups in which period? Is it worth reduction now, instead of putting the huge sums into research so that the total loss of life style is lower?
 
This, of course, has been extensively studied.


But around here, you cant really get to that point because of all the high school educated science deniers screaming about FREEDOMS and faux libertarian ideology.

Actually, I know that literature quite well. Starting with the Club of Rome over Lomborg (less economic) I have worked my way through Stern's tomb and some of Mendelsohn's and Nordhaus' work. I knew the link, for which I thank you nonetheless. Recently I have not seen anything persuasive either.

But you see, I would not have been so opinionated, were I not a quantitative economist and had I not looked at the literature quite closely. And, if you look at the literature mentioned in the article you linked, you will find that the economics of Carbon neutrality are not enough well known nor promising at today's technology. This is not at all part of the discussion in public and most of the discussants do not realize this.
 
[h=1]Earth’s Surface Gaining Coastal Land Area, Despite Sea Level Rise[/h]Guest post by David Middleton Earth’s surface gained 115,000 km2 of water and 173,000 km2 of land over the past 30 years, including 20,135 km2 of water and 33,700 km2 of land in coastal areas. Nature Climate Change 173,000 km2 – 115,000km2 = 58,000 km2 33,700 km2 – 20,135 km2 = 13,565 km2 If sea level is rising, how…

August 30, 2016 in Climate News, Sea level.

Coastal areas were also analysed, and to the scientists surprise, coastlines had gained more land – 33,700 sq km (13,000 sq miles) – than they had been lost to water (20,100 sq km or 7,800 sq miles).

“We expected that the coast would start to retreat due to sea level rise, but the most surprising thing is that the coasts are growing all over the world,” said Dr Baart.

“We were able to create more land than sea level rise was taking.”

Yep, guess what? This sea level rise thing is like being attacked by a vole.
 
Climate News
Recent Sea-Level Change at Major Cities

Guest essay by Rich Taylor Abstract Human population is becoming increasingly urban, and most of the world’s largest and fastest-growing cities border tidewater. This note presents charts of annual-value (AV) tide-gauge records in or near major coastal cities to illustrate the sea-level change these cities have observed recently, and fits linear trends to the records.…

Human population is becoming increasingly urban, and most of the world’s largest and fastest-growing cities border tidewater. This note presents charts of annual-value (AV) tide-gauge records in or near major coastal cities to illustrate the sea-level change these cities have observed recently, and fits linear trends to the records. Trends range from -1.5 mm per year (mm/y) to 18 mm/y. Tectonic uplift can explain the lowest trends, and cities growing rapidly on unconsolidated sediments (perhaps dredged) have the highest trends due to land subsidence. Urban areas that encompass ground of variable stability observe variable sea-level change. Where the ground is stable, typical change appears to be a rise of 1- to 2-mm/y. Rates above 3 mm/y seem to have a substantial component of natural and/or anthropogenic subsidence. Rates above 10 mm/y appear to be a primarily a consequence of human activity, which implies they should be manageable to some degree.
All records in this review are from the website www.psmsl.org of the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level. Profound thanks are due to the Service and its supporters; the website makes it easy to find and download data of apparent fidelity. All geological information is from the website mrdata.usgs.gov/geology/worldgeol.html of the US Geological Survey. The website presents world geology compiled by the Geological Survey of Canada (Open File 2915) as an interactive map that is easy to navigate and interrogate. . . .

 
concern!!!! Worry!!! Quick!! Agree to higher taxes!! Lower standard of living!! More regulations and less economic prosperity! This might avert 0.5c degrees rise in global temps over 100 years!!!
Feel like you mattered!

He must have invested in carbon credit stocks.
 
More fake news.


@NPR Bungles Sea Level Rise Story

Supposed threats to coastal military installations ignore science By Bob Endlich “Data from CO2 measuring stations and from the Sewell’s Point and all other tide gages may clearly refute these assertions, but NPR and its colleagues will not change their minds.” “The Sewell’s Point tide gage shows that the rate of sea level rise has…
Continue reading →

National Public Radio’s March 31 “Morning Edition” program carried a “news” story claiming that rising seas threaten a number of U.S. coastal military bases. The commentary was so laden with factual errors that listeners might have thought it was an early April fool’s joke. Unfortunately, it was not.
NPR remains so wedded to its belief that humans and carbon dioxide emissions are causing a fossil fuels–driven global warming catastrophe that its reporting has been compromised, and it is unable to think critically or report honestly without resorting to activist claims and fake news events.
Real journalism would have at least included passing references to alternative views and sources. But they were absent in this story, which in truth is a splendid example of ignorance or deception—reader’s choice.
Host David Greene introduced the sea level segment, noting that President Trump is taking steps to reverse Obama-era policies that called [manmade CO2-driven] climate change a national security threat. Reporter Jay Price then expanded on the national security theme, claiming the Sewell’s Point tide gage (or gauge) at the Norfolk, Virginia Naval Station shows that seas are rising there at the highest rates on the East Coast.
His errors began right from the outset. Sea level rise measured at Sewell’s Point is 4.59 millimeters (0.18 inches) per year. That’s less than recorded by neighboring Virginia tide gages: the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel gage measured an average sea level rise of 5.93 mm annually; up the Delmarva Peninsula, on Virginia’s Eastern Shore, Wachapreague gage records show average seal level rise of 5.37 mm/year. . . .

 
Seems concerning.

But I've been assured by people in this forum who've had a total of one year of high school physics (but got an A!) and are motivated by an intense desire for lower electricity bills that this really isn't an issue, so there's that.





https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170314111254.htm

I just read a piece the other days suggesting all this is accelerating, and things we thought were 40-50 years away are really maybe less than 5 years away now. Sounded pretty daunting.
 
concern!!!! Worry!!! Quick!! Agree to higher taxes!! Lower standard of living!! More regulations and less economic prosperity! This might avert 0.5c degrees rise in global temps over 100 years!!!
Feel like you mattered!

:roll:
 
I just read a piece the other days suggesting all this is accelerating, and things we thought were 40-50 years away are really maybe less than 5 years away now. Sounded pretty daunting.

From the link in #32:

. . . In short, no matter how much NPR’s reporter and sources claim sea level rise is human-caused and CO2-fueled, the tide gage data show no correlation between rates of sea-level rise and human production of carbon dioxide. Clearly, the gradual inundation of these coastal areas and the apparent rise of sea level shown on tide gages at Sewell’s Point, the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel and Wachapreague are actually due primarily to the effects of the Chesapeake Bay Impact Crater and filled-in wetlands that are still losing water content and compacting.
A secondary cause, as noted by Paul Driessen and Roger Bezdek’s recent article, “Sea Level Rise—or Land Subsidence,” is land subsidence due to the pumping of vast amounts of groundwater for urban and agricultural purposes.
And yet, the 31 March NPR story does not even mention terrain subsidence. To NPR it is all about “climate change” and the notion that – if only human use of fossil fuels could be reduced or ended – the gradual rise of oceans off Hampton Roads could be stopped, and national security interests would be protected. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If WUNC reporter Jay Price or the program editors at NPR were the least bit curious, they would have investigated the sea level tide gages operated by NOAA for the entire country. They are displayed on NOAA’s “Tides and Currents” web page, which also features the map in Figure 3. . . . .
 
That's what they claim will be averted, 0.5C rise in return for a huge cost.

555d2cdac08c2e3ffabde57f8c54015f.png
 
I just read a piece the other days suggesting all this is accelerating, and things we thought were 40-50 years away are really maybe less than 5 years away now. Sounded pretty daunting.

Yes, "suggest" is one of those weasel type words, used to imply something that cannot be shown.
 
For the last 10,000 years, until the start of the industrial revolution in the 19th century, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had indeed been virtually static at 280 ppm to within +/-10 ppm. But in the last 150 years or so, it has shot up by 125 ppm! It is quite obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense that the reason for this rapid increase is the rapid increase in human CO2 emissions that occurred at the same time. There is no rational alternative explanation.

I notice that Renae's response to this has been deafening silence. And you didn't even get a chance to mention the changing isotope ratios of atmospheric CO2 resulting from fossil, rather than organic carbon.

Maybe Jack Hays should repost the material by Murray Salby which he (and Judith Curry) have promoted in the past, insisting that “The premise of the IPCC that increased atmospheric CO2 results from fossil fuels emissions is impossible.” Renae merely attempted to sow doubt and confusion, but maybe a brazen assertion that known scientific facts are utterly impossible would work better :lol:
 
Last edited:

35.000 deaths in the Uk per year alone due to use of diesel rather than petrol due to the anti-CO2 fashion.

20 million deaths per year, my guess, from the use of food as fuel due to this anti-CO2 hype.
 
Yes, "suggest" is one of those weasel type words, used to imply something that cannot be shown.

Not really. "Suggest" really means data seems to indicate but more research is needed to form a more robust conclusion. You know, kind of like how data suggested sea levels would rise by around 2100 but now appear to be rising much faster and may reach dangerous levels much sooner than predicted. :roll:
 
That's what they claim will be averted, 0.5C rise in return for a huge cost.

It's already risen 0.5C. And that's not good. Temps only rose 5C during the Permian, and that wiped out 95% of all living things. :lol:
 
35.000 deaths in the Uk per year alone due to use of diesel rather than petrol due to the anti-CO2 fashion.

The estimated total number of annual deaths in the UK from diesel exhaust fumes is around 12,000. And most diesel use - for example in trucks and other heavy vehicles - has nothing whatsoever to do with "anti-CO2 fashion."

True to form, you have decided that mere facts do not matter to you and you'll just make up whatever bull**** you think will have the biggest shock value. You have chosen to assert that 100% of air pollution deaths are caused by diesel exhaust and 100% of diesel exhaust must be blamed on climate science.

20 million deaths per year, my guess, from the use of food as fuel due to this anti-CO2 hype.

Just for the benefit of other readers, I will repeat (for about the 20th time) the facts that this is a claim
> which from the beginning you clearly showed us was a product of malice and dishonesty by your repeated slander of multiple forum members as being 'complicit' in your made-up number of deaths;
> which is literally impossible given the global death rates and hunger-related death rates (being less than half your number);
> which is over one hundred times larger than the figure that even a right-wing think-tank produced, which you've been repeatedly shown;
> which you never even tried to substantiate for the first couple of years you were using it;
> which, when you finally tried to retrospectively justify it, was vastly larger than the figure which your own dodgy guess-based maths produced (you were out by a factor of 40 even if your baseless assumptions were granted);
> which was still vastly larger than the figure which your own dodgy guess-based maths produced the second time you tried to retrospectively justify it (that time you were 'only' out by a factor of 22 even if all your baseless assumptions and impossible made-up numbers were granted; the final result would have been ~875,000).





Occasionally when I'm getting a bit forgetful - or just feeling a certain generousity of spirit towards our contrarian friends - I fall into the trap of imagining that Jack and Judith promoting views which assert the impossibility of atmospheric CO2 increases being due to fossil fuels must surely be the worst example of anti-scientific denial of reality available for mockery from this forum.

Fortunately our friendly neighbourhood Plumber is always here to remind me that, amazingly, it does get even worse than that!
 
Last edited:
For the last 10,000 years, until the start of the industrial revolution in the 19th century, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had indeed been virtually static at 280 ppm to within +/-10 ppm. But in the last 150 years or so, it has shot up by 125 ppm! It is quite obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense that the reason for this rapid increase is the rapid increase in human CO2 emissions that occurred at the same time. There is no rational alternative explanation.

It is not "quite obvious." It is the assumption to be made by novices to the sciences.

The ocean surface temperature regulates the CO2 exchange equilibrium, and wind is the primary modulator of the velocity of his exchange. Between the oceans and the atmosphere, the oceans hold about 98% of the CO2 and the associated chemistry that dissolve. Increases in the equatorial region temperatures increase the out-gassing of the oceans. Increases in the polar region temperatures reduce the CO2 absorption.

The question is now... Are the oceans capable of absorbing the CO2 as fast as we emit it or not. If the answer to this is yes, then the reason we are increasing in CO2 levels is because the ocean surface temperature is increasing.

I will contend that the oceans and vegetation are capable of around 70% of what we emit, and the remainder of the CO2 buildup is due to SST increases.

If we had no androgenic CO2 emissions, we would still have elevated CO2 in the atmosphere due to SST increases.

If the oceans did not increase in temperature, and absorbed rapidly to equilibrium, we probably wouldn't see more than a 2 ppm increase.
 
Not really. "Suggest" really means data seems to indicate but more research is needed to form a more robust conclusion. You know, kind of like how data suggested sea levels would rise by around 2100 but now appear to be rising much faster and may reach dangerous levels much sooner than predicted. :roll:

Ye, but hate that type of language. I use it on occasion, but it is acknowledgement that here is far from any solid conclusion. This is a concern I speak about many times. A paper may "suggest" something, then an activist pundit spins it as fact.
 
It's already risen 0.5C. And that's not good. Temps only rose 5C during the Permian, and that wiped out 95% of all living things. :lol:

Which came first? The chicken or the egg?

Is it possible, that what ever increased the temperatures is what wiped out life, rather than the temperature itself?
 
Which came first? The chicken or the egg?
The egg, of course, assuming you believe in TOE.

Is it possible, that what ever increased the temperatures is what wiped out life, rather than the temperature itself?

Rising temps free up gases, bacteria and viruses trapped in the permafrost. Already we are seeing methane which was frozen slowly being released into the atmosphere and the reemergence of bugs thought to be long gone. So, in this case, just the rising T alone looks to be a huge problem.
 
I will contend that the oceans and vegetation are capable of around 70% of what we emit, and the remainder of the CO2 buildup is due to SST increases.

If we had no androgenic CO2 emissions, we would still have elevated CO2 in the atmosphere due to SST increases.

By contrast NASA believes that about 55% of emissions have gone into the oceans and biosphere while 45% have remained in the atmosphere.

The implication here, if you believe that about one third of the atmospheric increase (~40ppm) is due to SST changes, must be that you also believe SSTs are now much higher than they were at any other point in the Holocene (during which CO2 concentrations were never more than ~7ppm above 280).
 
The egg, of course, assuming you believe in TOE.



Rising temps free up gases, bacteria and viruses trapped in the permafrost. Already we are seeing methane which was frozen slowly being released into the atmosphere and the reemergence of bugs thought to be long gone. So, in this case, just the rising T alone looks to be a huge problem.

But it is assumption. Not fact. It could very well be true, but you portrayed it as fact.
 
By contrast NASA believes that about 55% of emissions have gone into the oceans and biosphere while 45% have remained in the atmosphere.

I said capable of, meaning without the increased SST. SST changes play a role in absorption. I thought I made that simple...

The implication here, if you believe that about one third of the atmospheric increase (~40ppm) is due to SST changes, must be that you also believe SSTs are now much higher than they were at any other point in the Holocene (during which CO2 concentrations were never more than ~7ppm above 280).

That implication only applies if we are only considering two variable. There are several, and we really cannot properly account for enough.
 
Back
Top Bottom