• 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

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
63,549
Reaction score
28,895
Location
The city Fox News viewers are afraid to travel to
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.


Massive coastal flooding in northern Europe that now occurs once every century could happen every year if greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, according to a new study.

New projections considering changes in sea level rise, tides, waves and storm surge over the 21st century find global warming could cause extreme sea levels to increase significantly along Europe's coasts by 2100. Extreme sea levels are the maximum levels of the sea that occur during a major storm and produce massive flooding.

The increase in frequency of these events that are today considered exceptional will likely push existing coastal protection structures beyond their design limits, leaving a large part of Europe's coastal zones exposed to flooding, according to the study's authors.

"Unless we take different protection measures, 5 million people will be exposed to coastal flooding on an annual basis," said Michalis Vousdoukas, a coastal oceanographer at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission and the lead author of the new study published in Earth's Future, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

Northern Europe will see the strongest increase in extreme sea levels. Areas along the Mediterranean and the Black Sea could see these 100-year extreme sea level events several times a year. In the North Sea region, extreme sea levels could increase by nearly 1 meter (3 feet) under the worst-case scenario. The Atlantic coasts of the United Kingdom and Ireland could see similar increases in extreme sea levels, while lower but still considerable increases in extreme sea levels are projected for the Norwegian and Baltic seas.


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

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!
 
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

Two points:
1: Why are the current set of predictions any more valid than the last set of failed predictions of sea level acceleration.
2: Since the sea level is and have been raising at roughly the same rate since before the AGW pseudo-crisis,
how would human activity or inactivity change the rate of the rise?
 
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!

Ah, yes.

I've also been told by enlisted men who worked as weather technicians that I should just ignore the science because weather is complicated.
 
Ah, yes.

I've also been told by enlisted men who worked as weather technicians that I should just ignore the science because weather is complicated.
No ones told you to ignore the science, I've greatly encouraged you to start CARING about science, not politics. And I see you're still out spreading lies and disdain for military enlisted professionals that disagree with you. Aviation Meteorologist, WEATHER FORECASTER, not technician. I know honesty is hard for you, but I'm here to set you straight.

Let's talk science, 3g's.

How much CO2, a percentage makes up the earths atmosphere?
What was the CO2 level in 1950 and what is it today?

Finally, the EPA Estimated man contributes WHAT percent increase every year?

Let's do this.
 
No ones told you to ignore the science, I've greatly encouraged you to start CARING about science, not politics. And I see you're still out spreading lies and disdain for military enlisted professionals that disagree with you. Aviation Meteorologist, WEATHER FORECASTER, not technician. I know honesty is hard for you, but I'm here to set you straight.

Let's talk science, 3g's.

How much CO2, a percentage makes up the earths atmosphere?
What was the CO2 level in 1950 and what is it today?

Finally, the EPA Estimated man contributes WHAT percent increase every year?

Let's do this.

Funny. Your post was a rant about ideology that sounds like it came directly from Sean Hannity's mouth. And *I'm* the one who only cares about politics??


I suggest you start reading here to get the answers to your very basic questions:

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Or, for a more user friendly document which might not require a college level science background, I'd go with this:

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

I realize even this is sometimes overwhelming for some people, so you could also get some basics here:

NASA's Climate Kids :: What is "global climate change"?


Your welcome.
 
Funny. Your post was a rant about ideology that sounds like it came directly from Sean Hannity's mouth. And *I'm* the one who only cares about politics??


I suggest you start reading here to get the answers to your very basic questions:

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Or, for a more user friendly document which might not require a college level science background, I'd go with this:

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf

I realize even this is sometimes overwhelming for some people, so you could also get some basics here:

NASA's Climate Kids :: What is "global climate change"?


Your welcome.

So you cannot answer basic science questions? Got it.
 
I'm not doing your homework for you.
I know the answer to these questions, but if you cannot discuss them without appealing to authority (a logical fallacy) you prove your inability to discuss the matter as an equal. You're merely a parrot regurgitating what you've been told to think rather than having the ability to understand what you are talking about.

Thanks for the surrender, my work here is done.
 
Two points:
1: Why are the current set of predictions any more valid than the last set of failed predictions of sea level acceleration.
2: Since the sea level is and have been raising at roughly the same rate since before the AGW pseudo-crisis,
how would human activity or inactivity change the rate of the rise?

He has no idea, he's got a link to a website that says something, that's all he needs to know.
 
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

Been there, have the t-shirt. What is more interesting is the cost/benefit of stopping it compared to the cost/benefit of not doing so. And in which periods would they compare how. What technology like co2 and Methane capture would we require to reverse warming in say 20 years?

That would be the right direction.
 
Been there, have the t-shirt. What is more interesting is the cost/benefit of stopping it compared to the cost/benefit of not doing so. And in which periods would they compare how. What technology like co2 and Methane capture would we require to reverse warming in say 20 years?

That would be the right direction.

The real issue is, how much CO2 added is even our fault? That's the question climate, change deniers never want to answer
 
Been there, have the t-shirt. What is more interesting is the cost/benefit of stopping it compared to the cost/benefit of not doing so. And in which periods would they compare how. What technology like co2 and Methane capture would we require to reverse warming in say 20 years?

That would be the right direction.

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

That's easy - all of it. Where else do you think all of that added CO2 could have come from, especially given that human emissions are easily sufficient to account for the rise? Given that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had been steady at about 280+/-10 ppm for the past 10,000 years or so, up until the middle of the 19th century, there 's no reason to think it wouldn't still be about 280 ppm (rather than the current 405 ppm) if humans hadn't started pouring CO2 into the atmosphere.
 
You didn't answer ****. You just regurgitated a cartoon, that's the level of your understanding.

Again, scientists know how much CO2 is anthropogenic. This has been included in the multiple referenes I posted.

You apparently dont.

Thats not because you know more than them, FYI.
 
That's easy - all of it. Where else do you think all of that added CO2 could have come from, especially given that human emissions are easily sufficient to account for the rise? Given that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere had been steady at about 280+/-10 ppm for the past 10,000 years or so, up until the middle of the 19th century, there 's no reason to think it wouldn't still be about 280 ppm (rather than the current 405 ppm) if humans hadn't started pouring CO2 into the atmosphere.

DING we have.. wait, you're wrong.
Sorry.
 
DING we have.. wait, you're wrong.
Sorry.

Why do you think I'm wrong? What makes you think the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would have changed significantly from 280 ppm if humans hadn't started emitting significant amounts of CO2 about 150 years ago?
 
Why do you think I'm wrong? What makes you think the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would have changed significantly from 280 ppm if humans hadn't started emitting significant amounts of CO2 about 150 years ago?

CO2 is not, and has never been static.
 
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

1. 6 Years of physics. Got an A level. Which is the pre-university examination system in the UK.

2. If nothing is done about the projected sea level rise of 1m, and it happens, then yes all of 5 million, that's 1% of the population by the sound of this "Black sea to the Baltic and everything else we can find" study area will get into problems.

The solution; Build some sea defences.

Job done.
 
1. 6 Years of physics. Got an A level. Which is the pre-university examination system in the UK.

2. If nothing is done about the projected sea level rise of 1m, and it happens, then yes all of 5 million, that's 1% of the population by the sound of this "Black sea to the Baltic and everything else we can find" study area will get into problems.

The solution; Build some sea defences.

Job done.
That may not even be necessary.
PSMSL Catalogue Viewer
Sea levels in the Baltic are very slow to falling,
while the black Sea has one station with a high rate of rise, but it is several times
faster than nearby stations, (this usually means subsidence).
 
CO2 is not, and has never been static.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom