• 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!

Climate Alarmists Caught Faking Sea Level Rise

longview said:
What you are not getting is the maximum includes at least 3 events that are extremely unlikely to impossible
over the next 82 years. RCP 8.5 might as well not be considered, and the combined collapse of both the Greenland and
Antarctic ice shelves is almost as improbable. The maximum requires all three!
Click to expand...

Study after study, shows that the Antarctic shelves are melting faster than thought, and not a linear rate. The NASA study is very educational, and really explains the science behind the areas that are melting, and those that are not.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018...rs-melting-extreme-rate-180403094040859.html/

Antarctic underwater glaciers are eroding at an alarming rate, with eight of 65 observed glaciers retreating at an "extreme" pace, new research has found.

According to the study, 1,463sq km of ice melted between 2010 and 2016, an area slightly smaller than the Greater London area.

The study found more than 10 percent of Antarctica's coastal glacier are currently retreating more than 25 metres per year.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

Meanwhile, measurements from the Grace satellites confirm that Antarctica is losing mass 11. Isabella Velicogna of JPL and the University of California, Irvine, uses Grace data to weigh the Antarctic ice sheet from space. Her work shows that the ice sheet is not only losing mass, but it is losing mass at an accelerating rate. "The important message is that it is not a linear trend. A linear trend means you have the same mass loss every year. The fact that it’s above linear, this is the important idea, that ice loss is increasing with time," she says. And she points out that it isn’t just the Grace data that show accelerating loss; the radar data do, too. "It isn't just one type of measurement. It's a series of independent measurements that are giving the same results, which makes it more robust."
 
Threegoofs said:
Closer.... but not impossible.

Aka ‘worst case scenario’. :roll:
Click to expand...
You should go buy a lottery ticket, because it is possible that you could win!
Consider RCP8.5 alone, CO2 at 1375 ppm an increase from today's level of 967 ppm,
in just 82 years.
That would require CO2 growth at 11.79 ppm per year, while current growth is at > 3 ppm per year.
NO RCP8.5 alone is implausible, as it implies no improvements in technology, and massive increases in CO2,
likely more massive than is possible, or sustainable for more than a decade, but required for eight decades.
 
Media_Truth said:
Study after study, shows that the Antarctic shelves are melting faster than thought, and not a linear rate. The NASA study is very educational, and really explains the science behind the areas that are melting, and those that are not.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018...rs-melting-extreme-rate-180403094040859.html/

Antarctic underwater glaciers are eroding at an alarming rate, with eight of 65 observed glaciers retreating at an "extreme" pace, new research has found.

According to the study, 1,463sq km of ice melted between 2010 and 2016, an area slightly smaller than the Greater London area.

The study found more than 10 percent of Antarctica's coastal glacier are currently retreating more than 25 metres per year.

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

Meanwhile, measurements from the Grace satellites confirm that Antarctica is losing mass 11. Isabella Velicogna of JPL and the University of California, Irvine, uses Grace data to weigh the Antarctic ice sheet from space. Her work shows that the ice sheet is not only losing mass, but it is losing mass at an accelerating rate. "The important message is that it is not a linear trend. A linear trend means you have the same mass loss every year. The fact that it’s above linear, this is the important idea, that ice loss is increasing with time," she says. And she points out that it isn’t just the Grace data that show accelerating loss; the radar data do, too. "It isn't just one type of measurement. It's a series of independent measurements that are giving the same results, which makes it more robust."
Click to expand...

And other studies have found that the ice shelve is freezing water on the bottom.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/ross-ice-shelf-bore-antarctica-freezing/
But as the camera passed through the bottom of the hole, it showed the underside of the ice adorned
with a glittering layer of flat ice crystals—like a jumble of snowflakes—evidence that in this particular place,
sea water is actually freezing onto the base of the ice instead of melting it.
Click to expand...
Plenty of people can theorize what is happening, but the actual observations were a surprise, to those
running the expedition, because they expected to see melting.
“It blew our minds,” says Christina Hulbe, a glaciologist from the University of Otago in New Zealand, who co-led the expedition.
Click to expand...
 
longview said:
You should go buy a lottery ticket, because it is possible that you could win!
Consider RCP8.5 alone, CO2 at 1375 ppm an increase from today's level of 967 ppm,
in just 82 years.
That would require CO2 growth at 11.79 ppm per year, while current growth is at > 3 ppm per year.
NO RCP8.5 alone is implausible, as it implies no improvements in technology, and massive increases in CO2,
likely more massive than is possible, or sustainable for more than a decade, but required for eight decades.
Click to expand...

You really are struggling with ‘worst case scenario’.
 
Threegoofs said:
You really are struggling with ‘worst case scenario’.
Click to expand...
Not at all! there is a difference between an actual possible scenario, and placing an upper boundary
limit on an equation. The upper boundary limit is not a real scenario.
 
Media_Truth said:
Yeah, I noticed how you really addressed the subtitle of the Sci Amer article. Yeah, you are just so objective. Why don't you post another link from the High Schooler, Watts. I haven't had a good laugh yet today.
Click to expand...

The subtitle is there for all to see, and doesn't change anything. You need to learn to lose more gracefully.
 
Tim the plumber said:
So you think that the Mississippi river which is 6.4km wide has a third of the flow of a fjord where the small ice burgs which fall off the end of the glacier bob around as driven byu the wind untill they melt.
Click to expand...
I think you just don't understand what you're talking about.

The Mississippi River is not 6.4km wide. At its widest point, it is 1.5km wide. It is much narrower at its mouth in Pilottown, probably around 1km.

While I certainly do not claim to be an expert in hydrology, even I know that there is much, much more to river discharge than its width. At a minimum, there are factors like speed, depth, silt, composition of the water, geology of the river and its mouth... E.g. The mouths of rivers in Greenland are basically ice and solid rock, and the water is running from high elevations (6000+ feet), which means the water will run very fast. The Mississippi, in contrast, is filled with silt, runs through a huge swampy delta which soaks up plenty of water, and is flat for hundreds of miles before reaching the ocean.

And again: I gave you the figures. One, count it one, of 100 rivers in Greenland discharges huge amounts of water during melt season. Greenland has a massive coastline, over 27,000 miles long, and ice and water discharge from almost the entire coast.

Bottom line is: You're busted. The facts make it very clear that yes, huge amounts of water and ice discharge from Greenland's coasts. Actual empirical observations provide strong evidence that Greenland has lost thousands of gigatons of ice since 2002. This is not refuted by bad napkin math which uses false assumptions. I suggest that you just accept it, and move on.
 
longview said:
What you are not getting is the maximum includes at least 3 events that are extremely unlikely to impossible over the next 82 years.
Click to expand...
No, RCP 8.5 is basically "business as usual until at least 2100." E.g.:

- 12 billion population by 2100
- Slow global economic growth
- Minimal changes in energy efficiency
- Conventional forms of producing fossil fuel are more scarce, but not gone ("Resource availability is not necessarily a constraint but easily accessible conventional oil and gas become relatively scarce in comparison to more difficult to harvest unconventional fuels like tar sands or oil shale.")
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0149-y

It is not likely, but it is definitely possible.


RCP 8.5 might as well not be considered, and the combined collapse of both the Greenland and
Antarctic ice shelves is almost as improbable. The maximum requires all three!
Click to expand...
sigh

No, it doesn't require some sort of complete loss of both those ice sources. It only requires more loss of ice from those two sources than other scenarios -- and both are already happening. Again, try to actually read next time.
 
longview said:
You should go buy a lottery ticket, because it is possible that you could win!
Consider RCP8.5 alone, CO2 at 1375 ppm an increase from today's level of 967 ppm,
in just 82 years.
That would require CO2 growth at 11.79 ppm per year, while current growth is at > 3 ppm per year.
Click to expand...
And as usual, you ignore that the growth rate of CO2 is accelerating. E.g. It was growing at around 1.4 ppm per year in the 1970s, and at 2 ppm per year less than a decade ago.

Again, it is not likely, but it is definitely possible. That's the whole point of saying "it's the maximum."
 
Originally Posted by Visbek: [series of posts]

10 feet is the maximum scenario, which presumes that we pretty much keep doing what we are doing now, for the next ~80 years. In that scenario -- which hopefully will not be the case -- specific areas (like California) could see as much as 10 feet of sea rise.

Yep.
Again, that is the highest level prediction, and for a specific area. The idea being that if a community wants to prepare for the absolute worst, they should prep for ~10 feet by 2100.

You do realize that we're talking about a report prepared by the California Coastal Commission, based on local conditions, and those are the worst-case scenario numbers?

Again: 2 meters is the maximum.

Learn to read. [H++ Scenario]

This has already been posted and refuted [Prepare for 10 Feet of Sea Level Rise, California Commission]

I did read it. That's why I kept telling you it's the maximum.
Click to expand...

What's the argument here? Is anyone disputing that the 10 feet figure isn't the
maximum value from the California Commission report? I don't think so. It's
whether or not the ten foot estimated maximum is realistic or not. If that isn't
the argument, then what is it?

I say it's not a realistic maximum estimation as it comes to an average rate of
over 37 mm/yr for the next 82 years. And that's just plain silly. All of the
arguments about the Thwaites glacier, submerged rivers, interactive maps,
the Watson River, Glacial Isostatic Rebound, whatever Professor Dutton said,
good napkin math, etc. just aren't convincing.

Even the CU Sea Level Research Group's recently rewritten historical sea level
data doesn't support the 10 foot sillyness:

Climate-change–driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era

From the abstract:

Using a 25-y time series of precision satellite altimeter data ... we
estimate the climate-change–driven acceleration of global mean sea level
over the last 25 y to be 0.084 ± 0.025 mm/y2. Coupled with the average
climate-change–driven rate of sea level rise over these same 25 y of 2.9 mm/y,
simple extrapolation of the quadratic implies global mean sea level could
rise 65 ± 12 cm by 2100 compared with 2005, roughly in agreement with
the ... (IPCC)...(AR5) model projections.​

Sixty-five centimeters comes to a little over two feet, not ten feet.
There just isn't a mechanism for the extra 8 feet. If there was, we should
be seeing a pronounced uptick, and we are not.
 
Threegoofs said:
Just what do you think ‘worst case scenario’ means?

Or are you confused by the word ‘maximum’?
Click to expand...

I guess if a large enough meteror struck in Antarctica, we might have an RCP 89.5 equivalent event.
 
If Greenland is losing all that ice, the icecap should be shrinking. Is it?

This paper from a search on [greenland summit station elevation history]:

Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Elevation at Summit, Greenland: 2007-2013

says in the abstract:

We assessed surface elevation and elevation change of the Greenland Ice Sheet at a range of spatial
scales using six years of monthly GPS surveys conducted near Summit between 8/2007 and 3/2013.

At the survey scale, no significant linear elevation trend is evident over the study period.​

No significant trend and no indication of sign ± either (was probably positive)

The only shrinking ice I know of is most of the alpine glaciers around the world.
 
Visbek said:
And as usual, you ignore that the growth rate of CO2 is accelerating. E.g. It was growing at around 1.4 ppm per year in the 1970s, and at 2 ppm per year less than a decade ago.

Again, it is not likely, but it is definitely possible. That's the whole point of saying "it's the maximum."
Click to expand...

You are ignoring that there is limit on how fast our emissions can grow.
We can only develop resources like oil fields so fast. After we have the oil we can only expand
refining capability so fast, and then we would need a growing market demanding the products.
To get RCP8.5 would require CO2 growth to AVERAGE 11.79 ppm per year, almost 4 time the current levels.
We would have to develop entire new infrastructures to expand to those levels,
It is worth a look at Notable Features of RCP8.5
https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/climate-model-temperature-change-rcp-85-2006-2100/
Here is one with numbers attached.
CO2 levels rise to 936ppm by 2100 making the global temperature rise by about 5-6°C by 2100
Click to expand...
The problem with those assumptions is that a 5C increase with a move of CO2 from 400 ppm to 936 ppm
would mean an ECS of 4.07C for 2XCO2,
and a 6 C Would mean ab ECS of 4.88 C for 2XCO2, both are well above what is possible,
even if we forget the fact that adding 530 ppm of CO2 in the next 80 years is also almost impossible.
 
Steve Case said:
What's the argument here? Is anyone disputing that the 10 feet figure isn't the
maximum value from the California Commission report?
Click to expand...
Yes. Longview did.


I say it's not a realistic maximum estimation as it comes to an average rate of
over 37 mm/yr for the next 82 years. And that's just plain silly.
Click to expand...
And that's what, based on your years of education and study in climate science? Years working in the field, perhaps? Extensive expertise running climate change models?

Because it kinda seems like you're looking at the conclusions, and not bothering to read how they arrived at those conclusions and what those conclusions mean, and objecting anyway.


Even the CU Sea Level Research Group's recently rewritten historical sea level
data doesn't support the 10 foot sillyness...
Click to expand...
Again! Global rise will not be the same as rise in specific locations. Due to numerous local variations, some areas will be higher than the global average, others will be lower. That's... how averages work.


There just isn't a mechanism for the extra 8 feet....
Click to expand...
There certainly are "mechanisms" for much faster rise, namely substantial losses of ice in Greenland and the Antarctic. CU isn't necessarily talking about them, because they are specifically talking about one scenario, where sea level rise continues to accelerate at the current pace (0.084 per year). This seems to be close to one of the mildest scenarios.

Other organizations are talking about scenarios where sea level rise accelerates much faster. The maximum is RCP 8.5, which is (as described above) "business as usual" with high population growth, minimal gains in energy efficiency, heavy reliance on fossil fuels and so on. I.e. much of the critical variability here is in what humans do, and how much GHGs we emit over the next 50-80 years.

ipcc_ar5_sealevel.jpg

And again: GMSL is a global average, and doesn't tell you how much tide levels will rise in specific areas (and, really, vice versa; using tidal gauges to measure global sea level rise requires tons of adjustment.) GMSL is an average, which means that in the worst case scenario some areas will see far more than 6 feet, others will see less.

By the way, the California guide is saying "if you want to prepare for the worst, prepare for 10 feet by 2100."

And just to drive the point home, this is what can happen when you prepare for the worst, and your neighbors do not. They get flattened, and your home survives.

nytimes-sand-castle-2-640x0-c-default.png


And yet again! You brought this up to criticize Scientific American. However, the simple fact is that Scientific American accurately reported the findings. The fact that you dislike the findings, based on your own preferences rather than actually reading the science, does not mean that SciAm got anything wrong.
 
Steve Case said:
If Greenland is losing all that ice, the icecap should be shrinking. Is it?
Click to expand...
Yes. Most of the ice loss is at the periphery.

The amount is relatively small, compared to the size of the ice sheet; but more than enough to impact sea levels. And yes, this is determined using the same data as your buddies, and other data as well.

End of the SMB Season summary 2017: Polar Portal

Late summer melting spike for 2017 melt season; Greenland ice may increase | Greenland Ice Sheet Today

GrnLndMassTrnd.png
 
longview said:
You are ignoring that there is limit on how fast our emissions can grow.
Click to expand...
Ugh, here we go.


We can only develop resources like oil fields so fast.
Click to expand...
RCP 8.5 does not assume infinite fossil fuel resources. Meanwhile, in the real world, there are still massive amounts of exploitable fossil fuel resources.

And of course, you somehow failed completely to cite any real data or sources suggesting that RCP 8.5 can't possibly happen in this respect.


To get RCP8.5 would require CO2 growth to AVERAGE 11.79 ppm per year, almost 4 time the current levels.
Click to expand...
Yes... And again... the scenario assumes that the rate of CO2 concentrations will accelerate, as we've seen in just the past few years -- and that was despite a minor slowdown after the 2007 recession.


We would have to develop entire new infrastructures to expand to those levels...
Click to expand...
Or: Build a bunch of coal plants in China and developing nations, and pull back on sustainable energy supplies in the US. Wow, that sounds like totally crazy and could not possibly happen.... :roll:


https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/climate-model-temperature-change-rcp-85-2006-2100/
Here is one with numbers attached.
Click to expand...
And here's a chart of PPM for two scenarios. WOW! RCP 8.5 looks TOTALLY INSANE! Oh, wait, it actually looks like "business as usual." Again, unlikely, but certainly not impossible, especially if China changes its mind, and the US keeps electing idiots like Trump.

FigTS-19-e1496709762890-1024x708.jpeg
 
Visbek said:
Ugh, here we go.



RCP 8.5 does not assume infinite fossil fuel resources. Meanwhile, in the real world, there are still massive amounts of exploitable fossil fuel resources.

And of course, you somehow failed completely to cite any real data or sources suggesting that RCP 8.5 can't possibly happen in this respect.



Yes... And again... the scenario assumes that the rate of CO2 concentrations will accelerate, as we've seen in just the past few years -- and that was despite a minor slowdown after the 2007 recession.



Or: Build a bunch of coal plants in China and developing nations, and pull back on sustainable energy supplies in the US. Wow, that sounds like totally crazy and could not possibly happen.... :roll:



And here's a chart of PPM for two scenarios. WOW! RCP 8.5 looks TOTALLY INSANE! Oh, wait, it actually looks like "business as usual." Again, unlikely, but certainly not impossible, especially if China changes its mind, and the US keeps electing idiots like Trump.
Click to expand...
Believe as you wish, it still does not make RCP 8.5 plausible.
 
Visbek said:
And that's what, based on your years of education and study in climate science? Years working in the field, perhaps? Extensive expertise running climate change models?

Because it kinda seems like you're looking at the conclusions, and not bothering to read how they arrived at those conclusions and what those conclusions mean, and objecting anyway.
Click to expand...

That's right, I look at the bottom line. And in this case it looks fishy.

Visbek said:
Again! Global rise will not be the same as rise in specific locations. Due to numerous local variations, some areas will be higher than the global average, others will be lower. That's... how averages work.
Click to expand...

I'm always amused, outraged actually that Church and White's pick of tide
gages skewed towards those with the high rates. They looked for ways to
toss out the low and negative rates.

Visbek said:
There certainly are "mechanisms" for much faster rise, namely substantial losses of ice in Greenland and the Antarctic.
Click to expand...

So why isn't the elevation of the summit station in Greenland losing altitude.
If it was I'd be reading about it. See my post
https://www.debatepolitics.com/envi...level-rise-post1069174410.html#post1069174410

Visbek said:
CU isn't necessarily talking about them, because they are specifically talking about one scenario, where sea level rise continues to accelerate at the current pace (0.084 per year). This seems to be close to one of the mildest scenarios.
Click to expand...
It had been zero mm/yr until this past January when Dr. Nerem re-wrote
the historical data from the '90s.

Visbek said:
Other organizations are talking about scenarios where sea level rise accelerates much faster. The maximum is RCP 8.5, which is (as described above) "business as usual" with high population growth, minimal gains in energy efficiency, heavy reliance on fossil fuels and so on. I.e. much of the critical variability here is in what humans do, and how much GHGs we emit over the next 50-80 years.
Click to expand...

I don't subscribe the notion that green house gas has anything to do
with sea level rise.

Visbek said:
View attachment 67242361
Click to expand...

Nice chart, just because you can draw up a chart in color with labels
and all sorts of official seals doesn't mean it represents the truth.
I am reminded of that old Dennis the Menace cartoon where he's drawn
a treasure map of his back yard with an "X" marks the spot for buried
treasure and he can't figure out why it's not there when he went
digging for it.

[Continued]
 
Last edited:
[Cont.]
Visbek said:
And again: GMSL is a global average, and doesn't tell you how much tide levels will rise in specific areas
Click to expand...

I think that's exactly what the people in California are doing.
The satellite data gives them the highest numbers and they ignore
all the west coast tide gauges which show modest gains. Then
past that it looks like they shop for the "Scientist" who tells
the scariest story. I'm thinking of John Englander and his
"High Tide on Main Street" lecture & book that he's been shopping
around the country scaring the bejesus out of everyone and selling
his stupid book. He's got a real scam going.

Visbek said:
(and, really, vice versa; using tidal gauges to measure global sea level rise requires tons of adjustment.)
Click to expand...

Oh really, which tide gauge data do you think need adjustment?

Visbek said:
GMSL is an average, which means that in the worst case scenario some areas will see far more than 6 feet, others will see less.
Click to expand...

And those will be due to local vertical land movement that don't
have anything to do with carbon dioxide.

Visbek said:
By the way, the California guide is saying "if you want to prepare for the worst, prepare for 10 feet by 2100."
Click to expand...

And if the price tag for just one city to do that is $500 billion or more?
I am reminded of the old joke about the guy with bad head aches and the
Doctor prescribes castration - turns out his shirt collars were too tight.
You know what if I'm that west coast city, I'm going to want a second opinion
from someone who isn't employed by the deep state.

Visbek said:
And just to drive the point home, this is what can happen when you prepare for
the worst, and your neighbors do not. They get flattened, and your home survives.

nytimes-sand-castle-2-640x0-c-default.png
Click to expand...

The worst in this case was the storm surge and not the claimed 155 mph wind.
But beyond that - yes - good sound zoning and building codes would be a good idea.
The East and Gulf coasts are sitting ducks - and CO2 doesn't have anything to do with it.

Visbek said:
And yet again! You brought this up to criticize Scientific American. However, the simple fact is that Scientific American accurately reported the findings. The fact that you dislike the findings, based on your own preferences rather than actually reading the science, does not mean that SciAm got anything wrong.
Click to expand...

I used to subscribe to Scientific American. I dropped the subscription sometime ago.
It was taken over in the '90s by left-wing editors. The PC/BS bias in that publication
puts it in the same league as Psychology Today
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
I think you just don't understand what you're talking about.

The Mississippi River is not 6.4km wide. At its widest point, it is 1.5km wide. It is much narrower at its mouth in Pilottown, probably around 1km.

While I certainly do not claim to be an expert in hydrology, even I know that there is much, much more to river discharge than its width. At a minimum, there are factors like speed, depth, silt, composition of the water, geology of the river and its mouth... E.g. The mouths of rivers in Greenland are basically ice and solid rock, and the water is running from high elevations (6000+ feet), which means the water will run very fast. The Mississippi, in contrast, is filled with silt, runs through a huge swampy delta which soaks up plenty of water, and is flat for hundreds of miles before reaching the ocean.

And again: I gave you the figures. One, count it one, of 100 rivers in Greenland discharges huge amounts of water during melt season. Greenland has a massive coastline, over 27,000 miles long, and ice and water discharge from almost the entire coast.

Bottom line is: You're busted. The facts make it very clear that yes, huge amounts of water and ice discharge from Greenland's coasts. Actual empirical observations provide strong evidence that Greenland has lost thousands of gigatons of ice since 2002. This is not refuted by bad napkin math which uses false assumptions. I suggest that you just accept it, and move on.
Click to expand...

If you think that a river as powerful as the Mississippi is running under a glacier on a steep gradient without it floating away inside a few hours you understand nothing of physics.

You say that it is 3 times as powerful.

It would have to be to account for the claimed ice mass loss.

It would be full of grey silt which would be extremely obvous as it spread out over the ocean. Odd that you can't see it.
 
Steve Case said:
That's right, I look at the bottom line. And in this case it looks fishy.
Click to expand...
By that logic, quantum mechanics cannot possibly be right, because it doesn't make sense. Right? Riiiiight.

News flash! Science is permeated with counter-intuitive concepts, evidence, theories and proofs. That's kinda why it is so difficult.


I'm always amused, outraged actually that Church and White's pick of tide
gages skewed towards those with the high rates.
Click to expand...
It doesn't.

They combine satellite data with tidal gauges, which means they have to toss a bunch of stations that are outside that range (basically, Arctic circles). Many of those stations show significant sea level rise, not losses.

Other stations are ditched -- including ones showing rise -- because they combed through papers to find whether those stations are reliable.


So why isn't the elevation of the summit station in Greenland losing altitude.
Click to expand...
Because the amount of ice in the ice sheet is so massive, that losing 280 gigatons a year barely makes a dent in it.


I don't subscribe the notion that green house gas has anything to do
with sea level rise.
Click to expand...
Oooookay.... Let's make it simple.

- GHGs make the oceans, land and atmosphere warm
- as the oceans warm, they expand, and that causes sea levels to rise
- as the oceans warm, they melt the ice shelves in Antarctica; once those shelves are gone, glaciers on land start flowing into the oceans, which raises sea levels
- as the surface warms, ice sheets in Greenland melt faster, thus lose more ice and water, which raises sea levels


Nice chart, just because you can draw up a chart in color with labels
and all sorts of official seals doesn't mean it represents the truth.
Click to expand...
Erm.... Those are projections, not reports of past events. We won't know if they are true for decades.
 
Steve Case said:
I think that's exactly what the people in California are doing.
Click to expand...
It isn't.

They only tidal gauges they skipped are the ones not on the coast -- e.g. Richmond (east side of the SF Bay), Coyote Creek (near the southern end of the SF Bay), Port Chicago (even further inland, near Concord), and so on. Go ahead, read the report, compare it to the NOAA station list.


Oh really, which tide gauge data do you think need adjustment?
Click to expand...
My recollection is that most of them require at least some adjustment.

Tidal gauges anchored on land were never designed to measure global sea levels; they are designed to provide useful information for people in those areas (e.g. boats that need to dock). Using them to measure sea level is a bit of a hack -- it works, but it requires lots of tweaks.


And those will be due to local vertical land movement that don't have anything to do with carbon dioxide.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is definitely one of many reasons why tidal stations need adjustment. Others can include geological changes to the site, changes in water flows, effects of dredging, changes in equipment, the list goes on.


And if the price tag for just one city to do that is $500 billion or more?
Click to expand...
Erm... Yeah, it's not going to cost that much, at least not in current US dollars. E.g. New York City is probably looking at a tab of $5 to $10 billion. It's possible that could go up to $20 billion, but I seriously doubt it. Given that a single major storm like Sandy probably cost the city $20 billion, protections will not only reduce the damage and suffering, it will save money in the long run.

By the way, Californians don't usually balk at the cost of preparing or retrofitting for earthquakes. This shouldn't be any different.


The worst in this case was the storm surge and not the claimed 155 mph wind.
But beyond that - yes - good sound zoning and building codes would be a good idea.
The East and Gulf coasts are sitting ducks - and CO2 doesn't have anything to do with it.
Click to expand...
...except it does.

- Warmer oceans result in stronger Atlantic storms, in terms of wind speed and pressure
- Warmer oceans slow the storms down (not wind speed, but how slowly they change location) -- and slower storms cause more damage
- Warmer oceans cause sea level rise, in several ways, thus higher storm surges
- CO2 both warms oceans and puts more water vapor into the atmosphere, which result in higher levels of precipitation, which will cause more flooding and over a wider area
 
longview said:
You are ignoring that there is limit on how fast our emissions can grow.
We can only develop resources like oil fields so fast. After we have the oil we can only expand
refining capability so fast, and then we would need a growing market demanding the products.
To get RCP8.5 would require CO2 growth to AVERAGE 11.79 ppm per year, almost 4 time the current levels.
We would have to develop entire new infrastructures to expand to those levels,
It is worth a look at Notable Features of RCP8.5
https://sos.noaa.gov/datasets/climate-model-temperature-change-rcp-85-2006-2100/
Here is one with numbers attached.

The problem with those assumptions is that a 5C increase with a move of CO2 from 400 ppm to 936 ppm
would mean an ECS of 4.07C for 2XCO2,
and a 6 C Would mean ab ECS of 4.88 C for 2XCO2, both are well above what is possible,
even if we forget the fact that adding 530 ppm of CO2 in the next 80 years is also almost impossible.
Click to expand...

...says the guy complaining that China (and India- together which are five times the population of the US) are increasing emissions and rapidly building coal plants.


Pick a story and stick with it, dude.
 
Threegoofs said:
...says the guy complaining that China (and India- together which are five times the population of the US) are increasing emissions and rapidly building coal plants.


Pick a story and stick with it, dude.
Click to expand...
Pick someone who actually said what you claim!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom