If All the Ice Melted

This is what would happen if ALL the ice melts,
But that won't happen, not all of it, the question is how much of it.
I think I'd have water front property.

So we say goodbye to Florida, and most of Louisiana and Mississippi? Seems fair.

We might have to build a wall.

I've read more than one conspiracy theory that says The Wall(TM) is really about stopping the mass migration north that will begin in a few decades due to devastating warming along the equator. The logic went that the right actually believes in climate change MORE than the left, but has to keep it on the down low, or the left would figure out what the wall was really for. :rolleyes:

More 3D chess from Trump.

Yet another reason to move to Colorado

Notice that he wants to build a wall where (according to the map) no threat exists. The map must be wrong.

Looks like I'd have a view to beachfront property... From my boat.

[ATTACH]66800[/ATTACH]
History repeats itself. ~ Everybody
Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. ~ Winston Churchill
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. ~ Karl Marx
History doesn't repeat itself but it often rhymes. ~ Mark Twain

But the history we’re taught isn’t what happened. It’s what was recorded by the victors, and only the things
they thought were important to make them look good. And those came out of the pool of what they knew
which was piddle puddle compared to the ocean of what happened.

“Somewhere back in our Savannah DNA, we got very good at reacting to danger when it presented itself — say a lion or tiger. However, it seems we are less capable of looking ahead to avoid danger. In other words, we are a reactive rather than proactive animal. The contemporary analogy in relation to climate change is that we are similar to the frog in a pot of hot water who does not have the sensors to recognize the increasing temperature and the fact that he should get out of the boiling pot.” Ian Tamblyn

Catastrophic flooding in Nebraska has wiped out roads, overtopped dams, and left at least a third of the
Offutt Air Force Base submerged, including part of the runway and at least 30 buildings.
Fortunately, this time the headquarters of US Strategic Command, which oversees the US nuclear arsenal,
remained unflooded. This is the same base where a tornado caused $20 million damage in 2017.
[ATTACH]66799[/ATTACH]

Camp Lejeune was badly damaged by Hurricane Florence in September of 2018. The massive 84,000 gallon
sewage spill and damaged buildings is expected to cost some $3.6 billion dollars,

In October, 2018, Hurricane Michael devastated Tyndall Air Force Base, causing billions of dollars in damage.

Warming of the air and Oceans has caused a shift in the Jet Stream which may increase the probability of
Bomb Cyclones like hit Colorado this winter with 100 mph winds and torrential rain or 52 inches of snow.

In 2019 the ocean temperature off northern CA running 5 degrees warmer in March. Last time it caused
toxic blooms, closing down fishing/crabbing for months, at a $48 million loss to just the crab industry.

Who will ever learn?
When will they ever learn?
How will they ever learn?
What will they ever learn?
[/lament]

Mosquitoes will inherit the Earth.

They're on track killing 750,000 humans a year. :eek:

IPCC AR5 says low confidence in observed increases in number and/or intensity of tornadoes; same for magnitude and frequency of flooding; and low confidence these events can be attributed to warming. Medium confidence that tornadoes may increase in future, flooding remains low confidence in future.

Chart is here

That chart has bunches of asterisks, red & blue squares, yellow circles and abbreviations they don't explain. :confused:

Sorry! Legend is here

The whole thing is a way to summarize their report; this is the science as it stood 2014.

Excellent, thank you!

Clodfobble;1028698 wrote:

I've read more than one conspiracy theory that says The Wall(TM) is really about stopping the mass migration north that will begin in a few decades due to devastating warming along the equator. The logic went that the right actually believes in climate change MORE than the left, but has to keep it on the down low, or the left would figure out what the wall was really for. :rolleyes:

Climate change is real and inevitable. It has been well known and documented for decades. Exxon knew it was happening in 1977, and started spreading misinformation about the subject before it even became a publicly debated issue. Climate science deniers don't disbelieve in climate change, it's just politically inconvenient for them to admit the obvious. The head EPA Administrator/Coal Lobbyist says “most of the threats from climate change are 50 to 75 years out.”

One of the interesting things about climate change is that it won't affect everyone in the same ways. Some areas will be devastated, others will be mildly inconvenienced. Side note: It's no secret that if *poor people* are going to be affected by something, there is no political will to address it, because *poor people* have no political clout. This is doubly true for the economic impact of climate change-- the thing that is well-known, yet we deny that it exists.

We know that climate change is real (including the people who are causing it) and WILL disproportionately affect people in central and south America, as compared to the interior of the continental United States. There WILL be climate refugees. This is as obvious as it is inevitable. Putting this in terms of "the right," "the left," and "The Wall" is dragging a serious topic into the realm of political theater. None of it is conspiratorially secret, none of it is on the down low.

Oh, I agree there will be climate refugees. I'm personally anticipating that I'll have to leave Texas before I'm elderly. But I can also tell you that my father, as just one example, truly does not believe in climate change. The "conspiracy" is that he secretly does believe in it--which makes the conspiracy false, insofar as it tries to guess at his motives for supporting the wall.

I understand what you're saying. Sure, he doesn't believe in climate change. But, why? What was the motivation behind the focused obfuscation of the issue, why did the leaders he trusted for information partisanly hammer the point that climate change "might not be" a pressing concern? I doubt it was accidental--imagine the effort that's gone into it.

...

To the issue of refugee policy, I ask myself what is more likely the motivation behind the focused drive to reject refugees: #1 the anti-refugee policy wonks are incorrigible xenophobes who simply hate brown people, or #2 the anti-refugee policies are laying the groundwork for the response to an inevitable geo-political threat.

Maybe a little of both? But probably the policy wonks driving political movements aren't stupid.

I've seen your climate change flood map and read your comments.

My first thought was to get Al Gore Smoking in here for some sock puppet humor that makes me laugh much more than anyone else.

Just didn't fit the moment.

So then thought maybe I should list some of the things that I do in my daily life that actually supports this climate change hoa...ah, I mean problem. Does it matter what my motivation is if it fits the template of being better for the planet?

Those are;

* riding a bike for transportation instead of driving a fossil fuel powered vehicle. Also Ubering but a fair amount of biking. Because it helps me. Not particularly worried about the planet that's been here for billions of years.

* Limiting my smokeless powder discharge which I'm guessing kills the planet as well as everything else I do. Shot placement instead of spray. Black powder discharge has been at zero for 10 years plus. Yay me.

* Searching out and supporting businesses that sell grass fed poultry, pork and beef. These products are significantly more expensive but tend to be fresher and healthier. Also tend to be better for the land that they are raised on. And or provide a better life for the animals. They have a good life with one bad day.

* Have completely stopped burning tires in the back yard. That one was a joke. I still burn the tires but nobody is perfect.

So each of these examples actually supports a better environment or healthier me without any conscious concern for the planet. Or climate change.

I've had people with graphs and charts and photos pushing this hoa...ah, I mean emergency for 30 fucking years. Wagging a finger in my face. Calling me names. In 5 years, 10 years, 20 years. I'm fatigued with these predictions. And the ClimateGaters.

"We're all going to die! Or drown! Don't you care, you ignoramus!?"

Well, no. However, for my own reasons that have nothing to do with climate change, I can earn a sticker. And in my own opinion, I actually do more for climate change than most people just talk about. To virtue signal, which is rampant.

Ok, so back to my thought process...

So then I look at the map and think "Jesus Christ, California still isn't completely under water. What can I do to change that?"

"What's the use of this climate catastrophe if it leaves California with dry land? Florida is gone but Cali survives?"

Next I look closer at the map, where Florida was but is now under water. Sadness to be sure. But then look at the southern islands.

Puerto Rico seems to be unharmed.

That just makes PR that much more of a great place to spend time now. Before the big flood.

With that thought I'm even more of a PR fan.

Slang, did you miss the part about that map shows what would happen if ALL the ice melted. Nobody believes that will happen until maybe the Sun cooks the Earth millions of years down the line. However at the rate we're going some low places will flood, some low Pacific islands already have a problem. With the increased intensity of hurricanes/typhoons it's an even bigger problem for them.

One of the problems is 30 or more years ago when scientists first brought the issue to light, the journalist started the sky is falling shit and it didn't happen.
I remember is the 60's the prediction that at the rate of population growth in the US it wouldn't be long before we would each have a square yard to stand on.
That wasn't the prediction of scientists, it was journalists. Well, 60 years later I have 4.5 acres to stand on.

If Americans are worried about the threat of Central Americans moving north, think how the Canadians must feel about the threat Americans moving north. :eek: :haha:

Ok, so I can still be a PR fan since even with worst case, it's going to survive :idea:

We can start prepping to invade PR when Florida drowns. They don't have a WALL!

Thanks for your explanation, Bruce. :)

We need to shank journalist today more than ever. That's something I can support. :yesnod:

xoxoxoBruce;1028808 wrote:

However at the rate we're going some low places will flood, some low Pacific islands already have a problem. With the increased intensity of hurricanes/typhoons it's an even bigger problem for them.

IPCC AR5 says low confidence in observed increases in number and/or intensity of monsoons and does not predict whether heavy precipitation events in any particular location will increase or decrease.

Which Pacific islands have a problem? They used to think Tuvalu would be well on its way to under water, but the science evolved when satellite imagery showed the islands were actually growing.

2004 Smithsonian article: Will Tuvalu disappear?

2018 Phys.org article: 'Sinking' Pacific nation is getting bigger

Very good.

Not ETA, the main argument against climate change being responsible for swallowing these islands is from the study's author.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/10/headlines-exaggerated-climate-link-to-sinking-of-pacific-islands

“All these headlines are certainly pushing things a bit towards the ‘climate change has made islands vanish’ angle. I would prefer slightly more moderate titles that focus on sea-level rise being the driver rather than simply ‘climate change’,” Albert told the Guardian.

The major misunderstanding stems from the conflation of sea-level rise with climate change. As a scientifically robust and potentially destructive articulation of climate change, sea-level rise has become almost synonymous with the warming of the planet.

However, as Albert’s paper points out, the ocean has been rising in the Solomon Islands at 7mm per year, more than double the global average. Since the 1990s, trade winds in the Pacific have been particularly intense. This has been driven partly by global warming and partly by climatic cycles - in particular the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

So it's mixed, but climate change is a part of it.

Yes, stronger storm surges.

Residents of the Carteret Islands in New Guinea are being moved.

To be thorough: AR5 says extreme high sea level sea is "likely" to have been observed since 1970 but has an X under "Attribution" - very low attribution of this to climate change. However it is "extremely likely" to be seen from 2050-2100.

Sea level increases have been with us since before mankind starts really pumping out the gasses. It's the recent changes that they feel are due to new melting, and the thought is that the rate of change will increase. Science is mixed on whether that has been happening already, hence the X.

I saw that some scientists from the Netherlands believe the sea floor is changing due to higher water levels. 1/3 of the Netherlands is under sea level so they have an interest in understanding it. A deep interest, lol.

I read the sea floor around Florida is changing also, as the reefs die out and the Gulf Stream current making a left right there has an effect.

Undertoad;1028877 wrote:

Sea level increases have been with us since before mankind starts really pumping out the gasses.

Change never happened so much so fast. If something else can explain it, then posted is science that says why. Naysayers always deny. And never once do what honest science demands - say why.

What other facts explains so much climate change so fast? Naysaying is not a productive answer. What explains climate changes that has never happened so much so fast? What other science explains what is only wild speculation? History says an answer based in logic, math, meteorology, and other sciences will not happen. Only more denials.

It happened once over tens and hundred of thousands of years. That proves change in 100 years is normal? Total nonsense that can only exist if one ignores numbers. Climate change typically required changes that took longer than the existence of mankind.

Don't worry. Be happy.

Thread is about sea level change, tw. Here's the official graph of it.



via EPA

From Climate Change Indicators: Sea Level

After a period of approximately 2,000 years of little change (not shown here), global average sea level rose throughout the 20th century, and the rate of change has accelerated in recent years.

If not discussing climate change, then why did you cite an article about climate change and how it affects oceans?

A sudden change in climate created by mankind also explains a sudden change in ocean levels. For 2000 years; no change. Suddenly mankind is massively burning fossil fuels. Climate change started. And oceans began rising.

Climate was stable for 2000 years. Ocean levels were stable for 2000 years. Suddenly both changed drastically when mankind started changing climate. Somehow that ia a normal event because such changes once took many thousands of years? Conclusion by ignoring numbers is disingenuous.

Naysaying is not a productive answer. Ignoring relevant facts from your citation further demonstrates denial of well proven science. Where are facts that dispute well proven science. Naysaying does not prove anything.

Climate and ocean level changes happened over tens and hundred of thousands of years. That proves so much change in only 100 years is normal? Show me those numbers.

Undertoad;1028877 wrote:

..I saw that some scientists from the Netherlands believe the sea floor is changing due to higher water levels. 1/3 of the Netherlands is under sea level so they have an interest in understanding it. A deep interest, lol.

If the sea is compressing the floor down from the weight of the water above it, does that mean that the seas can hold more water and cancel the volume increase from glacier ice melting?

If the scientist comes to this conclusion they will surely be shifted from scientific research to managing a Cinnabon somewhere in Nebraska.

Killing the narrative isn't good for a scientific career.

tw;1029195 wrote:

Climate was stable for 2000 years. Ocean levels were stable for 2000 years. Suddenly both changed drastically when mankind started changing climate.

Ocean level was 400 FEET lower 16,000 years ago! That's a rate of change of 30 inches increase per century.

It's true that the rate has increased in recent years. That's odd because it came during the hiatus in warming. A lot of sea level rise is due to thermal expansion. I wonder if that's one reason why AR5 says it can't attribute recent high sea levels to AGW.

Do you believe in AR5, tw, or are you a science denier?

Undertoad;1029200 wrote:

Do you believe in AR5, tw, or are you a science denier?

What is AR5? Never saw (remember) that abbreviation in science articles.

AR5 is the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

I read that the land once covered with ice, which is an awful lot of it, is slowly rebounding from the compression. Wouldn't that mess with the ancient sea level calculations?

Read an interesting article today about why some islands are disappearing and why sea level rise isn't the main problem, or reason to panic yet.

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/are-islands-disappearing

tw, AR5 is the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- "[SIZE="1"]an intergovernmental body of the United Nations, dedicated to providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change, its natural, political and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options."[/SIZE] And concluding that:

*Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record.
*There is a clear human influence on the climate
*It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report.

I'm not a climate scientist, so I'll take their word for it.