Millions of US homes could be destroyed with rising sea levels

[MikeyMike01]

I've been saying this for some time. I would have no interest living near the coast right now.

I think something significant and sudden will happen in our lifetimes.

Absolutely nothing about climate change will be sudden. It'll be a couple of inches here, a couple homes there, etc.

Then you look back 50 years and see how bad it's gotten.

 

[chicagoskycam]

Absolutely nothing about climate change will be sudden. It'll be a couple of inches here, a couple homes there, etc.

Then you look back 50 years and see how bad it's gotten.

Disagree, you could hit a critical point with a huge melt off or one large ice sheet going.

All of sudden storm surges are a huge problem on the coasts.

 

[MAHJ71]

Disagree, you could hit a critical point with a huge melt off or one large ice sheet going.

All of sudden storm surges are a huge problem on the coasts.

Is there any actual data or proof of this happening? I mean of "all the sudden" type of event..

 

[LT]

Disagree, you could hit a critical point with a huge melt off or one large ice sheet going.

All of sudden storm surges are a huge problem on the coasts.

What is this supposed to mean?

 

[Warden of the North]

This must be the "slow news day" topic of the environmental sciences. Theres a new report like every 6 months saying the exact same thing.

 

[chicagoskycam]

Is there any actual data or proof of this happening? I mean of "all the sudden" type of event..

If you're talking about some Hollywood stuff, that's not what I'm referring to. Big Ice Sheet goes down and NY is under water. I'm not saying that. These coastal cities and places like New Orleans. With significant melt offs I think you could see a breaking point where those areas are regularly encroached upon by the oceans depending on tides, storms ect where as they were not before.

There was some story talking about that very thing today in New Orleans. It could be over a 5-10 period which is relatively short. The point of my OP was something significant in our lifetimes. The maps will change.

Take this military base in Virginia,

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/31/522151922/rising-seas-threaten-coastal-military-bases

There are many other examples but I see this tipping point where bam, so many coastal areas are impacting at once.

What is this supposed to mean?

Exactly what it means.

 

[kurt]

Scientists just develop theories without definitive evidence. It would be shocking if any of their predictions actually played out as they said.

It's hard enough for them to predict the weekend weather.

lol what

I think you're confusing science with something else

 

[Xelebes]

lol what

I think you're confusing science with something else

You responded to a post that is more than a year old and has been posted by a poster who in that time span has been banned.

 

[Coastal Kev]

It's hard to believe anything anymore when politics and money influences science. The Sea levels are rising and the climate is changing, those are facts. The causes are the dispute. I know this though, there was drastic climate and sea level change on this earth well before the so called "man made climate change".

 

[LT]

It's hard to believe anything anymore when politics and money influences science. The Sea levels are rising and the climate is changing, those are facts. The causes are the dispute. I know this though, there was drastic climate and sea level change on this earth well before the so called "man made climate change".

Actually it is very well known that humans are having a significant impact on climate.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full

We're emitting a ridiculous amount of pollutants. Some have immediate negative effects, others have more long-term (and less noticeable) effects.

Yes, there have been changes in climate and sea-level, but the last time scientists have been able to deduce changes as rapidly as what we're experiencing now was the KT boundary event (the asteroid impact that wiped out the dinosaurs). That is what's worrisome - we simply have no clue how the planet is going to respond to such rapid changes. And much of the damage is already done - it's simply mitigating what we can, and waiting for the rest to use up its lifetime in the atmosphere and oceans.

Climate cycles are an important factor, as well. And there's a general consensus (at least from what I've gathered) that without human impacts, we'd actually be headed into the next ice age.

One thing you have to remember too is that human time scales are virtually nothing in comparison to geological time scales. We're using the latter for most of these matters. It's a lot harder to comprehend and understand things on that scale.

 

[chicagoskycam]

^ or periods of high volcanic activity on the earth which we currently don't have. The data really doesn't lie unless people choose to ignore it.

That being said there are plenty of other reasons to change our behaviors other than climate change. Pollution as you said. Scarcity of resources in some areas. His point is valid, there is so much garbage on-line you can find a group or website to support any view that exists.

 

[Coastal Kev]

Actually it is very well known that humans are having a significant impact on climate.

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full

We're emitting a ridiculous amount of pollutants. Some have immediate negative effects, others have more long-term (and less noticeable) effects.

Yes, there have been changes in climate and sea-level, but the last time scientists have been able to deduce changes as rapidly as what we're experiencing now was the KT boundary event (the asteroid impact that wiped out the dinosaurs). That is what's worrisome - we simply have no clue how the planet is going to respond to such rapid changes. And much of the damage is already done - it's simply mitigating what we can, and waiting for the rest to use up its lifetime in the atmosphere and oceans.

Climate cycles are an important factor, as well. And there's a general consensus (at least from what I've gathered) that without human impacts, we'd actually be headed into the next ice age.

One thing you have to remember too is that human time scales are virtually nothing in comparison to geological time scales. We're using the latter for most of these matters. It's a lot harder to comprehend and understand things on that scale.

Way too much $$$'s in play to believe any "research". You didn't address my point that science has been perverted by money and politics.

Michael E. Mann is an atmospheric science professor at Penn State University, a climate catastrophe advocate, and a militant campaigner against scientists who disagree with him. He is most famous as the creator of the discredited and controversial “hockey stick graph,” which has been discredited by statisticians for distorting past climate history and offering outlandish predictions of future carbon-dioxide-induced global warming.

And then there is this article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/#3350f39032dc

 

[LT]

So you think 98% of climate scientists have been bought out just to vouch against emissions?

 

[Coastal Kev]

So you think 98% of climate scientists have been bought out just to vouch against emissions?

The fact that you quote a number that has proven to be 100% false speaks volumes. People need to wake up and fast. The agenda is to strip wealth from the working middle class and change your lifestyle.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle


It's all BS, but believe what you want to believe. All I know is that the earth has always had radical climate change, it's only now when there is money to stolen and obtained is it blamed on human activity.

 

[Leafsdude7]

Way too much $$$'s in play to believe any "research". You didn't address my point that science has been perverted by money and politics.

Michael E. Mann is an atmospheric science professor at Penn State University, a climate catastrophe advocate, and a militant campaigner against scientists who disagree with him. He is most famous as the creator of the discredited and controversial “hockey stick graph,†which has been discredited by statisticians for distorting past climate history and offering outlandish predictions of future carbon-dioxide-induced global warming.

And then there is this article:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryb...-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/#3350f39032dc

Forbes is well known for misrepresenting climate science. Mann's graph was never discredited. In fact, it was confirmed multiple times independently since it was first published. There were minor errors, but nothing that significantly changed the conclusions from it.

Of course, being a conspiracy theory, this means nothing because those independent studies were just a part of the conspiracy to you. You'd think you'd look at Forbes and those "statisticians" under the same skeptical eye as being bought by money, if you were being consistent.

 

[Kestrel]

Forbes is well known for misrepresenting climate science. Mann's graph was never discredited. In fact, it was confirmed multiple times independently since it was first published. There were minor errors, but nothing that significantly changed the conclusions from it.

Of course, being a conspiracy theory, this means nothing because those independent studies were just a part of the conspiracy to you. You'd think you'd look at Forbes and those "statisticians" under the same skeptical eye as being bought by money, if you were being consistent.

It seems the graph "discrediting" is a common talking point for those who want to question climate change. I don't know if you remember me venting over an argument with a childhood friend about climate change, but the hockey stick was one of the first things he brought up. And every time a point was addressed, rather than address the counter point, he would simply abandon the point, and move on to the next point.

 

[Leafsdude7]

It seems the graph "discrediting" is a common talking point for those who want to question climate change. I don't know if you remember me venting over an argument with a childhood friend about climate change, but the hockey stick was one of the first things he brought up. And every time a point was addressed, rather than address the counter point, he would simply abandon the point, and move on to the next point.

Indeed. There's never a "holy ****, everything I thought I knew was wrong"-moment with this type. Their thought process seems to simply be "yeah, okay, that's wrong, but THIS is right!", even if that goes on infinitely.

leopold seems to be using another poor logic argument of "well, it happened naturally before, so it's happening naturally now" based on the arguments of "earth has always had...climate change", "there was drastic climate and sea level change on this earth well before..." and "the earth has always had radical climate change", a tactic I like referring to as a reverse post-hoc fallacy.

 

[Coastal Kev]

Indeed. There's never a "holy ****, everything I thought I knew was wrong"-moment with this type. Their thought process seems to simply be "yeah, okay, that's wrong, but THIS is right!", even if that goes on infinitely.

leopold seems to be using another poor logic argument of "well, it happened naturally before, so it's happening naturally now" based on the arguments of "earth has always had...climate change", "there was drastic climate and sea level change on this earth well before..." and "the earth has always had radical climate change", a tactic I like referring to as a reverse post-hoc fallacy.

Couple of points Sir Smugness; Are there gains to be made financially by some through Climate Change laws? Yes

Are the leading voices within the Climate Change movement hypocrites??? Yes, I can provide evidence upon evidence if so desired.

Why is the "debate over"? This is a typical tactic to suppress dissent and it flies in the face of true science

Is it a conspiracy? Call it what you want but the desired effect is to bring the Western world down to comparable 3rd world levels. Basically it's meant to destroy what Western societies created for the first time in the world's history, the opportunity for anyone to work hard and obtain wealth. Read up on Agenda 21 and understand unless your family are part of the elite, you are in fact in the crosshairs of the very people you love and support.


Anyway, I'm not going to open your mind to change, climate change is a new religion for some.

 

[Coastal Kev]

It seems the graph "discrediting" is a common talking point for those who want to question climate change. I don't know if you remember me venting over an argument with a childhood friend about climate change, but the hockey stick was one of the first things he brought up. And every time a point was addressed, rather than address the counter point, he would simply abandon the point, and move on to the next point.

What caused the ICE AGE? If not man, then you accept that the Earth has always had EXTREME CLIMATE CHANGE and it always will, no matter how many Prius's are driven.

It's almost laughable as the entire premise of "fossil" fuels. Bones and trees...lol

http://ijr.com/2017/05/867816-obama...ar-convoy-get-european-climate-change-speech/

 

[Leafsdude7]

Couple of points Sir Smugness; Are there gains to be made financially by some through Climate Change laws? Yes

So?

Are the leading voices within the Climate Change movement hypocrites??? Yes, I can provide evidence upon evidence if so desired.

Again, so what?

You're arguing against people, not against the science.

Why is the "debate over"? This is a typical tactic to suppress dissent and it flies in the face of true science

So is debate not over in evolution, too? Relativity? Germ theory?

Climate change debate still exists in the climatological community, but they're the same as in those three fields and many other: how much effect known mechanisms have and subtle effects by unknowns. The main mechanism and how much effect they have are known with as much certainty as is possible in science.

There's no suppression of dissent in climate science. Credentialed skeptics still exist and still publish work (using the same funds as works that support the consensus, btw) in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. It's just been a matter that none of those published works have ever passed post-published scrutiny and/or studies that attempt replication of results.

Is it a conspiracy? Call it what you want but the desired effect is to bring the Western world down to comparable 3rd world levels.

You're going to need a lot more evidence than "people are hypocrites" to support that claim.

Basically it's meant to destroy what Western societies created for the first time in the world's history, the opportunity for anyone to work hard and obtain wealth. Read up on Agenda 21 and understand unless your family are part of the elite, you are in fact in the crosshairs of the very people you love and support.

Here's the wikipedia article on Agenda 21:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

So, what are you going on about? Care to cite specific examples? Unless you take Glenn Beck seriously...

Anyway, I'm not going to open your mind to change, climate change is a new religion for some.

You don't need to "open my mind". I don't accept people's words or statements without critical examination. If you provide the proper amount of evidence, I will absolutely change my mind, but anything less than that and only someone with a mind that's too open will accept it.

What caused the ICE AGE? If not man, then you accept that the Earth has always had EXTREME CLIMATE CHANGE and it always will, no matter how many Prius's are driven.

We are in an ice age. We are currently in an inter-glacial. The causes for glacial/inter-glacial changes are the Milankovitch Cycles. Those occur over tens of thousands of years. Climate change over 200 years cannot be blamed on that cause.

I mean, you might as well just say that forest fires happened before humans because of lightning strikes, therefore all forest fires now are caused by lightning strikes as well. Your argument is no different.

 

[chicagoskycam]

I can't believe people think this way in the face of so many obvious facts.

 

[SenorDingDong]

It's rather alarming that we have people like that.

If you look up and understand the Carbon cycle of the planet, it becomes very easy to see why taking carbon that has been out of the carbon cycle for millions of years and then re-introducing is a bad idea.

Do you think this graph can just keep rising to infinity and it will have zero effect?

Beside's why would you be opposed to moving away from fossil fuels?

Even if you didn't believe in Climate change, the pollution and smog caused by burning oil, gas, coal etc are very real and very measurable in many cities.

We are a time where technology has evolved to move us past fossil fuels.

Opposing it is like those people who rioted over the printing press machine coming out.

You will be on the wrong side of history.

 

[kurt]

The fact that you quote a number that has proven to be 100% false speaks volumes. People need to wake up and fast. The agenda is to strip wealth from the working middle class and change your lifestyle.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle


It's all BS, but believe what you want to believe. All I know is that the earth has always had radical climate change, it's only now when there is money to stolen and obtained is it blamed on human activity.

LOL IRL

what on earth would be the financial motivation of urging the world to curb pollution? if anything, the financial motive is to influence people like yourself to be suspicious of findings of the most infallible method of producing knowledge and understanding ever (science), in order to extend profits off industries that allow those in power to remain in power and retain influence over the public.

 

[kurt]

I mean, you might as well just say that forest fires happened before humans because of lightning strikes, therefore all forest fires now are caused by lightning strikes as well. Your argument is no different.

This analogy is brilliant.

 

[chicagoskycam]

It's rather alarming that we have people like that.

If you look up and understand the Carbon cycle of the planet, it becomes very easy to see why taking carbon that has been out of the carbon cycle for millions of years and then re-introducing is a bad idea.

Do you think this graph can just keep rising to infinity and it will have zero effect?

Beside's why would you be opposed to moving away from fossil fuels?

Even if you didn't believe in Climate change, the pollution and smog caused by burning oil, gas, coal etc are very real and very measurable in many cities.

We are a time where technology has evolved to move us past fossil fuels.

Opposing it is like those people who rioted over the printing press machine coming out.

You will be on the wrong side of history.

Not to mention there is a finite amount of oil. Alternatives make sure other countries don't dictate the terms and impact on our economy.