No, he's right. Some people are motivated to reject the science. You can bring that horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. http://ngm.nationalgeographic....
Largely what you are seeing is houses becoming uninsurable. State governments are swooping in with your money to rebuild and cover these folks. I doubt you will see many people abandon their homes as long as you are willing to rebuild for them. We've basically borked the market with socialism - and it's red states like Florida that are the worst offenders.
But since you asked, this article mentions hectares of farmland lost to rising sea levels in some county or other and also talks about abandoned houses and impacted infrastructure. How many times can they rebuild that darned parking lot before they realize that it's probably not a prime location for cars at this point?
Bingo. "Sea level rise is like a set of stairs. The 12-inch increase in New York Harbor over the last century means we’ve already gone up one step. When a coastal storm occurs, the surge caused by the storm’s winds already has a step up, literally. For Sandy, that meant greater coastal flooding in New York and the surrounding region than we would have experienced a century ago. Continuing to climb the staircase of sea level rise means we’ll see greater extent and greater frequency of coastal flooding from storms, even if storms don’t get any stronger." - https://www.climate.gov/news-f...
I had thought that land subsidence was largely responsible for regional differences, although it looks like you are right that other factors may be involved:: Interannual variability in northeast Atlantic sea level records exhibits a clear relationship to the air pressure and wind changes associated with the north atlantic oscillation, with the magnitude and sign of the response depending primarily upon latitude (Andersson, 2002; Wakelin et al., 2003; Woolf et al., 2003) - https://www.ipcc.ch/publicatio...
And you wrote that with the unwritten assumption that this is caused by man.
It was unwritten by me but you could find it written in the scientific literature. See for instance Tett et al. 2000, Meehl et al. 2004, Stone et al. 2007, Lean and Rind 2008, Huber and Knutti 2011, Gillett et al. 2012, and Jones et al. 2013.
In case you think I am only showing articles that support my position you could look to the worlds leading scientific organizations such as the AGU: ("Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years." ) or the Royal Society ("There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity") - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Or you could look to studies on the scientific consensus which find that about 95+% of scientists who have studied this issue agree that humans are largely responsible for warming over the last 50 years (see for example J. Cook, et al 2013, W. R. L. Anderegg 2010, P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman 2009, or N. Oreskes 2004
At 8 cm per century, sea level rise will NEVER directly affect anyone living today that owns a beach-front home.
Seas rose about 14 centimeters (5.5 inches) from 1900 to 2000. The current rate is about 34 centimeters per century. It will be much higher by the end of the century. It's the second derivative that you need to be concerned about. Especially for places like Miami that are already flooding at high tide.
You will notice a large increase over the period. Satellites measure the troposphere though. That isn't really what sea level responds to. Take a look at ocean heat content over the period: https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/... .
It looks like it depends which path we follow and where we live.
It is found that the total global arable land area is likely to decrease by 0.8–1.7% under scenario A1B and increase by 2.0–4.4% under scenario B1. Regions characterized by relatively high latitudes such as Russia, China and the US may expect an increase of total arable land by 37–67%, 22–36% and 4–17%, respectively, while tropical and sub-tropical regions may suffer different levels of lost arable land. For example, South America may lose 1–21% of its arable land area, Africa 1–18%, Europe 11–17%, and India 2–4%. - http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...
The Earth is gaining the equivalent of about 4 nuclear bombs a second (or about 7,409,177,820,267,687 kitten sneezes a second if you prefer SI units (or about 2.5 × 10^14 joules per second if you prefer real SI units)). I'm not sure how that compares to electrical power generation capacity...
Not saying the seas aren't warming from other factors, but it seems counter-intuitive to assume that adding glacial / ice meltwater would be a factor for sea temperature increase.
They are not saying that one is the result of the other. Rather the oceans are warming for the same reason that the ice is melting. https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/...
The government is stepping in where insurers have bailed. This is socialism: "As the crisis mounts, hard hit states such as Florida and Louisiana are increasingly stepping up as insurance companies check out, providing coverage for residents dropped by their insurers." http://www.scientificamerican....
Ice melts when heated. Water expands when heated. It is not a coincidence that sea level rise is accelerating along with the rise in global mean surface temperature and the decline of the cryosphere. As the summary states, it is a logical physical consequence.
it’s not that seas rose faster before that – they probably didn’t – but merely that the ability to say as much with the same level of confidence declines. - https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Yeah. If you're a climate nerd it's exciting to see such a large excursion, but by itself it doesn't really tell you much. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
When we have a cold snap the global warming types say "it's just weather"
The last time we had a "coldest month in recorded history" was 1893.
so when we have a warm month here and there I believe I can rightfully say that "it's just weather".
Our global temperature is the sum of a secular warming trend and natural variability. Any new "hottest month" record is going to be the result of both together. Remove the secular warming trend and we would not have had a record. Remove natural variability and every month would be a record.
Part of the bias towards reporting heat records vs cold records is due to the fact that we haven't had any record cold months in over a century. The last time we had a record for the coldest month in recorded history was 1893 The last time we had a "warmest month in recorded history" was December. The prior record was October.
The Flat Earth Society is not a scientific organization.... they are not taking observations or performing any experiments that could be used to prove their own society wrong or revise their beliefs to make them more accurate. If they do prove themselves wrong, they are not prepared to listen to the result. Their organization should have dissolved itself by now if they were scientific
If you expect between 1-8 feet of sea level rise then you need to plan for 8 feet of sea level rise. If you expect 2-6 feet of sea level rise then you need to plan for 6 feet of sea level rise. Planning for 6 feet is cheaper than planning for 8 feet.
Slashdot Mirror
"As the seas rise, a slow-motion disaster gnaws at America’s shores." Land subsidence doesn't actually mitigate sea level rise. It compounds it.
No, he's right. Some people are motivated to reject the science. You can bring that horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. http://ngm.nationalgeographic....
Largely what you are seeing is houses becoming uninsurable. State governments are swooping in with your money to rebuild and cover these folks. I doubt you will see many people abandon their homes as long as you are willing to rebuild for them. We've basically borked the market with socialism - and it's red states like Florida that are the worst offenders.
But since you asked, this article mentions hectares of farmland lost to rising sea levels in some county or other and also talks about abandoned houses and impacted infrastructure. How many times can they rebuild that darned parking lot before they realize that it's probably not a prime location for cars at this point?
Bingo. "Sea level rise is like a set of stairs. The 12-inch increase in New York Harbor over the last century means we’ve already gone up one step. When a coastal storm occurs, the surge caused by the storm’s winds already has a step up, literally. For Sandy, that meant greater coastal flooding in New York and the surrounding region than we would have experienced a century ago. Continuing to climb the staircase of sea level rise means we’ll see greater extent and greater frequency of coastal flooding from storms, even if storms don’t get any stronger." - https://www.climate.gov/news-f...
I had thought that land subsidence was largely responsible for regional differences, although it looks like you are right that other factors may be involved:: Interannual variability in northeast Atlantic sea level records exhibits a clear relationship to the air pressure and wind changes associated with the north atlantic oscillation, with the magnitude and sign of the response depending primarily upon latitude (Andersson, 2002; Wakelin et al., 2003; Woolf et al., 2003) - https://www.ipcc.ch/publicatio...
And you wrote that with the unwritten assumption that this is caused by man.
It was unwritten by me but you could find it written in the scientific literature. See for instance Tett et al. 2000, Meehl et al. 2004, Stone et al. 2007, Lean and Rind 2008, Huber and Knutti 2011, Gillett et al. 2012, and Jones et al. 2013.
In case you think I am only showing articles that support my position you could look to the worlds leading scientific organizations such as the AGU: ("Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years." ) or the Royal Society ("There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity") - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Or you could look to studies on the scientific consensus which find that about 95+% of scientists who have studied this issue agree that humans are largely responsible for warming over the last 50 years (see for example J. Cook, et al 2013, W. R. L. Anderegg 2010, P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman 2009, or N. Oreskes 2004
At 8 cm per century, sea level rise will NEVER directly affect anyone living today that owns a beach-front home.
Seas rose about 14 centimeters (5.5 inches) from 1900 to 2000. The current rate is about 34 centimeters per century. It will be much higher by the end of the century. It's the second derivative that you need to be concerned about. Especially for places like Miami that are already flooding at high tide.
You will notice a large increase over the period. Satellites measure the troposphere though. That isn't really what sea level responds to. Take a look at ocean heat content over the period: https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/... .
It is found that the total global arable land area is likely to decrease by 0.8–1.7% under scenario A1B and increase by 2.0–4.4% under scenario B1. Regions characterized by relatively high latitudes such as Russia, China and the US may expect an increase of total arable land by 37–67%, 22–36% and 4–17%, respectively, while tropical and sub-tropical regions may suffer different levels of lost arable land. For example, South America may lose 1–21% of its arable land area, Africa 1–18%, Europe 11–17%, and India 2–4%. - http://iopscience.iop.org/arti...
The Earth is gaining the equivalent of about 4 nuclear bombs a second (or about 7,409,177,820,267,687 kitten sneezes a second if you prefer SI units (or about 2.5 × 10^14 joules per second if you prefer real SI units)). I'm not sure how that compares to electrical power generation capacity...
Not saying the seas aren't warming from other factors, but it seems counter-intuitive to assume that adding glacial / ice meltwater would be a factor for sea temperature increase.
They are not saying that one is the result of the other. Rather the oceans are warming for the same reason that the ice is melting. https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/...
The government is stepping in where insurers have bailed. This is socialism: "As the crisis mounts, hard hit states such as Florida and Louisiana are increasingly stepping up as insurance companies check out, providing coverage for residents dropped by their insurers." http://www.scientificamerican....
Ice melts when heated. Water expands when heated. It is not a coincidence that sea level rise is accelerating along with the rise in global mean surface temperature and the decline of the cryosphere. As the summary states, it is a logical physical consequence.
So it was rising faster 3000 years ago?
it’s not that seas rose faster before that – they probably didn’t – but merely that the ability to say as much with the same level of confidence declines. - https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Yeah. If you're a climate nerd it's exciting to see such a large excursion, but by itself it doesn't really tell you much. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/g...
I for one don't think we should attempt to control nature.
What about air conditioning and heating, or purifying water?
Or for that matter, burning fossil fuels...
When we have a cold snap the global warming types say "it's just weather"
The last time we had a "coldest month in recorded history" was 1893.
so when we have a warm month here and there I believe I can rightfully say that "it's just weather".
Our global temperature is the sum of a secular warming trend and natural variability. Any new "hottest month" record is going to be the result of both together. Remove the secular warming trend and we would not have had a record. Remove natural variability and every month would be a record.
And yeah, nukes sound great. Let's get building.
Part of the bias towards reporting heat records vs cold records is due to the fact that we haven't had any record cold months in over a century. The last time we had a record for the coldest month in recorded history was 1893 The last time we had a "warmest month in recorded history" was December. The prior record was October.
Was any of that meant to convince me that a conversation with you would be in the least bit fruitful? I am no more inclined to engage with your crazy.
The Flat Earth Society is not a scientific organization.... they are not taking observations or performing any experiments that could be used to prove their own society wrong or revise their beliefs to make them more accurate. If they do prove themselves wrong, they are not prepared to listen to the result. Their organization should have dissolved itself by now if they were scientific
Likewise climate "skeptics".
You're citing a truther page? As I said, not interested in discussing your crazy.
I hope that it's clear that I have no interest in carrying on a 'conversation' with a birther and truther. That way leads to madness.
Now I have some questions for YOU
Errrr. I never asked you any questions.
I don't think a lot of "adaptation" will be necessary.
You also think that Obama faked his birth certificate and that 911 was an inside job. I've learned not to put too much stock in what you think.
If you expect between 1-8 feet of sea level rise then you need to plan for 8 feet of sea level rise. If you expect 2-6 feet of sea level rise then you need to plan for 6 feet of sea level rise. Planning for 6 feet is cheaper than planning for 8 feet.