I think I'm a "sea-level-rise" skeptic!

[evnow]

In the past when the temperature was higher and there was less ice held up in the glaciers, was the sea higher ? Yes.

In the past when the temperature was lower and there was more ice held up in the glaciers, was the sea lower ? Yes.

BTW, raising sea level by 2 or 3 inches in not the problem. The problem is with increased storms because of higher ocean temperature.

 

[Weatherman]

Good idea, jsongster. Actually if you believe in it so strongly you could place a bet too... if you can find a REIT with large holdings in coastal areas, short it and you can really clean up.

If you live long enough.

I remember issuing coastal flood warnings for A1A in Ft. Lauderdale during high tide events when I worked for the NWS when I first moved down here 20 years ago. Not much has changed much since then.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Flooded streets (really just big puddles) are nothing new in Florida. In some places that have drainage issues the water can stand for days after a heavy rain, but mostly they go away within a few hours.

Florida may indeed be an Atlantis in the making, but you'll have a hard time convincing anyone familiar with the area that Armageddon is upon us with video of cars plowing through six inches of water.

 

[Weatherman]

My house is 7' above sea level (I live 15 miles inland from the ocean) with a lake out back that is connected to the canal system, and, ultimately, to the ocean. The highest the water level ever got during the past 20 years was during Tropical Storm Irene in October 1999, when it rained 16" in about eight hours. Water level got up to about 2' below my back porch. Most of the time it's about 6' below the back porch.

Sea level may be rising, but it's happening so slowly that it's just about unnoticeable. If people are too stupid to adapt to such a slow change in their environment, they deserve everything they get.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Well, to be fair, at issue is the perceived injustice between those causing the slow change and those who will be its ultimate victims.

 

[Weatherman]

You're only a victim if you can't adapt or choose not to adapt.

History suggests people are pretty adaptable when given the proper stimulus, especially when the adaptation takes place over many generations.

 

[mbender]

OMG, what have I started? (as if I started it, LOL)

Well, I might as well add fuel to the fire (or water to the flood?) then, and ask if anyone has seen (or what they think of) this, the "NCA Rebuttal"? Admittedly, it is a little off-topic, in that it opposes much more than just sea-level rise.

It is signed by some (apparently) well-credentialed scientists. Or are they all well known "deniers"? I sort of have no dog in this fight, but like to learn and find the "dynamics of the discourse" fascinating. I'm sure anthropologists will "have a field day" some day, even if they are from Mars*.

* hat-tip to Dr. Sacks.

 

[jsongster]

Well... I couldn't because, as a secular humanist, I believe in decent, ethical behavior... recently seen too many friends screwed out of their homes by Greenspan and Leavitt's 'mortgages in a blender' scheme. Seen enough folks die or go broke or both from a lack of healthcare in the richest country in the world. As for this issue... just wanna see karma come around for those most deserving. Gonna hit enough innocents as it is.

 

[LTLFTcomposite]

Well you should take comfort from knowing who will get hit first:

http://gossipextra.com/2012/03/13/rush-limbaugh-palm-beach-house-1272/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Although somebody's gonna shed a few tears when that half mill a year spigot shuts off.

 

[Nubo]

Well, I do not actually agree that they are yet proved harmful.

Bear in mind that biota has evolved on this planet when it was at 97% carbon dioxide, and that it was the biota thus evolving that brought the CO2 levels down.

... and what do biota grow on? ... CO2 ....

In other words, the plant-life we rely on to stabilise the climate of the planet feed off and metabolise CO2. It may therefore be logically argued that the more CO2 there is, the more they will metabolise and stabilise the climate..

One twist is that we've been systematically causing deforestation and poisoning the oceans. Good luck, biota!

Though I do sometimes wonder if the increased CO2 might be offsetting some of the damage as far as our photosynthetic biomass is concerned. But then I worry about being aligned with the "CO2 is Great for Plants"! shouters.

In the end we're really worried about keeping the planet habitable for humans and amenable to human civilization. No doubt, something will be alive, for a very long time. I'm kinda' hoping it's us.

 

[SteveInSeattle]

The planet already has 7.1 billion people, that is going to rise to 10 billion. While it does, if sea levels rise, very populated areas will become uninhabitable (e.g. Bangladesh). As climate changes, droughts and crop changes will make growing sufficient food difficult. As we reduce forest land, there is less biome to absorb CO2. Even without ANY climate change supporting 10 billion people is a huge challenge. The very transparent reality is that the only people arguing against this science are funded by corporations with huge vested interests in coal and petroleum and other carbon intensive industries.

 

[mbender]

Even without ANY climate change supporting 10 billion people is a huge challenge.

At the risk of going off on a tangent to this thread, I actually think 10 billion people is easily within the earth's "carrying capacity". It might require a change in agricultural practices, what we eat, and how we distribute food, but I think it's easier than many think.

 

[WetEV]

Bear in mind that biota has evolved on this planet when it was at 97% carbon dioxide, and that it was the biota thus evolving that brought the CO2 levels down.

... and what do biota grow on? ... CO2 ....

In other words, the plant-life we rely on to stabilise the climate of the planet feed off and metabolise CO2. It may therefore be logically argued that the more CO2 there is, the more they will metabolise and stabilise the climate.

Mammals evolved at a time when the CO2 level was 2000ppm, and the temperature has dropped ever since. Stick 2000ppm into a climate researcher's computer model and it says the earth will burn up into a cinder. Clearly that doesn't happen. There is, evidently, an interaction with the planet's flora and fauna that means variations of CO2 alter the growth patterns, and thus effects on climate, of the biota.

Know what the "Main Sequence of Stars" means for climate and CO2 levels over geologic time?

I guess not. The Sun is a ball of hydrogen, helium and a bit of assorted other stuff. It is in equilibrium between gravitation and thermal expansion. The heat comes from fusing hydrogen into helium. As the hydrogen is gradually consumed, to maintain the equilibrium, the pressure increases as does the rate of fusing. the production of heat gradually increases.

The Sun was cooler in the distant past. Plug that fact and higher CO2 levels into a "climate researcher's computer model" and you end up with a fairly good estimate of past temperatures, which can and have been compared with other estimates.

Oh, and not just our little star, every star in the universe.

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/kasting93a.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Biota didn't bring down the level of CO2, rock weathering did. The key reaction is:

Silicate rocks + CO2 => carbonates + SiO2

This reaction is what stabilizes the climate, long term, and would do so (with some differences) even if there was no life on Earth.

 

[donald]

Biota didn't bring down the level of CO2, rock weathering did. The key reaction is:

Silicate rocks + CO2 => carbonates + SiO2

Where did THAT come from!!! :shock:

I thought I'd run out of seeing all the goofy ideas that natural-climate-change deniers could come up with!

Where do you think the atmospheric O2 comes from!?!?

On the basis of that little cherry, I don't think I'll engage you on the merits of considering solar variation as a forcing factor.

 

[AndyH]

Even without ANY climate change supporting 10 billion people is a huge challenge.

At the risk of going off on a tangent to this thread, I actually think 10 billion people is easily within the earth's "carrying capacity". It might require a change in agricultural practices, what we eat, and how we distribute food, but I think it's easier than many think.

Carrying capacity factors include much, much more than just food - though that's certainly an significant factor.

Our agriculture system is currently 'efficient' in terms of 'production per man hour', but it's horribly inefficient from a 'production per acre' and a 'production per gallon of oil' perspective. The good news is that a transition is happening, though it's very small and still considered fringe (if considered at all) by bodies such as universities and the USDA. Various agroforestry and Permaculture practices (both growing perennial food with nature and trees) are 6-8 times more productive per acre without pesticides, herbicides, or chemical fertilizer. Because they're very water efficient, irrigation is significantly reduced or eliminated.

But recall that we're past peak oil, peak metals, peak fertilizer, and many other inputs - and the number one 'item' produced in the USA is garbage.

http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=8674

The "Crash Course" is a critical first step:
http://www.peakprosperity.com/crashcourse
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7E8A774DA8435EEB

As is the 'how many Earth's' calculator:
http://www.myfootprint.org/
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=149476

edit...sorry, forgot one of the most important prereqs - Dr. Al Bartlett's talk on exponential growth:
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=149476#p149476
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=SP6A1FD147A45EF50D

 

[AndyH]

Biota didn't bring down the level of CO2, rock weathering did. The key reaction is:

Silicate rocks + CO2 => carbonates + SiO2

Where did THAT come from!!! :shock:

It comes from one of the natural processes of this planet.
http://www.ic.ucsc.edu/~wxcheng/envs23/lecture11/weathering_co2.htm

Science and observation > propaganda.

You should listen to Wet on this topic...

 

[WetEV]

Biota didn't bring down the level of CO2, rock weathering did. The key reaction is:

Silicate rocks + CO2 => carbonates + SiO2

Where did THAT come from!!!

There is about the equivalent 90 bars of carbon dioxide locked up in the crust, and less than 10% is fossil carbon. The rest is locked up in carbonate rocks.

This is basic earth science, and not the slightest bit controversial. Get Ye To a Textbook.

 

[donald]

I'm not saying that there is no absorption of CO2 by physical mechanisms. I'm pointing to the fact that at the very least 20% of the planetary CO2 has been absorbed by biological mechanisms (because there is an equal molar consumption of CO2 by photosynthesis to that emitted as gaseous O2), and reality is that it is much higher than that because O2 is too reactive to stay hanging around in the atmosphere for very long.

..and it is the biological mechanisms that are the cycles that maintain O2 levels in the atmosphere and that will respond to variations in CO2 levels to buffer them on the short-mid term cycles. The long-cycles of CO2 by geological mechanisms will have effectively no response to the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2.

(It did make me giggle that the link provided to counter my discussion of biological mechanisms states, in the first sentence, "The net effect of silicate mineral weathering is to convert soil carbon CO2 , derived ultimately from photosynthesis, into dissolved HCO3-.")

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I know it's a "right wing" website and I may take issue with a lot of other pieces in it, but someone just sent me a link to this,

Worried About Floods Due to Rising Sea Level? Forget It: Not Happening

and the mathematics seems pretty unassailable to me.

Is there something wrong, missing, or "more to the story"?

Something always seemed off/alarmist about the height of sea-level rise predictions/threat (the earth is a pretty big place), but I never took the (small) effort to "do the math". Now I'm a bit embarrassed that I didn't, and thus don't feel fully justified in criticizing others, especially reporters, for not doing the same. (Or having it done for them.)

I still believe there is great value in not polluting and heating up the atmosphere (and even preserving glaciers, etc.), but preventing sea-level rise is likely no longer one of them!

let me tell you about a guy I know and the story he related to me. He was born in 1967and raised in Forks WA. As a kid he fondly remembered playing on the beach near his Grandfather's home. Today storms, erosion and higher water has completely destroyed that beach. During this time, the water has believed to have risen SIX inches.

How could such a small thing as something SIX inches more, destroy so much? Many people are under the mistaken conclusion that the water has to rise several feet before any real damage happens... Believing that is a HUGE mistake

 

[Weatherman]

let me tell you about a guy I know and the story he related to me. He was born in 1967and raised in Forks WA. As a kid he fondly remembered playing on the beach near his Grandfather's home. Today storms, erosion and higher water has completely destroyed that beach. During this time, the water has believed to have risen SIX inches.

How could such a small thing as something SIX inches more, destroy so much? Many people are under the mistaken conclusion that the water has to rise several feet before any real damage happens... Believing that is a HUGE mistake

Likely caused by many other things besides an increase in average sea level.

The difference between high and low tide (only six hours apart) at La Push can be as much as 12 ft.