US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Gingersnap

See attachment of Sydney Harbour.

Even Downunder the sea levels will rise.

See attachment below:

Other references:

Interactive map highlights sea level risk sites in Australia:
https://coastalrisk.com.au/home


https://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/...climate-change

Climate change impacts
The consequences of climate change are being felt in Australia already.

These include:

the average surface air temperature in Australia has increased by 1.4°C since 1910, leading to more very hot days and fewer very cold days
bushfire season has lengthened and the type of extreme weather that commonly creates conditions for bushfires has increased
the sea level has risen at a rate of 3.2mm a year for the past 20 years.



What sea-level rise means for Australia
https://www.science.org.au/curious/e...eans-australia

Around 85 per cent of Australia’s population lives close to the coast. Although we generally haven’t built right up to the shoreline, there is a lot of development along estuaries and coastal plains slightly inland from the beach. Many of these coastal plains are lower than the current high tide level, making them vulnerable to extensive flooding with an increase in sea level. During the 20th century, average global sea level rose around 15 centimetres (150 millimetres). The average rate of sea-level rise was around 1.5 millimetres per year during the 20th century, but this rate increased to around 3 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2016.

Around 86 per cent of Australia’s population lives on or near the coast.
As for the future, under a scenario of low future greenhouse gas emissions, average global sea level is expected to rise by 28–61 centimetres by 2100. This low emission scenario requires a significant and urgent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. For a business-as-usual, high emissions scenario, the most confident prediction is for a rise of 52–98 centimetres, although it could possibly be higher than a metre (100 centimetres) if there is significant instability of the Antarctic ice sheet.

A general rule of thumb used by engineers and planners is that for each centimetre (10 millimetres) of vertical sea level rise we may see sandy beaches retreat by up to one metre. Although this rule varies from place to place, it has some fairly dramatic implications if we do see the full 98 centimetres of sea level rise—the upper end of the IPCC projected scenarios—by 2100.

Floods already cause significant damage in Australia. An increase in the frequency of coastal flooding events, as a result of a higher background sea level, has the potential to cause even more extensive damage.

[nonav]

Originally Posted by Bobby Lex

So, trying to make lemonade out of lemons, maybe I'll be running aground a little less frequently!

Bob

[Motorsailer4me]

I have lived on the same beach on Long Island for 65 years. The beach has not changed one bit since my earliest memories. If the water level is rising and after 65 years I can't tell then I guess I will be ok for the rest of the time I have left. Back in the 1970's I had a professor at Cornell warn global warming would soon drown us all. Later that same day another professor said we are entering a new ice age.....shrug.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Motorsailer4me

I have lived on the same beach on Long Island for 65 years. The beach has not changed one bit since my earliest memories. If the water level is rising and after 65 years I can't tell then I guess I will be ok for the rest of the time I have left. Back in the 1970's I had a professor at Cornell warn global warming would soon drown us all. Later that same day another professor said we are entering a new ice age.....shrug.

Your vicinity has sea level rise equal to the global mean.



In the 1970's science was 6:1 warming:cooling.



https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/jo...bams2370_1.xml

[N Coast Murray]

Originally Posted by lestersails

Whee! Back on the climate change denial ride! There must be at least a dozen or so regulars on CF that continue to spout their crackpot theories every time this is raised. Yawn. One thing about the internet and fora like CF - these people would be hopeless bores at parties and no one would talk to them. At least here they can feel empowered to drone on about their right wing media feeds, their very own "I researched it on the internet" conclusions, and repair their sad inadequacies because they understand as much about AGC as they do about quantum mechanics. Which is exactly zero.
It is interesting in other threads uninformed posters get slapped down pretty quickly. When a knucklehead gives uninformed advice about diesel repair or contract law: Kerpow!
And they (thankfully) crawl back under their rock. In this topic - no such luck.

I blame the Internet for this.

Back in the day (before the Internet) pretty much everyone knew someone who swam in the conspiracy theory deep end. They were loners. Today they have a community of the like-minded. They can share their fears. They can organize. They can fund raise. They can be politicians. They can have influence.

So, along with the Anthropocene, we have a global coalition of whackos who have never, ever, been so connected and who are dragging societies down from the margins.

Interesting times...

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Bull do do CO2 levels reached 180 ppm at least 6 time sover the 800,000 years and plants survived.

Don't blame me, trust the science.

https://blog.friendsofscience.org/2021/06/07/the-great-extinction-why/

https://notrickszone.com/2018/05/28/2-new-papers-permian-mass-extinction-coincided-with-global-cooling-falling-sea-levels-and-low-co2/

https://www.climatedepot.com/2018/05/30/3-new-papers-permian-mass-extinction-coincided-with-global-cooling-falling-sea-levels-and-low-co2/

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

...(1) In the recent past [CO2] levels have been as high as 5,000 parts per million.
(2) Humans can't live over 30,000 parts per million...

The last time there was this much [>400 ppm] carbon dioxide, in the Earth's atmosphere, modern humans didn't exist, megatoothed sharks prowled the oceans, the world's seas were up to 100 feet higher than they are today, and the global average surface temperature was up to 11°F warmer than it is now.
Studies show a wide date range*, from between 800,000 to 15 million years ago, but scientists have found that, at no point during, at least, the past 800,000 years, have atmospheric CO2 levels been as high as they are now. [never mind 5,000 ppm]
That means that in the entire history of human civilization [± 12,000 years], CO2 levels have never been this high.

During the Ordovician period, 500 million years ago, atmospheric CO2 concentration may have been at about 3,000 to 9,000 ppm.


CO2 data from ice cores covering the last 800,000 years.
If fossil-fuel burning continues at a business-as-usual rate, CO2 will continue to rise to levels of order of 1500 ppm. The atmosphere would then not return to pre-industrial levels, even tens of thousands of years into the future.
* From ➥ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


[2] According to the [OSHA/USFDA] Carbon Dioxide Health Hazard Information Sheet, 8 hour exposures to CO2:
30,000 ppm (3.0%) causes Moderate respiratory stimulation, increased heart rate and blood pressure, ACGIH TLV-Short Term
80,000 ppm (8.0%) causesDimmed sight, sweating, tremor, unconsciousness, and possible death
➥https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/defa...on-Dioxide.pdf

[Rasselas36]

What say Dr. Fauci? He proclaims to be Mr. Science.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

Don't blame me, trust the science.

https://blog.friendsofscience.org/20...xtinction-why/

https://notrickszone.com/2018/05/28/...s-and-low-co2/

https://www.climatedepot.com/2018/05...s-and-low-co2/

None of those are science sites. Run them through
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

The principle contributor to NTZ is a children's entertainer and puppeteer.

[hedgeworth]

Originally Posted by N Coast Murray

I blame the Internet for this.



Back in the day (before the Internet) pretty much everyone knew someone who swam in the conspiracy theory deep end. They were loners. Today they have a community of the like-minded. They can share their fears. They can organize. They can fund raise. They can be politicians. They can have influence.



So, along with the Anthropocene, we have a global coalition of whackos who have never, ever, been so connected and who are dragging societies down from the margins.



Interesting times...

[emoji106]

[Dieseldude]

These sea level predictions are based upon computer modelling that has always been flawed. According to Al Gore who is not a scientist, our coasts should have been inundated by now. Such propaganda is spun by media at its time, and forgotten years later when proven false. Built in bias to the computer program can be the blame, as well as unknown factors ignored, and poor assumptions, as complex computer modelling relies on human assumptions that are entered into algorithms and data. It seems that the climate change industrial complex has been ignoring natural cycles of solar variation and raising unfounded fear. Climate has varied for millennia before petroleum and coal were burned on a large scale. The last ice age of North America retreated without man made smoke. The main cause of climate variation is solar activity variation. When the earth warms by natural solar variation, dissolved CO2 in the sea is liberated to the atmosphere. Eventually the solar cycle causes cooling, and the CO2 dissolves back into the sea. Global warming causes increased atmospheric CO2. Increased atmospheric CO2 does not cause significant warming. Ice core studies have proven this.


I can predict that I will get lots of the usual hate response from dedicated anthropomorphic climate change dupes. They think that they are right because as a large group, they democratize science. But before spouting the usual trite "denier", "flat earther", etc. bull, they should examine some real science instead of propaganda disguised as science. Anything published by the UN IPCC is politically motivated, not science motivated. They have relied heavily on the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit which was proven fraudulent in 2009 when emails were leaked. The infamous "hockey stick curve" fabricated by Dr. Michael Man was proven a fraud by Dr. Tim Ball in 2019 in British Columbia's Supreme Court. Of course big news media has ignored the court ruling which exonerated Dr. Ball of Dr. Mann's libel suit. The IPPC has relied heavily on Dr. Mann's fraudulent study.


A couple of good sources:

Prof. Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: Antarctic ice core data indicates that CO2 concentration increase lags temperature increase by about 800 years.
Prof. Carl Wunsch, Dept. of Oceanography, MII: Ocean surface heating releases CO2 and cooling ocean surface absorbs CO2. Ocean temperatures lag atmospheric temperatures due to their vastness and thermal mass.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Prof. Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: Antarctic ice core data indicates that CO2 concentration increase lags temperature increase by about 800 years.

That was prior to anthropogenic release of sequestered CO which now precede temperature increases.

[Nicholson58]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

The last time they produced a predication report in 2017, it turned out to be grossly exaggerated. Each and every prediction, including this one, is based on a set of assumptions. None of which are verifiable in advance. But that won’t stop the paranoia.

Rate of sea level rise has been nearly constant as long as it has been measured by humans. They occasionally look at sea level in places such as the Chesapeake where there is subsidence and ignore the facts.

Lest we forget that 12,0 years ago there was 5000 feet of ice over much of the now dry land and sea level was 400 feet lower. This is a geologic heartbeat. Additionally, the weight of the ice sheet depressed the land under the ice and caused the uncovered land to bow up. The land masses are still recovering with depressed areas springing back and elevated land is subsiding. This makes for a lot of agenda based bad data. Even the satellite measurements are prone to error as it turns out. The claimed measured sea level increase is less than the resolution possible by the satellite.

Whatever happens is outside human’s ability to change so buck up and live with it.

[hedgeworth]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

The difference is the oil industry provides me with gallons of a magic liquid that gets me to work everyday by turning a key, and pushing a pedal.



So far global warmers have only given me more taxes.

I think they’re honestly trying to give humanity a better future. They’re trying to give a livable planet to your children and their children.

That liquid isn’t magic. We’re paying a price for it.

[Dieseldude]

Originally Posted by Nicholson58

Rate of sea level rise has been nearly constant as long as it has been measured by humans. They occasionally look at sea level in places such as the Chesapeake where there is subsidence and ignore the facts.

Lest we forget that 12,0 years ago there was 5000 feet of ice over much of the now dry land and sea level was 400 feet lower. This is a geologic heartbeat. Additionally, the weight of the ice sheet depressed the land under the ice and caused the uncovered land to bow up. The land masses are still recovering with depressed areas springing back and elevated land is subsiding. This makes for a lot of agenda based bad data. Even the satellite measurements are prone to error as it turns out. The claimed measured sea level increase is less than the resolution possible by the satellite.

Whatever happens is outside human’s ability to change so buck up and live with it.

Good points about ice mass and geologic considerations. These seem to get little to no attention in the climate discussion. Limits of resolution of measurements are often forgotten. Then "average global temperature" is a tough one to discern. Temperature measurements are highly subjective. Exactly what places to measure, and how frequently is subjective, so error prone. Even the average temperature of a small local area is difficult. Do you measure the ground surface, subsurface, atmosphere at various altitudes? If so how is a huge array of temperature sensors possible or practical?



Even if it were possible for human intervention to change climate trends, the results could take centuries due to "thermal inertia". The sea takes a very long time to change its temperature, just as a tea kettle will not boil instantly, nor will it cool back to room temperature in a blink.