US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[Bycrick]

But if one gets rid of "politicians," with what does one replace them? Twitter polls? Pointy-headed "experts" and "academics?" You don’t like lawyers writing laws? Do we do it by a racially, economically representative group of people with a high-school education? If you think that only greedy, grasping egotists run for office, should we pick representatives by lot? Or is this argument just a matter of people not being able to get enough other voters to support their positions and so trying to change the rules to produce the results that they like?

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Nonsense. My “claims” consist solely of pointing out there is no data quantifying the contribution anthropogenic climate change impact has on the environment or overall climate.

Do you accept that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing? Do you accept it is due to man's activities? If the answer to either is no, then explain why the measurements are wrong or what the other source of all that CO2 is from.

If you do accept CO2 is increasing, you have to accept the global temperature is rising.. the physics says it will. There is considerable range of how much it will rise in the future, mostly based on the variability what mankind does from here. Does CO2 continue to continue to rise at the current rate or worse? Or do we decrease the CO2 in the future. There is further uncertainty about how much positive feedback the climate system has which will magnify the effect of CO2 (water vapor, lower albedo caused by melting ice, additional CO2 released due to rising temperature).

If you don't accept the physics that additional atmospheric CO2 will warm the planet, there are lots of resources to explain the basics which are actually not terribly complicated; that part of the story has been known for more than 100 years.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

You lost me in the first sentence. I would say receding glaciers CREATE more cold water flow as they recede.

All glaciers melt, but when they recede. i.e., where they are melting, their coldness resource recedes further up the mountain valleys and the water has further to travel and warm, hence downstream there is warming of both the water resource and the air.

The further water flows downhill the more it warms.

As one approaches one of the glaciers one feels the coldness of the air falling down the valley, proximity to the ice is very noticeable. Once one hikes a mile or two away, the coolness is modest.

Not unlike the snowfield effects.

One has to think through the consequence, it is multivariate.

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by Ryban

The West is experiencing the worst drought in 1200 years.

Gotta love statements like the above. Designed to get attention without a shred of science.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Nonsense. My “claims” consist solely of pointing out there is no data quantifying the contribution anthropogenic climate change impact has on the environment or overall climate.

It’s ironic that you suggest I post data when you have nothing in answer to my simple question. I guess that’s why you resort to childish ad hominem tantrums. That’s what invariably happens when debating climate change with liberal arts majors.

Wrong three times. And thanks yourself for the childish (and wrong) ad hominem.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Science has zero direct impact on politics. Congress doesn’t vote on scientific papers. No matter how many scientific papers you stack up, things will only change when you convince voters. So far, most voters won’t vote to increase their cost of living. So the zealots want to hide the costs (tax the rich, tax the big corporations, tax somebody else). If they can’t get the votes, then rule by mandates. We all know how well that works.

Speaking of tantrums...


Doncha love how folks retreat to the "convince the voters" argument (or some other inscrutible nonsense) when their rickety or non-existent "scientific" platform is wobbling too much?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by donradcliffe

Gotta love statements like the above. Designed to get attention without a shred of science.

Your science is served, sir

A previous reconstruction back to 800 CE indicated that the 2000–2018 soil moisture deficit in southwestern North America was exceeded during one megadrought in the late-1500s. Here, we show that after exceptional drought severity in 2021, ~19% of which is attributable to anthropo-genic climate trends, 2000–2021 was the driest 22-yr period since at least 800. This drought will very likely persist through 2022, matching the duration of the late-1500s megadrought.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01290-z.epdf

[Ericson38]

Originally Posted by newhaul

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28564-6

sea level rise in its current rate started before the industrial revolution.
So is it us? Me thinks not.

Now the tide data from NOA makes better sense. There is no increase in the slope for San Diego for instance, from 1906 to 2020 (114 years).

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...tml?id=9410170

That's because the SLR actually started in the 1860-1880 timeframe (90% probability).

Here, we use a global database of proxy sea-level records of the Common Era (0–2000 CE) and show that globally, it is very likely that rates of sea-level rise emerged above pre-industrial rates by 1863 CE (P = 0.9; range of 1825 [P = 0.66] to 1873 CE [P = 0.95]), which is similar in timing to evidence for early ocean warming and glacier melt.

This report is about 1 week old.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

Now the tide data from NOA makes better sense. There is no increase in the slope for San Diego for instance, from 1906 to 2020 (114 years).

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sl...tml?id=9410170

That's because the SLR actually started in the 1860-1880 timeframe (90% probability).

That is because linear trends are straight lines. The quadratic trend shows an acceleration.

The quadratic trend, shown in darker orange, indicates that sea level is not only rising at this tidal station, but that the rate of sea-level rise is accelerating with time. In other words, the rate of sea-level rise is best represented by a quadratic curve rather than a straight line. Comparing the quadratic and linear projections shows an exponential rise in sea level will result in a significantly higher sea level in future years

https://www.vims.edu/research/produc...sdca/index.php

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28564-6
sea level rise in its current rate started before the industrial revolution.
So is it us? Me thinks not.

From the Nature article, you * propose as evidence:


“... Here, we use a global database of proxy sea-level records of the Common Era (0–2000 CE) and show that globally, it is very likely that rates of sea-level rise emerged above pre-industrial rates by 1863 CE (P = 0.9; range of 1825 [P = 0.66] to 1873 CE [P = 0.95]), which is similar in timing to evidence for early ocean warming and glacier melt ...
... The rate of global sea-level rise emerged above pre-industrial rates by 1863 CE (P = 0.9; range of 1825 [P = 0.66] to 1873 CE [P = 0.95]), when the global rate of rise was 0.4 ± 0.2 mm/yr from 1840 to 1900 CE (Fig. 1). Over the pre-industrial Common Era, the global component of reconstructed RSL exhibits fluctuating rates between −0.3 ± 0.2 and 0.2 ± 0.3 mm/yr from 0 to 1700 CE. Sixty-year average rates increase into the 20th century from −0.1 ± 0.2 mm/yr from 1700 to 1760 CE to 1.4 ± 0.2 mm/yr from 1940 to 2000 CE (Fig. 1). Consistent with prior analyses21 it is virtually certain (P > 0.999) that the global rate of rise from the most recent 60-year interval, 1940–2000 CE, was faster than all previous 60-year intervals during the Common Era ...
... Global sea-level rise is largely driven by thermal expansion of warming ocean water and increases in ocean mass due to the melting of land-based glaciers and ice sheets ...”

You should read your own evidence* [or, at least, the title].
The industrial revolution began in Britain in the 18th century [from 1760 to 1840] and from there spread to other parts of the world.
Sea-level rise emerged above pre-industrial rates by 1863, and the most recent 60-year interval, 1940–2000 CE, was faster than all previous 60-year intervals during the Common Era.
So, YES, it was/is us - and, you thinks wrong.

* “Timing of emergence of modern rates of sea-level rise by 1863" ~ by Jennifer S. Walker et al
➥ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28564-6

[Bycrick]

"Science has zero direct impact on politics. Congress doesn’t vote on scientific papers. No matter how many scientific papers you stack up, things will only change when you convince voters. So far, most voters won’t vote to increase their cost of living. So the zealots want to hide the costs (tax the rich, tax the big corporations, tax somebody else). If they can’t get the votes, then rule by mandates. We all know how well that works."

Apparently, any comment that you don’t like is a tantrum.

As to my "scientific" beliefs, or not, they have nothing to do with the discussion. Once upon a time, little one, I was taught that in a representative democracy, the government existed to serve the people. Hence, the way to get things that one didn’t like to change, was to go to the voters. That doesn’t seem so inscrutable to me. When the governed get tired of a particular group of zealous ideologues, they throw them out and replace them. Or they don’t elect them in the first place. That hardly seems difficult to understand.

The problem with the climate change zealots is that they can’t convince enough of the voters to implement their policies. So that means they need to find a way to ignore the voters. As LE just tried to do.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

The problem with the climate change zealots is that they can’t convince enough of the voters to implement their policies. So that means they need to find a way to ignore the voters. As LE just tried to do.

Really? If I am not mistaken Biden was a elected on platform that included action on climate change

Meanwhile

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

"Science has zero direct impact on politics. Congress doesn’t vote on scientific papers. No matter how many scientific papers you stack up, things will only change when you convince voters. So far, most voters won’t vote to increase their cost of living. So the zealots want to hide the costs (tax the rich, tax the big corporations, tax somebody else). If they can’t get the votes, then rule by mandates. We all know how well that works."

Apparently, any comment that you don’t like is a tantrum.

As to my "scientific" beliefs, or not, they have nothing to do with the discussion. Once upon a time, little one, I was taught that in a representative democracy, the government existed to serve the people. Hence, the way to get things that one didn’t like to change, was to go to the voters. That doesn’t seem so inscrutable to me. When the governed get tired of a particular group of zealous ideologues, they throw them out and replace them. Or they don’t elect them in the first place. That hardly seems difficult to understand.

The problem with the climate change zealots is that they can’t convince enough of the voters to implement their policies. So that means they need to find a way to ignore the voters. As LE just tried to do.

Another empty and off-point rant. There, is that better than 'tantrum'?

[Bycrick]

If you think Biden was elected because of his Green stance, I think you might be sorely disappointed. The chances of any environmental laws actually being passed are slim. Even less so after the November election, I expect. It’s easy to love softball programs like "plant a million trees." When you ask "How about gas at $7/gallon?" you get a different answer.

In the rest of the world, outside the climate change echo chambers, an attempt to raise the subway fares $0.10 produced weeks of riots in Chile. The same happened when Venezuela tried to raise their deeply subsidized fuel prices. Just because a bunch of overfed gringos might be willing raise their taxes to save the world, you shouldn’t try to extrapolate that too far.

And in the US, with the majority of the states controlled by the opposition, the chance of a Green New Deal gaining a majority an time soon are slim.

If all right-thinking people support your schemes, how come so little has actually been accomplished? If everybody is on "your side," how come so many environmentalist zealots deride the voters, as just happened in this thread? Why are you reduced to pointless arguments about how much CO2 can fit on the head of a pin while the world is dying?

[Montanan]

Sea-level rise in Venice, Italy: historic and future trends (review article)

https://nhess.copernicus.org/article...-2643-2021.pdf

Abstract. The city of Venice, Italy and the surrounding lagoonal
ecosystem are highly vulnerable to variations in relative sea
level. In the past ∼ 150 years, this was characterized by an
average rate of relative sea-level rise of about 2.5 mm/year
resulting from the combined contributions of vertical land
movement and sea-level rise. This literature review reassesses and synthesizes the progress achieved in quantification, understanding and prediction of the individual contributions to local relative sea level, with a focus on the most recent studies. Subsidence contributed to about half of the historical relative sea-level rise in Venice. The current best
estimate of the average rate of sea-level rise during the observational period from 1872 to 2019 based on tide-gauge data
after removal of subsidence effects is 1.23 ± 0.13 mm/year.

A higher – but more uncertain – rate of sea-level rise is observed for more recent years. Between 1993 and 2019, an average change of about +2.76 ± 1.75 mm/year is estimated from tide-gauge data after removal of subsidence. Unfortunately, satellite altimetry does not provide reliable sea-level data within the Venice Lagoon. Local sea-level changes in
Venice closely depend on sea-level variations in the Adriatic Sea, which in turn are linked to sea-level variations int he Mediterranean Sea. Water mass exchange through the Strait of Gibraltar and its drivers currently constitute a source of substantial uncertainty for estimating future deviations
of the Mediterranean mean sea-level trend from the globalmean value. Regional atmospheric and oceanic processes
will likely contribute significant interannual and interdecadal
future variability in Venetian sea level with a magnitude comparable to that observed in the past. On the basis of regional
projections of sea-level rise and an understanding of the local
and regional processes affecting relative sea-level trends in
Venice, the likely range of atmospherically corrected relative
sea-level rise in Venice by 2100 ranges between 32 and 62 cm
for the RCP2.6 scenario and between 58 and 110 cm for the
RCP8.5 scenario, respectively. A plausible but unlikely highend scenario linked to strong ice-sheet melting yields about
180 cm of relative sea-level rise in Venice by 2100. Projections of human-induced vertical land motions are currently not available, but historical evidence demonstrates that they have the potential to produce a significant contribution to the relative sea-level rise in Venice, exacerbating the hazard
posed by climatically induced sea-level changes