US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by 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

Venice is sinking.. simple as that.. and most of the flooding happens when there's heavy rain inland combined with high tides.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

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?

So much nonsense. None of it relevant to sea level rise, or climate change.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by boatman61

Venice is sinking.. simple as that.. and most of the flooding happens when there's heavy rain inland combined with high tides.

It is a bit of both

Venice subsided about 120 mm in the 20th century due to natural processes and groundwater extraction, in addition to a sea level rise of about 110 mm at the same time,

https://www.livescience.com/19195-ve...ng-slowly.html

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Montanan

I live about 50 miles south of Glacier National Park and have seen the continuing receding of the glaciers and the effect of such loss of cold water flow on the streams, river and lakes. I suppose the park will ultimately be renamed to be Glacierless National Park; every year there is less glaciers.

Nothing new here...

Glacier National Park’s eponymous ice formations have been around for more than 7,000 years, and have survived warmer and cooler periods. But they have been shrinking rapidly since the late 1800s, when North America emerged from the “Little Ice Age,” a period of regionally colder, snowier weather that lasted for roughly 400 years.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Nothing new here...

Glacier National Park’s eponymous ice formations have been around for more than 7,000 years, and have survived warmer and cooler periods. But they have been shrinking rapidly since the late 1800s, when North America emerged from the “Little Ice Age,” a period of regionally colder, snowier weather that lasted for roughly 400 years.

The earth was cooling for 6000 years prior to the the Industrial Revolution. When we dumped 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2, a known GHG, into the atmosphere we started rapidly warming globally.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It is a bit of both



https://www.livescience.com/19195-ve...ng-slowly.html

True.. but with the Med one also has to factor in evaporation rates.. the Med is different to the oceans being an enclosed body of water with a very limited inlet at one end.
If things get hotter and rainfall decreases levels will start dropping, possibly faster than fresh water outflows can refresh and raising salinity.
I understand between 1960 and 1993 this was the case.

[Ryban]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Really? Not so fast amino. We are not all in severe drough . Perhaps you should look at the facts not just Nancy's nephews opinion .

https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Curre...onitor.aspx?WA

https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Curre...onitor.aspx?OR

https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Curre...onitor.aspx?CA

Do remember you actually live in an area that is normally a semi arid desert region if not for man pumping water into you.

Most of it is going back to natural state .

Looks like you are about normal as to snow pack for the year as well.

https://ktla.com/news/california/map...r-dry-january/

Washington is also looking good snow wise.
https://wcc.sc.egov.usda.gov/reports...+Update+Report



https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal...5.237&zoom=5.5


Oregon is well above normal


https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/or/snow/

So looks like no 1200 year drought .

BTW I am cruising my home grounds " puget sound. " and no not Seattle but just west .

You're quoting annual levels, and the figure I was quoting that the prolonged drought the west has been experiencing for the last 20 years is the worst in 1200 years. And anyway, your first links show that almost the entire state of California is experiencing moderate to severe drought -- so I don't know what point you were trying to make.

I don't know why you made this political immediately. I was quoting a peer-reviewed paper that you can find here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...er=www.npr.org

I don't really get anymore why people are still against progress. Are you worried about the economy? If that's the case, then you're really going to be in for a shock with what unchecked climate change will do to the economy. Meanwhile, we could be creating jobs, promoting resource independence (e.g. so Russia can't weaponize it's oil supply the way it currently is), boosting the economy, and solving a problem all at the same time.

[Bycrick]

If you can pick your time period, you can find statistics that prove anything. "Cooling for 6000 years." So what. It was warming 25000 years ago when you could walk from Russia to Alaska or from France to England.

[Bycrick]

I’m against progress because of all the progressives. If you want to progress MY way, I’m all for it.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

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.

Yes and no but you really need to relearn thebwavelengths that co2 as you say absorbs. Wrt the same wavelengths that are by far overshadowed by water vapor.
The relatively minor amount that man has added does less than nothing.
I would suggest you also refresh yourself on the saturation point. And what it takes to overcome that.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

I’m against progress because of all the progressives. If you want to progress MY way, I’m all for it.

Do tell .

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

I’m against progress because of all the progressives. If you want to progress MY way, I’m all for it.

YES! progress my way would be all the cruisers to have the competence and patience to sail engine-free. Forgetting the environmental implications, this would be a huge benefit for so many other reasons.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The relatively minor amount that man has added does less than nothing.

Less than nothing meaning meaning a negative effect ie: a net cooling because of man's emissions? By now it is clear you speak what you want to be true, unfortunately this doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by jackdale

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

Sure, but the democrats rarely follow through on their promises. Instead they do as they are told by lobbyists paid for by the rich. They water-down each objective, and generally make little or no progress. The republicans are better at following through on their promises, but the things they tend to do are generally immoral, shortsighted, and dangerous.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by newhaul

He is not living in excess he is living retired from a lifetime of work . He drives a Chevy avalanch with a v8 engine the 2011 model . Last with air ride.
Quite e onomical on the highways.

Anyone who drives a car is living in excess. Having a large power boat and burning 300 gallons a year is another example. Each of these activities alone is way more than the average per-capita emissions normally needed to survive, and neither of these activities are necessary. It is all relative, but I am considering the average amount of emissions as a metric.

When in his boat he catches most of his food by " foraging"
I never said he doesn't produce but he is not a real major producer.

It sounds like he is better than many for having 600 million dollars as you claim. This is great. It would help a lot more if the boat were a sailboat.

Hell I bet Al Gore produces that in a week on his private jet.

al gore belonged in a prison a years ago. It is easy to look good compared to a criminal.

As to personal emissions per year I am well below 90% of the people on the planet . I think I burned 20 gallons of diesel and 20 pounds of propane last year .

If you live in the united states you are not below 90% of the people on the planet even if you burn no diesel or propane unless you grow all of the food you eat and even most of those (very few people in the USA) are not in the lowest 10% for using other products such as computers.

more people than just the lowest 10% of emitters on the planet do not burn any fossil fuels, do not use many products produced elsewhere and grow all of their own food with manual labor and hand tools.

You may have a case of below 90% of americans, which still puts you in the top 10-20% of emitters on the planet.

I have no idea my contribution while on public transportation. As I don't drive myself.
Bike or walk most of the time .

I don't use public transit or ride in any motor vehicles or ever burn any fossil fuels, and I accept that my emissions are about average for the world.. it seems your emissions are considerably higher than mine are.

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Yes and no but you really need to relearn thebwavelengths that co2 as you say absorbs. Wrt the same wavelengths that are by far overshadowed by water vapor.
The relatively minor amount that man has added does less than nothing.
I would suggest you also refresh yourself on the saturation point. And what it takes to overcome that.

My questions was not really aimed at you...
I understand the absorption wavelengths CO2 and water, do you?? Attached is the comparison.

As for the CO2 band being saturated. Have a look at the measured emission from the earth. The notch at 600 is the CO2 absorption band. Water is strong greenhouse gas and unfortunately as CO2 warms the atmosphere, it can hold more water which increases the temperature further... This is an example of a positive feedback.

Does that look saturated?? Not even close. Likewise your comment about the "minor amount" from mankind. Most people would not dismiss a near doubling of the key greenhouse gas as a minor amount.