Ocean acidifcation .

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Bangladesh is on a river delta. It is not in the Himalayas.

No poop... it’s next door to the Himalaya, they can walk there.

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

ri-dic-u-lous-ness
/rəˈdikyələsnəs/

noun

the quality or state of deserving or inviting derision or mockery.
"I recognize the sheer ridiculousness of being afraid of something the size of my thumbnail"


Ever consider moving inland to higher ground????

Thanks to the intransigence of people like you, I suspect that is exactly what will have to happen. Would you care to estimate how much that will cost, worldwide?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

No poop... it’s next door to the Himalaya. They can walk there.

You also need a history lesson. Remember the partition of India in the 1940's. Muslim Bangladeshis would not be welcome.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

The Himalaya are rising at a rate of 1cm per year.... yup, the Bangledeshi will be OK.

Still sticking with this assertion?

[Kenomac]

Total absolute ridiculousness on display.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Geography is not your forte, is it.

topography must not be yours then

Calculate for us at the current rate of 1.1mm per year how long it will take for 10% of the country to be potentially threatened .

[GordMay]

Yep, I can out-walk sea level rise.

But, “Rising sea levels could cost the world $14 trillion a year by 2100"
➥ https://phys.org/news/2018-07-sea-wo...lion-year.html

“... We also estimate global annual flood costs under these scenarios and find the difference of 11 cm global sea level rise in 2100 could result in additional losses of US$ 1.4 trillion per year (0.25% of global GDP) if no additional adaptation is assumed from the modelled adaptation in the base year. If warming is not kept to 2 °C, but follows a high emissions scenario (Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5), global annual flood costs without additional adaptation could increase to US$ 14 trillion per year and US$ 27 trillion per year for global sea level rise of 86 cm (median) and 180 cm (95th percentile), reaching 2.8% of global GDP in 2100 ...”
“Flood damage costs under the sea level rise with warming of 1.5 °C and 2 °C” ~ by S. Jevrejeva et al.
➥ https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...48-9326/aacc76

Sea level has changed, and coastlines shifted throughout human history, and people adapted by moving somewhere else. Some would use this history of human adaptation as an excuse to avoid thinking about or acting on climate change and sea level rise.
In one sense, they're right: People have always adapted. The difference this time around, however, is that our coastlines are lined with the homes of millions of people, and the cities, power plants and ports they rely upon.

Some facts are well established. Researchers can say that global ocean levels have risen about 19 centimetres in the last century. And the rate of rise has sped up. The 20th-century average is about 1.7 millimetres per year; since 1993 the average rate has nearly doubled — to about 3.2 millimetres per year.
The last time the planet was steadily 2 degrees C warmer than pre-industrial times, some 120,000 years ago, sea levels were 5 to 10 metres higher than today. It’s extremely likely we’ll hit 2 degrees C of warming by 2100, unless we take extreme measures to mitigate emissions.
In China, the Yellow River delta is currently sinking so fast that local sea levels are rising by up to 25 centimetres per year, nearly 100 times the global average. Overall, the U.S. East Coast is seeing rates of sea level rise that are 3 to 4 times the global average.

Over the coming centuries, land that is today home to between 470 and 760 million coastal residents will be inundated by sea level rise [1], associated with a 4 degree Celsius warming that will occur if we fail to curb the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Much of this population lives in cities. Sea level rise already makes storms more dangerous, causing more flooding and damage in areas crowded with people. And it will affect different parts of the world differently, with some parts of the planet being particularly hard hit.
The first signs of sea level rise will be increased damage from hurricanes, and other storms, and even high tides. Minor and major flooding will become more frequent. Coastlines will erode and creep backward almost imperceptibly. In fact, all of these impacts are already happening.
Florida is the U.S. state facing the gravest consequences from sea level rise. According to NASA [2], three feet of water will ultimately inundate land along Florida's coast, based only on the warming humans have caused so far.

[1] ➥ Mapping Choices: Carbon, Climate, and Rising Seas — Our Global Legacy | Surging Seas: Sea level rise analysis by Climate Central
[2] ➥ https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/us/na...ng-sea-levels/

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Bangladesh is on a river delta. It is not in the Himalayas.

The nearest tidal gauge show a 4.06 mm / year rise.

Exactly why Bangladesh has a long history of severe flooding that I suspect long predates the fossil fuel era, and so another poor example of AGW "evidence." Speaking of, the nearest tidal gauge in Bangladesh amounts to evidence of sea level rise but the one in Ft. Denison, Australia is somehow irrelevant to sea level decline. I'd say most people not so personally invested in the issue can now see how this works.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

topography must not be yours then

Calculate for us at the current rate of 1.1mm per year how long it will take for 10% of the country to be potentially threatened .

The current global rate is 3.3 mm/year. The nearest tidal gauge is 4.06 mm /year.

Meanwhile: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...out-or-letting

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Yep, I can out-walk sea level rise.


Sea level has changed, and coastlines shifted throughout human history, and people adapted by moving somewhere else. Some would use this history of human adaptation as an excuse to avoid thinking about or acting on climate change and sea level rise.
In one sense, they're right: People have always adapted. The difference this time around, however, is that our coastlines are lined with the homes of millions of people, and the cities, power plants and ports they rely upon.

Some facts are well established. Researchers can say that global ocean levels have risen about 19 centimetres in the last century. And the rate of rise has sped up. The 20th-century average is about 1.7 millimetres per year; since 1993 the average rate has nearly doubled — to about 3.2 millimetres per year.
The last time the planet was steadily 2 degrees C warmer than pre-industrial times, some 120,000 years ago, sea levels were 5 to 10 metres higher than today. It’s extremely likely we’ll hit 2 degrees C of warming by 2100, unless we take extreme measures to mitigate emissions.
In China, the Yellow River delta is currently sinking so fast that local sea levels are rising by up to 25 centimetres per year, nearly 100 times the global average. Overall, the U.S. East Coast is seeing rates of sea level rise that are 3 to 4 times the global average.

Over the coming centuries, land that is today home to between 470 and 760 million coastal residents will be inundated by sea level rise [1], associated with a 4 degree Celsius warming that will occur if we fail to curb the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Much of this population lives in cities. Sea level rise already makes storms more dangerous, causing more flooding and damage in areas crowded with people. And it will affect different parts of the world differently, with some parts of the planet being particularly hard hit.
The first signs of sea level rise will be increased damage from hurricanes, and other storms, and even high tides. Minor and major flooding will become more frequent. Coastlines will erode and creep backward almost imperceptibly. In fact, all of these impacts are already happening.
Florida is the U.S. state facing the gravest consequences from sea level rise. According to NASA [2], three feet of water will ultimately inundate land along Florida's coast, based only on the warming humans have caused so far.

[1] ➥ Mapping Choices: Carbon, Climate, and Rising Seas — Our Global Legacy | Surging Seas: Sea level rise analysis by Climate Central
[2] ➥ https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/27/us/na...ng-sea-levels/

Then I’m thinking it wouldn’t be a wise decision to purchase oceanfront retirement property in Florida if one plans to live to be 500 years old.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Speaking of, the nearest tidal gauge in Bangladesh amounts to evidence of sea level rise but the one in Ft. Denison, Australia is somehow irrelevant to sea level decline.

What decline?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

The current global rate is 3.3 mm/year. The nearest tidal gauge is 4.06 mm /year.

Meanwhile: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...out-or-letting

love the colloquial article thrown in for effect the whole of which may or may not be real .
( most likely a false flag due to that island being man made and everyone knows that fill settles compacts and subsides over a rather short period of time )

But it doesn't answer the math question I put to you . Although not the figures I presented I will allow the use of your 4 mm rise figure ( although I suspect its more due to the gate location subsiding ).

How many cp decades or centuries to inundate 10% of the actual lands ?

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

... Bangladesh has a long history of severe flooding that I suspect long predates the fossil fuel era, and so another poor example of AGW "evidence."

No sh!t. But it isn't being cited as AGW "evidence", it's pointing out who will be among its' first victims. Of course, better, smarter people like you could maybe give them a short refresher on "adaptation".


Speaking of Sydney:


(ok, JD beat me to it)

But you are of course free to give greater weight to the cherry-picked data from a single forum post.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by SailOar

Thanks to the intransigence of people like you, I suspect that is exactly what will have to happen. Would you care to estimate how much that will cost, worldwide?

No, not due to any intransigence on Kenomac's part actually. His boats, home & business are covered in solar panels, thereby making him part of the solution not the problem. The atmosphere could care less what he "believes," only that he's not emitting as much CO2 as . . . well . . . you probably are (and me). You starting to see how counter-productive personalizing such issues really is?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

love the colloquial article thrown in for effect the whole of which may or may not be real

Dismissing Science Magazine (from American Association for the Advancement of Science) as colloquial is downright bizarre.