If we are talkin SEA ICE, as in the stuff that is already floating on the water and displacing its weight then not much but sea level rise is not about sea ice
Any child knows it wouldn't have a big effect. Congratulations on your straw man. The Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic are another matter. https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/icesheets.html
At increasingly higher temperatures. If the temp goes up from 10 below 0F to 5 above, you will still have snow and ice. But eventually it will hit a breaking point.
Sea levels are rising. And it rises for two reasons: Ice is melting. The water also expands due to temperature.
Yep. I get ****ing flood warnings at high tide now (Miami). It's crazy and it's only going to get worse.
Sea ice is increasing in the Southern ocean, which as you know doesn't affect ocean levels much. However https://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm
You see, the thing is, there's no shortage of charts and experts on either side of the argument. Personally, I am way past, "So you think that you know more than the priests and the church?" retorts. I read both sides. I make up my own mind. I may use experts, in some narrow fields of expertise, as sources, but I don't need priests, politicians or scientists to tell me what to believe. We do not live in a climatologically optimum time period. Our plants are starving. More atmospheric CO2 and higher temperatures would be a net benefit to humanity up through several times the current concentrations of CO2 and temperatures as warm as they were during the Roman high period or even as high as they were in during the Phoenician high period. In my opinion, anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures are neither significant or negative in their nature.
But you haven't provided any charts, or evidence of any kind to support your position. Your position thus far in this thread has been completely refuted with actual evidence.
What are your "both sides"? The thing is, there are rock solid reasons for sea ice not being a significant factor in sea rise - just as there are rock solid reasons that land ice IS an issue, as is expansion due to warming. These are factors that are being measured. Thus, you see charts. Your understanding of agriculture is limited, too. Success in agriculture is due to many factors. Simply giving more of one factor is not necessarily going to help at all. Plus, Earth is not uniform. Adding more warming to the ME, to India, to Pakistan, et al is going to be a gigantic problem. It may be great for Canada (??), but the result will still be a monumental national security problem.
Yeah, well, I think it is interesting to put a limit on what sea rise could possibly do. Of course, a sea rise of 60' would be a total world wide catastrophe from which I have NO idea how we would persist. While it would take a lot of time, it would require the movement of billions of people. And, we can't tolerate numbers in the thousands, because it might cause a mixing of races or something.
"Our plants are starving"! How did you arrive at that conclusion? And that so called "Roman high period" only occurred in very small areas of the planet - the average world temperature was not out of the usual range
I think humans would persist although our civilization would be destroyed. I think we humans would wind up killing as many or more humans than the natural disaster itself as we competed for shrinking land and food resources.
I'm pretty sure Water World explained exactly what would happen. I for one look forward to getting my gills some day.
The scientists from the US and the Netherlands involved here point out that the Jakobshavn glacier is growing due to where we are in a 20 year cycle of warming and cooling water in the North Atlantic. That study indicates that the ice gain is still less than the glacier is contributing to sea rise. https://www.livescience.com/65080-greenland-glacier-growing.html This is a good example of why year to year measurements aren't good enough. We need to be watching running averages taken over longer periods of time in order to account for the many types of oscillations.
Oh well then that explains it. Let's see if their double down on their earlier wrong predictions are followed up with more wrong predictions.
Repeated studies had shown that this glacier had been melting for years. They doubted that it had reversed when a group of scientists said that the glacier was growing. Their reaction was to join with another scientific group to go check these results and figure out what was going on. They then broadcast their results publicly. Tell me which of these steps you don't like.
So, progressive America would dissapear and conservative 'flyover country' would have beachfront properties. How interesting
No - 50 million "progressives" would be forced from the coast and move into conservative country ... you would think that if for no other reason conservatives would want to start talking about climate change. Cause it wouldn't just be climate change, it would be culture change as well.
