Which part of the US will succumb, to SEA LEVEL RISE, first?

Do not even go there again!

We just finished pages of twisting logic that shows that sea level is not sea level, and that there are locks at the Panama Canal because one ocean is higher then the other.

 

oh! so you begin with ad hominem attack...let's continue on that theme...Mushroom posted-"Now oaks are an important tree when judging ancient climate, because it only lives in semitropical and semi-arid climates."...clearly wrong and apparently deliberately stupid as canada is not semitropical...

but! but! EVERYONE knows they are tropical ... broad generalizations and assumptions make you look stupid...hippos do fine in temperate climates they're not exclusive tropical animals, todays' climate in South Africa being quite temperate is also home to hippo's as well...where hippo's live today is result of many factors one of which is man...clearly as they survived through a number of ice ages in europe they are not an exclusive of "hot and humid jungles and marshes" -mushroom (another silly generalization and assumption)....

what! are trying to be deliberately stupid? the Japanese Macaque in Japan does not owe it's existence to hot springs, it's completely cold weather adapted...

consider yourself completely discredited...that's what you can expect when you make broad definitive claims and assumptions using Wikipedia for your info, the facts are never as clear and simple as you and wiki assume they are....oh by the way do you still want to stand by your claim(wiki sourced yet again) that sea level is the same everywhere? I saw elsewhere you claimed that you're a big man and admit when you're wrong but you ran hid after that gem didn't you...

 

And I made a mistake saying semi-tropical instead of semi-temperate.

Wow, like you have never done a typo before, and that invalidates everything I said. Ooops, shoot me.

 

the locks are there to raise ships over the isthmus, not to account for seal level differences, it's very doubtful the engineers of day had any inkling that sea levels differed...the isthmus made any sea level difference a moot point and irrelevant...

- - - Updated - - -

ah you could have stated that and it would've ended there...but no you went called me stupid, nice one...

 

On the contrary, sea level will rise while Earth remains in an interglacial, it just won't be catastrophic, especially considering that it's been rising since the last ice age ended.

 

This is the post that started that entire exchange. And if you notice, I am not the one that made that claim.

 

Come on, man. Surveyors at any industrial revolutionary level knew of the difference, in sea levels, enhanced, at the equator.

It wasn't moot, at the time, of construction, since any canal project had cost accountants, or the equivalent, back to the first Spanish proposal, for a canal.

AND I don't think Mushroom does simple typos. His further nonsense, about climate is due, to his usual ignorance and worse, mated with refusal to search.

 

And once again, baffle and distract from uncomfortable facts by distraction.

Tell me, how many oak trees are growing above the Arctic Circle now? But it happened after the end of the last ice age, why would it not happen again after this one?

Why the constant distractions and refusal to even consider what happened in the past, eh? And why the constant obsession on fossil fuels, while rain forests around the world are being destroyed. Claiming that is not harming anybody.

 

Why do you constantly deflect, with disorganized sentences, leading to unreferenced phrases and then, to completely incoherent conclusions?

I guess you like to distract and divert. Make a New Year's resolution or something.

 

[h=1]Which part of the US will succumb, to SEA LEVEL RISE, first?[/h]
That depends entirely on how much longer sea level rise continues.

If we're very lucky, it'll continue to rise for a long time to come, because when it stops, an ice age will have arrived.

When that happens, blaming it on human emissions won't help much.

 

Humans will die off or live in collectives, before emissions reduce and reglaciation could possibly happen.

Why don't you hit 'search,' for how long it takes different GHGs, to degrade?

It'll take thousands, for the CO2 to go down, while most industrial GHGs do not degrade.

 

I guess Milankovitch must have slid right by you, since I refer to these well-defined cycles, in any several posts, which you don't read, with anything else about science.

Glaciers should be advancing, all across the board, ALREADY, due to the predictable end, of the current interglacial period.

'ALREADY' should be enhanced, by lessened solar radiance. But those land-locked glaciers are RECEDING, repeat, RECEDING.

It seems to me you just won't read the relevant reports, repeated severally.

 

Glaciers should be advancing? Are you trying to say that we would be entering an Ice Age if not for artificial warming?

Glaciers only advance when snowfall exceeds melt. So are you actually trying to claim that we should be returning to an Ice Age, but are not because of humans?

And how glaciers advance during an interglacial I have no idea. That is like saying that the water should freeze because it is boiling. Complete contradiction of facts.

And you say I don't understand science.

here are some things to look up:

Glacial Recession
Terminal Moraine
Glacial Retreat

Such research should note that worldwide, glaciers have been in retreat for well over 160 years now.

 

Gosh, you know, they learn something new everyday. How about the Stadium Wave. What affect does evaporation do to the oceans and where does it go and how does it affect cooling? Why is ice building up in the Antarctic?

 

well I don't know that as fact so and you haven't offered any evidence that it was known...I did a quick search and found an cross elevation for the canal from the time and it shows the the two ocean levels as the same... Panama canal Shepherd Elevation ...two ways to interpret that evidence, either there was no difference in sea levels at that location or they didn't know...

in my research I found that two canal plans were discussed, 1- a sea level dig with no locks and the 2nd with locks...the 2nd was chosen I'm assuming as it was more cost effective, less digging and quicker completion time...again evidence they didn't know there was a difference or there isn't a difference...if there was significant difference the engineering problem would've been significant as there would've been a considerable wall of water pouring(similar to a tidal bore) through a tiny channel from one direction or the other indefinitely which would've ruled out a sea level canal, so the locks weren't built to adjust for a difference in sea levels but for time/speed/cost considerations..

maybe not but I sometimes use my smartphone to post big fingers and small keyboard make typos frequent...also my phone has program where it anticipates what I'm trying to type and inserts the incorrect word, I don't always re-read my posts so mistakes are made...mushrooms claim that his error was a typo is questionable but I would've given him the benefit of the doubt, but calling me stupid then justifying the insult on "his" typo and not apologizing for "his" error/typo won't be forgotten...

from my experience he does a superficial search (wiki) followed by a summation that agrees with his pov...

 

not true...some glaciers advance even when they're not growing they're known as Surging Glaciers...

 

And those are exceptions, and only happen in specific situations. This kind of behavior is in no way typical.

 

they're not uncommon exceptions and contradict your claim they only advance when snowfall exceeds melt...

 

Glaciers advance for a number of reasons, one is the deformation speed of the deep ice. The warmer it is the more plastic it is and the quicker it will move. Ice is not solid but can move like plastic under pressure. Melt water reaching deep levels can change the speed of movement due to changing the temperature of the ice. Even minimal temp changes will change the speed of deformation though we are talking about very long periods of time.

 

Well, both ways were attempted.

After the success of the Suez Canal, the French attempted a sea level route. I even found the remains of a French era construction camp near Colon, Panama. This attempt failed, but the later lock and dam approach by the US was successful.

 

Then you should have no problem providing us examples of glaciers that are constantly surging all over the place. Right?

 

you provide no evidence for the definitive claim that glaciers only advance when snowfall exceeds melting and I'm expected to do a search to disprove your unsubstantiated claim? that's quite the double standard...

google, surging, galloping glaciers...and you'll get a search return in less than a second...that is if you're really objective in regards to facts and not just the usual bull(*)(*)(*)(*)...

 

Glaciers which are advancing typically calve, into ocean or lake waters.

Let's not mince words, about glaciers. THEY ARE RECEDING.

Also, permafrost is melting.

The perennial ice releases loads of CO2 and CH4. Get a clue. These melts release WAY MORE GHGs, than do annual melts.

As for Panama, somebody was bound to be ignorant enough, to try to build a ditch-canal.

But people today show signs of descent, from the same DDs, who would think to dig a ditch, at the Isthmus.

I guess TIDES and ROTATIONAL EFFECTS are completely lost, on flat-earthers and their descendants.

 

Uh, even receding glaciers calve glaciers.

Once again you contradict yourself. Because following your logic to the next step, global warming is causing all glaciers to melt and recede. And if this did not calve glaciers, then we would have no ice bergs, correct?

During my summer fishing expeditions to Whittier, glaciers were a common site. My uncle used to even break chunks off of glaciers on our return with his "ice pick" (a .357 revolver) to keep our catch fresh for the drive back to Anchorage.

And every trip, we passed the Portage Glacier. Receding, when first discovered it stretched all the way to the Turnagain Arm. When I first saw it, it was about 1/2 mile from the turnout. Today, you can't even see it from there, but it still drops bergs into Portage Lake.

And yes, permafrost is melting. That is like saying the sun is hot. Permafrost has been melting for thousands of years, or we would still have it in the Midwestern US. When the last ice age started to end, we had Permafrost all the way to the Idaho-Nevada border, and all of Europe was permafrost. SO why you are bringing that up, I once again have no idea.

You do have this habit of bringing up things that have been going on for thousands of years.

 

Ayuh,.... Yer confusin' local seasonal weather conditions, with the global climate,.....