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

ayuh....yer confusing yourself, there was nothing in bobgnte's post that referred to seasonal weather conditions....

 

This thread is wrongly titled, it should read:

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

Not one section of the US coast has been affected by sea level rise in the last 150 years.

Not to be confused with coastline that's subsiding, such as Norfolk, VA, or badly maintained levees at below sea level New Orleans.

 

Subsidence will coincide, with SLR.

But hey, when you don't grok warming or climate change, which is disrupting trade currents, you mince words, all year, and for year, after year, after year . . .

 

Leftover minced-word pie!

The permafrost and glaciers should all be ADVANCING.

You have this habit of deflecting, by diversion, year after year, in post after post. Seek help.

 

Denver should be in the list. After the earthquake.

 

Permafrost and glaciers can't all advance during an interglacial, otherwise much of North America would still be under an ice sheet.

Subsidence doesn't necessarily coincide, with SLR, otherwise all land masses would be subsiding, which they aren't, some are uplifting, some are stable.

 

Wait a minute, are you actually saying we should be entering another ice age?

 

But we are not in an interglacial, we should be entering a new ice age!

Don't you see? Because if not for all that nasty dirty Global Warming, we would be up to igloos in Chicago, which is what Bob think should really be happening. I guess he accepts what some alarmists were saying in the 1970's, and that we were entering another Ice Age, then the horrid Global Warming stopped it.

Either that, or he really does not know what he is saying, and is making it all up as he goes along. I am not quite sure which anymore, he contradicts himself so often.

 

The latter, definitely.

 

131:

132:

AND then you partly answered 131 and 132, without even reading my previous posts or a decent website, of the many links, in my earlier posts:

133:

You aren't sure what I am writing, since you don't read my posts or any of the material, at the linked sites, and you didn't quote, accurately or use the quote/reply function, during your bandwidth-wasting blather.

You didn't link to any 1970s reports. You did rant, badly, with unlinked, unquoted, immature projections: "nasty, dirty . . . igloos . . . alarmists were saying in the 1970s . . . horrid . . . he contradicts himself . . . "

Tell you what. Get some quotes and some links, or take a nap. Your deflections are a gross diversion, at this thread.

 

Can't honestly say I blame him.

 

And please tell me, where in these reports does it say that the permafrost and glaciers should be expanding.

I do read your posts. The problem is that you contradict yourself so often, as well as contradict long established science and research on things such as glaciation, ice burgs, tundra and permafrost, and so many things. So come on, where in all of the research that you cite does somebody make a claim that permafrost should really be expanding.

 

Actually, I do read them. I then generally reject them because so often he falls into contradictory claims without any backing at all.

It is especially ironic since I myself am alarmed by rising CO2 levels, I simply lay most the blame in another direction. But you can tax the users of fossil fuels (at least in the US, good luck doing that with China). And you can't tax those who are deforesting the jungles and rain forests.

 

I guess this and other readily available media slid right by you:



http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/22/us-usa-glaciers-alaska-idUSBRE84L04Q20120522

http://www.climatechangeconnection.org/science/Observations.htm

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2013/07/24/coastal-antarctic-permafrost-melting-faster-than-expected/

We happen to be at the end, of an interglacial period, like these clearly defined global average temperature estimates, which means with modern, diminished solar radiance, Milankovitch cycles should cause reduction in temperature readings:





Since our current interglacial, the Holocene Period is at an end, and scientists project the Milankovitch trend should be like the cycle, of 400K years ago, we should be experiencing gradual re-glaciation.

But we aren't seeing that:



So, I guess you must be really confused, about what you are reading, somewhere. Is it in English-US? Go ahead and link to it, or hit the quote, and reply, to the issues, therein, or take a nap, finally.

No confusion exists, on my end.

 

I think you two are just trying to jerk clues, out of each other.

Baghdad-by-the-what? Es verdad . . .

 

Sorry, I read all of your post and your references, nothing was said about us entering another ice age right now. And from your own charts, we have not even come close to the end of the current glaciation.

 

Yes, Baghdad by the Bay, where I am sitting right now as I make this post.



This name was given by Herb Caen, the gentlemen that also gave us Hippie, Beatnick, Berserkeley, and Frisbeetarianism.

 

You didn't read ANYTHING I wrote, and you didn't search any, of the subject matter, in two seasons.

I only do PF, seasonally. Any idea why?

We are about 11,700 years, into the current interglacial. Milankovitch factors indicate we should be sliding, down, NOW, which we would be doing, to the point, where methane and permafrost would all stay frozen, while all existing glaciers would advance.

Instead, we are headed for cycles, of volcanic winters and hothouse recoveries, while waters acidify. Say, does any baggy-by-bay type remember Mayor Art? I guess he moved up, to Seattle way, with Pat McCormick . . . hi, little folks!



I guess when all you get from internet wanderings is conservaderp cartoons, hey now! You won't go ''blooie-blooie," and find out about the interglacial cycles, re Milankovitch.

You kids are getting awfully boring, what with the Niners going around, and the Dubs trying to win every game, on their way to MAYBE getting to the wharf. Guess where? Where there's rats . . .

 

OK, so I am a liar.

Fine, so why not quote from your reference where it says you are right? And I do not mean post a chart with your own interpretation, but quote one of those pieces that you try to source which is actually saying something along the lines of "we would be entering a new ice age now, except...."

But you do not, you simply insult and belittle anybody who dares to disagree with you. Instead you throw out rotational and pitch cycles, and try to combine it with volcanism cycles, and I guess magic fairy dust to explain why we should be in a new ice age at this time. But you can't find any confirmation from anybody else.

Fine, thank you for confirming where this discussion should have been a long-long time ago.

 

You ate the Salman mousse, so you know Hadj is around, but you ignore the ninjas, whom you've already wronged.

You won't make it, past the poison, through the fire, to the nukings.

You will perish, before the final deluge.

By the time southern man don't need you around, and you are NOT around, Portuguese will be more important, than English.

 

What does any of that mean?

 

because it will be really hot and boil over

 

1. Salman Rushdie is like a spin-doctor, who came over to London, to visit the queen, to live, for a time, and then perish, while YOU RUSH, TO DIE.

2. North America is up for about 200 thermonuclear fusion fat-man big ol' bombs, like FAT MAN, over Nagasaki Bay or Allemagordo, 1945, since they'd already probably done loads and loads of top-secret, yet-undisclosed uranium bomb explosions, since screwup Fermi almost melted Soldier Field.

3. The Earth will blacken, and humans will perish, in the grind, between volcanic winters and nasty, firey summers, toward ultimate volcanic devastation, with acidic seas and lakes, or devastated, by algae. You don't seem to have Mick Dodge's number.

4. North America gonna go, luv. Pack or just enjoy yourself. Psst. They speak modified Portuguese, in a little country, called BRASIL. Look it up, also spelled Brazil.

 

The Bermuda Triangle?