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

Which will go under first?......ummmmmmmmm.....the lowest??? (wild guess)

BTW BOB SLR has been going on for many thousands of years, since the glaciers started retreating, and it will still go on, with or without SUV's and power plants, until they start to grow again.

 

I am betting on Colorado myself. The weight of all those mountains will be like a fat woman in a spiky dog collar rolling around on a waterbed during an orgy. They are going to punch a hole that allows the seawater to pop up in an unexpected place.

 

+10

Now that's funny right there. I don't care who you are. Okay, okay! Funny AND weird . . . but still funny.

 

What'd you do, up in Colorado, Deckel, buy into Redford's volcano virgin paradise?

Sorry about your long-run, eh. You won't be experiencing a clean natural disaster, after 2032, I bet.

 

You pasted the OP, on page 16, without reading anything, in between.

BTW, you have an opinion, about science.

Your OPINION is not scientific.

Your media FAILS. You quoted the entire OP, and you addressed no single fact or issue, in this.

You mention "retreating," upon which you are incompetent, to comment.

Glaciers were ADVANCING, until the industrial revolution kicked in climate change, c.1800 C.E.

That stands, for COMMON ERA. Heard of it?

 

Isn't it funny that during a warm inter-glacial that melts glaciers that some people think glacier melt is unusual? Do they really want what is more normal on average and that is mile thick ice covering NYC?

 

There is a lot of truth in that statement.

Glacials last much longer then Interglacials do. And there are a lot of other things about science that also disturbs the hell out of a great many. Like Evolution, which dictates that animals that can not adapt will die off.

I always find it funny that the more "liberal" minded people are the most reactionary and lock-step conservative in this area, demanding that absolutely nothing can ever change from how it was now (or 100, or 200, or 300 years ago), and that any change is absolutely bad and evil and must be fought. And ideally, we must do everything we can to take things back 300 years to where it was perfect in their minds.

 

Well, there is the middle where all scientists that are in the middle are still called deniers even if they agree CO2 adds to warming. Those are the scientists that are not climbing on the political bandwagon for mitigation due a few reasons. One is that the current mitigation efforts will do little to curb temperature change and that is still based on models. Second many do not agree that warming is a bad thing. Third is the group that wants to use the limited funds for doing things rationally based on what works best for humanity. Right now the political track is not accepting any of those positions.

 

Over the last couple of years, you picked up on actual terms, such as "inter-glacial," without learning how the glacial trends happened, even though this is not only online, but on this and many other threads, which may now be available, for your new reading comprehension level.

Your writing isn't coming along, is it. Those were airliners, which crashed, on 911, btw.

 

Earth has been in an ice age for about 2.5 million years dominated by long glacial periods and interspersed with shorter milder inter-glacials such as the one we are in now called the Holocene. During the last 100 thousand year glacial period NY was covered by a glacier a mile thick. The glacial periods dominate due to their length so a colder average would be normal. BTW: This is where the 30 ft rise comes from (30 meter maybe, can't remember) because that is how high seas were before the ice age we are in now. Ice ages are relatively less frequent overall than no ice at all throughout Earths history. One theory for the ice age is changing land masses disrupting ocean currents. I imagine there are others.

Not sure what truthers arguing about no airliners has anything to do with climate.

 

It's the Quaternary Ice Age, for the last 2.58 m.y., which would be as long as it takes you, to finally figure this out, after ignoring all my posts, on this.

 

Why does a plus-size model and CNN anchor relate, to this thread, while dented cans and guns do NOT simply relate?

BECAUSE AL QAEDA HAS SLEEPER CELLS, WAKING UP, WITH HER CNN COLLEAGUES, BOTH ALISYN CAMEROTA (Boston) and CHRIS CUOMO (Paris).

SO IF THE SLEEPER CELL, TIED TO MICHAELA IS BIG, OL' JET AIRLINERS, problem solved, no sinking, except maybe AT&T yard.

If it's a thermonuclear fusion bomb, like the FAT MAN, over Nagasaki, maybe Sacramento-Stockton sinks, first.

Either way, you'll need a .357, and if you can write a post about it, which relates to my OP, then bump.

 

I'd hazard a guess @ New Orleans,because it's already below sea level
As for the "Oh no! the CO2 levels are too high" hysteria.
Plants use CO2 to make oxygen,and the more they get,the more they use it and produce oxygen.
It would take much higher levels of CO2 concentration before plant processing of it would be saturated.

 

That is actually my main concern, to be honest.

The Amazon ("the lungs of the planet") is being deforestated at a rate of 16-22,000 square miles per year. That is roughly like deforestating a region between the size of Massachusetts and Maryland every single year.

And "carbon emissions" can be cut back much faster then the forest can be regrown. I always find it funny that all of the "doom and gloom" worry about emissions, and not about the destruction of the part of the cycle that pulls the CO2 from the air and returns it to the environment.

And it is not just the Amazon, tropical rainforests in all areas of the globe are being destroyed, primarily because of primitive farming techniques, or to harvest other items they sit upon (gold, coal, rare earth elements, etc).But you can tax somebody who uses a car, you can't tax a small family farmer or nation the same way.

 

When CO2 goes up, acidification, heat waves, drought, and flood are all at play, and with storms and such will come hazmats, including Tide, which will roll you up.

You vote on whether increased acid, heat, fire, and decreased available water will work out, for plants. You just don't get it, about IDIOCRACY. YOU HAVE TO WATER THE PLANTS, DOINK! Even President Camacho noticed that.

Pass the Fritos.

 

What "hysteria?" Your moniker suggests perhaps a mental image problem, on you? Hysteria involves da vadge, so be more specific, less incoherent, and more observant. When you mix metaphors, you undermine your cred, you know?

You just haven't got science, by two-of-'em, have you.

mamooth mamooth is offline

Analyst

usa us indiana
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 2,214
Blog Entries: 4
Default
So tea party suckup Bob Woodruff on the very the conservative ABC network made up stupid stories about the science. Nobody ever accused conservative journalists of good science. The more interesting thing is how as soon as Drudge pushes some nonsense, all the drones rush to every message boards to repeat it.

Now, back to some actual science, instead of hoosier's precious media hype. This just in, a new study. Field studies in grassland, forest and cropland habitats show that for all habitats, elevated CO2 levels decrease nitrogen uptake in plants, decreasing growth and nutrition.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...12938/abstract
Quick reply to this message Reply Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Blog this Post
Likes bobgnote liked this post

 

The thing about arguing over the politics of climate change and sea level rise is that melting glaciers don't give a damn about your political opinions. But as it's rising, you guys make sure you're there yelling at it, telling it it's all a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) liberal conspiracy. Not sure that its been tried before, so at least we'll get some scientific data on the effect of personal opinions on our planet's climate. There is a little precedent. I once got rid of a Rickett's infection by yelling for three days about Obamacare.

 

Dude. O(*)(*)(*)(*)care not only smears and sucks, it makes sweet gridlock-love, to the pubs, who love to bite.

I might start in on O(*)(*)(*)(*)care, during morning push-ups.

Something gonna sink, when the agenda gets smeared, by O(*)(*)(*)(*)care.

 

Florida is already feeling the initial effects.....sucks to be them or anything living in the Everglades.
http://seagrant.noaa.gov/Portals/0/.../Florida Report on Climate Change and SLR.pdf

 

You guys still read 'possible impacts' and 'potential risks' as current fact and proof.

 

I take by "You Guys" I am being limped into the Chicken Little category instead of the "Reads up on scientific opinion and notes increasing evidence" category. My opinion of climate change is very simple:

"Things are changing slowly, and there is not a damn thing humans can do about it."

Trying to cap or tax carbon is not going to be effective, trying to lessen CO2 cannot stop this and will not happen anyway. The Earth climate is going to change as it always has, at the worst we humans might be speeding up what it was doing anyway. Or planet is leaving a period of cooling from the previous Ice Age and will obviously get warmer because of it. Ice will continue to melt and add to ocean levels as well as salinity changes. This was due to happen regardless of what we could possibly do.

We as a species have two choices, and only two.
Adapt or Die......eventually.

 

Ah. So I did.

Well, the way things are going, there won't even be much to adapt to. Sea levels rise and fall, temperatures go up and down. Temperature up is good, down is bad. If it weren't for a warmer climate, as much as 8C warmer, and green where there is now desert during the last inter-glacial, man might not have traversed out of Africa to spread across the world.

 

Truth be told...we are living in what can only be termed as Perfect Conditions for our species,likely due to our evolution within it. If we do not continue to adapt (evolve) as those conditions naturally change we will become a failed species and head toward inevitable extinction. Nice thing is we are dealing with geological time frames and a very long learning curve....I find it likely we will make it for awhile, though it may be unpleasant at times.

 

They really should step on your meds.
You are the poster child for scaling back big Pharma.

 

In this I agree 95%.

However, for years now my main concern is not the use of "Fossil Fuels", but the rapid deforestation of the rain forests. This is a doudle edged sword because not only is it removing the main system our environment uses for reducing CO2 in the air, it is also done in a way that releases even more CO2 in the air at the same time (slash and burn agriculture). Then when the farmers move on, they plant nothing in their wake, leaving thousands of square miles of devistation where nothing grows.

In the natural cycle, release of more CO2 always resulted in a hyperactive plant growth cycle (followed by ever increasing amounts of O2 in the atmosphere). But not only is there a lag in this cycle, but we are destroying that plant life in ever increasing numbers. This has me much more concerned then the CO2 emissions themselves.