Just ask a global warmer

Sorry for chiming in. I did not see a flip flop. Hopefully I do not make too many errors here. This is not a subject I'm all too familiar with.

How could land under sea water rising and displacing the water over it not increase sea level unless all the land falling is also already under sea water? What am I missing?

Does land rising / falling have a net 0 effect on the amount of land (by volume) that's under the water? How does that work?

 

The weight of ice was removed from land areas, so it's just those land areas rising after glacial melt. There's little effect on the nearby ocean floor. It's the same if the land sinks. There's little effect on nearby oceans. And there are roughly equal amounts of land rising and falling due to isostatic forces, so that sort of cancels out in terms of moving mantle material around.

As a whole, the world's oceans are getting a little deeper, by about 0.1 mm/year. That's the cycle after a glacial age ends. The oceans get a lot deeper after the ice melts, so the oceans get heavier, so they push down with more force, and they displace more mantle material. That mantle material flows under the land, so the continents rise a bit.

Ocean rise estimates have that factored in. So, a 3.3 mm / year increase means the visible rise at the shoreline is 3.2 mm / year. I don't think it should be done that way, but it's always been done that way, and it makes little difference.

 

Nope. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

Nope. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

I said when land below sea level, like the land under Hudson's Bay, rises, which it is, that makes global sea level rise.

Nope. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

When land above sea level falls, then cet. par, land below sea level has to rise, which will increase global sea level.

Nope. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

Some land is rising, other land is falling, true. It is the change in the balance of total above- and below-sea-level land volume that determines whether global sea level is rising or falling as a result of the vertical land movement. Because the continental plates tend to have quite steep edges, the relevant vertical movement happens at the margins, on the continental shelves. If the submerged continental shelf is rising, as in vast areas of northern Canada, it will tend to raise global sea level. Likewise if the dry-land continental shelf is subsiding (which will of course also make the local sea level rise even faster).

Nope. You are just makin' $#!+ up again.

Most of the coastal areas that are claimed to be threatened by rising sea level are.

I see. So limestone floats, does it?

Incorrect. Global sea level has risen at more or less the same rate, on average, since the end of the Little Ice Age ~200ya and the return to more normal Holocene temperatures in the 20th century. Florida's coastal areas are threatened by sea water incursion more than other coastal areas around the world because of groundwater extraction and the dissolution of underlying limestone strata, and the resulting subsidence of land.

 

Nope. You are just makin' $#!+ up again. The weight of ice was also removed from large submerged areas, especially the Canadian Shield lying under Hudson's Bay and much of Canada's arctic waters. Effectively all the current submerged continental shelf area of northern North America, Europe and Asia was under the ice, was unburdened ~12Kya, and is now rebounding, raising sea level.

But it matters where they are rising fastest: dry land or submerged land. The land that was under the ice -- much of it submerged continental shelf -- is rising the fastest.

Supposedly.

 

That you didn't understand it.

I already proved your "reason" was garbage.

So you think people will no longer die if we all just stop using fossil fuels....? That is of course the exact, diametric opposite of the truth.

So you think people are so stupid or lazy that they won't move or construct protective barriers if the land they are living on is sinking and in danger of inundation? Sure, it can happen suddenly, as when a severe storm inundated much of the Netherlands in the 9th century, killing tens of thousands.

Oh, no, wait a minute, that's right: there were no SUVs then and CO2 was far lower, so sea level couldn't have been rising, so it couldn't have happened.

But it did.

Such a mystery.

To you, that is.

Which is nice, as much of the world's land area is too cold for people to live comfortably year-round, farm year-round, etc. OTOH, there is no credible evidence that a record high temperature has any particular significance, let alone a harmful effect, as long as people know how to keep their cool and not run around hysterically screaming that the sky is falling. Do you know why thousands of people died in heat waves in Europe and North America in the 19th and early 20th centuries? Because they wouldn't take off their hot, heavy clothing -- even corsets, fer chrissakes -- for modesty reasons!

Looks like you don't consider the logical implications of what you say much, do you?

And some are beneficial.

False. We have no way of knowing which ones we can avoid, and whatever steps we take could end up causing harmful changes that would not otherwise have occurred.

Renouncing the use of fossil fuels would not be a way to gain more resources to deal with climate changes we can't avoid.

Climate change has always been real, and has always been damaging somewhere, beneficial somewhere else, and always will be. Despite the hysterical shrieking of climate change deniers (i.e., people who deny that the natural factors that caused all previous climate change could also be causing climate change now), renouncing use of fossil fuels will not change that. And because we CAN'T actually predict how the climate will change, we had best just use the resources at our disposal to adapt to whatever climate change comes rather than futilely trying to stop it. How do you prevent yourself from knowing such facts?

Adaptation comes first. Then mitigation, to the extent that it makes sense. Trying to stop climate from changing is an absurd notion that no rational person would even consider.

But the ACTUAL scientific consensus does not say what hysterical anti-fossil-fuel screamers claim it says.

It is only science deniers who can look at the facts and claim there is some kind of climate "crisis" or climate "emergency."

Discussed -- bewailed would be more accurate -- but never credibly demonstrated to outweigh the positive effects.

The adults are aware that the climate "problem" is mostly in the fevered imaginations of hysterical anti-fossil-fuel science deniers.

 

The non-existent one, you mean...?

That will happen naturally as fossil fuels run out and competing energy sources like solar become more efficient.

There are lots of ways to increase efficiency, reduce pollution, etc. But anti-CO2 hysteria is not a path forward to any of them.

 

No one really lives in the middle of Oz anyway, never have

 

You want me to "prove" that I didn't understand the poster's question? That right there sets the tone as to how seriously we should regard the rest of your post.

What the hell are you talking about? Who are you responding to? Apparently you used my post to respond to somebody else.

No. But I do believe that there are Presidents that are stupid enough to leave an agreement through which efforts of buiiidng barriers are coordinated among nations.... and similar initiatives that would mitigate the damage produced by a threat that right wingers say doesn't exist.

wow! You have solved Global Warming. All we have to do is persuade people in all poor nations around the world to take off their corsets!

... And maybe learn to swim, instead of riding around all day long in their jet-skis!

Which they're not going to need anyway as most lowlands will be deserts but... hey! they'll be able to grow canabis in the North Pole so.... all is good.

Who the f....hell are you responding to?

Look... I know the right wingnut talking points. I know them all. I wasted my time for almost 20 years debunking them and trying to explain Science to them. Back when there was still time to stop AGW and maybe reverse it. We can't do that anymore. At least probably not in during the lifetime of anybody who is alive today. But, I repeat the good news for you: you don't have to give up your SUV. Not for a second. You don't have to understand the science behind the scientific consensus.... you don't even need to understand how science works... or any of those things you find so "boring". Again: the only thing right wing science denialists need to do is get out of the way of the adults who are trying to fix what can be fixed, and mitigate what cannot.

That's the only thing you need to understand. Shouldn't be too complicated..

 

I’m not for certain but I would bet that majority of Floridians would suggest 78 degrees with a light breeze

 

Speak for yourself

I do

 

Human beings would net-benefit from atmospheric CO2 concentrations between 1200-1600ppm and global temperatures as warm as they were during the Roman high period or even as warm as it was during Phoenician high period.
If human beings are going to continue to multiply, fill the Earth and subdue it, we are going to need a warmer and wetter environment. We will need Siberia to be more like Kansas.

Absolutely every "scientist" who promotes the idea that a warmer, wetter world with denser concentrations of atmospheric CO2 is a bad thing also believes that human beings multiplying, filling the Earth and subduing it is also a bad thing.

 

I benefit with the way things are. Wetter and warmer sounds ideal. But I can't imagine a benefit. With Kansas resembling the Sahara and Siberia resembling Kansas.

 

I see. So, you choose to live in one of the hottest, driest, most sun-parched places in the entire world, and you think the whole world should sacrifice its economic well-being so that the weather there won't get too hot for you?

Somehow, I kinda figured it'd be something like that...

 

No, you already did.

<yawn> You said, "because people die." I pointed out that that was nothing silly, meaningless rhetoric because people are most certainly going to die anyway.

They are already smart enough not to wear them. That's why they are doing just fine in hot countries.

Silliness with no basis in fact.

Who the f....hell are you responding to?
<remainder of absurd garbage mercifully snipped>

 

Just thinking about the amount of fresh water it would take to turn it green in the middle of OZ. And the pumps to push it.

 

I'll rephrase... no one who matters

 

Ooh! Great argument! If people die anyway, what difference does it make if it's because of heat stroke caused by global warming when they're children trying to have a good time in the park or of old age, right?

 

There is a report somewhere on the web and someone did a calculation of how much evaporation would happen if you dug a channel from the sea to Lake Eyre Turns out it would only frame about 3 months to get 5 cubic kilometres of salt. Lols

 

Death by heat almost always happens to the elderly because body temperature regulation gets shaky with age, and many of the very elderly can't just get up and take a cool shower. Given the options for keeping cool these days, it's more a death by neglect than by heat.

 

As a body of water gets saltier and saltier through evaporation, it's harder and harder for any more of it to evaporate. Eventually it gets like the Dead Sea, which occasionally absorbs water from the air when the humidity is high enough.

 

Just think about how much fresh water is lost. If you could cover the water with glass... or sumthin... The water would separate itself from the salt. Then constantly circulate the more saline water back into the ocean and collect the condensation. Salt back in the ocean, fresh water, and green acres. Y'all seem to have enough space.

 

Still waiting for a logical answer from a global warmer on just how warm the earth should be.

 

Well I don't know if that is right or wrong. Would have to test it. The main ingredient in evaporation of water would be the temperature of the water at the surface, and relative humidity. You need energy to break the hydrogen bonds and release the water from the surface. Then when cooled the water .... Free from salt.... With condense on the cooler surface for collection. Just make some water. But it is just an idea. It would be just like moving clouds. I would love to try it on a small scale.

 

That would devastate agriculture.

Increasing CO2 levels stopped helping plants back in the 1990s. The global greening has It's leveled off or gone the other way since then. CO2 is plant food, but plants already have all of it that they need. Rising CO2 levels are now harmful to agriculture, due to the rising temperatures.

Your strategy would mean killing many millions or even billions by devastating agriculture. That's why we listen to the grownups instead of conspiracy theorists.

 

I've answered that many times here. The ideal temp is the temp that human civilization has grown up with. Fast change kills people.

Being that your question is so trivial to answer, it's clearly a stupid question.