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

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by bobgnote, Jul 31, 2012.

  1. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,281
    Likes Received:
    663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, your claim is just objectively false. Adaptation to natural climate change would save millions of people instead of murdering them by depriving them of cheap energy.
    It is the anti-science, anti-CO2 hysteria mongers who deny that the natural factors that caused all previous climate change could still be causing climate change.

    So it is my turn to ask you: Just how many millions of dead would it take to quench your perverse death-thirst? Can you give us a number? Is it, as we expect, actually in the billions?
     
    Sunsettommy and Mushroom like this.
  2. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,281
    Likes Received:
    663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And as long as the baseline just happens to be the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years...?
    Nope. "We" were around ~15Kya when the great continental glaciers melted, the Black Sea filled, sea level rose 100m (rather than 100mm), etc.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2020
    Mushroom likes this.
  3. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,938
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which is something almost any geology student knows.

    Many years ago I was on a tour of the San Francisco Bay. And the tour guide talked about how wonderful it must have been for the first Indians arrive, to find this wonderful bay to inhabit. Easy fishing, crabs, shellfish, all easy to get to. A paleolithic paradise.

    The only problem is, when the Indians first arrived after migrating down from Alaska, there actually was no bay yet. The area we now know of a the "San Francisco Bay" was a river valley, and the actual "coast" was over 20 miles away, where the Chanel Islands are today.

    And that was the case even as little as 14,000 years ago! It was not until 8,000 years ago that the rise finally allowed the very start of the bay to extend inwards towards the area we know today.

    [​IMG]

    Of course, during fairly recent "historical times" (2,000 years ago), Death Valley was still a large inland lake, with a teeming freshwater ecosystem. I never understood the mindset of people who refuse to recognize that the planet changes. It is the strangest case of denial I have ever seen.

    Hence, my specific reference to the Mediterranean Sea. Which is actually fairly "new", at just over 5 million years old. Prior to that, it had been cut off for over 15 million years, drying up until it became what is now believed to be the lowest dry land in the history of the planet. Roughly around 15,000 feet below sea level. To give an idea, that is almost 10 times the depth of the lowest point on the planet now, the Dead Sea. Temperatures and atmospheric pressure would have been insanely high, and some even believe that most animals would have avoided it because of these.

    What animals remained would have adapted, but we know for a fact this is the case. The Nile and other rivers which flow into the basin have very distinct underwater features, including deep underwater canyons and even waterfalls now deep underwater. The evidence is obvious to geologists, so if taken on simply the basis of what is "normal" to the planet, we should fill in the land between Gibraltar and Africa, and allow the sea to dry up yet again.

    In short, the area between Europe and Africa was a literal deadlands for millions of years until the Zanclean flood broke through Gibraltar and refilled the basin. But quite literally, the Mediterranean did not exist for far longer than it ever existed.
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  4. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,262
    Likes Received:
    1,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That mindset is entirely in your head, and we normal people think it's totally whacked-out.

    The normal people have never denied climate changes. That's just one of the more stupid lies deniers tell. The normal people point out it's the rapidity of the change that's very harmful to the humans.

    Deniers? They they don't factor in the humans at all. They just say "oh well, it's natural!" as an excuse to allow mass suffering and death/ Denialism seems to be a sort of hyper-gaian death-cult.
     
  5. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,262
    Likes Received:
    1,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And by that you mean "I feel that's the case, despite all of the evidence not published by my cult contradicting it."

    Here's the forcings graph from AR5. it shows that all the natural factors have been studied in great detail, and that you're lying big when you claim those factors haven't been examined.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2020
  6. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,262
    Likes Received:
    1,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We've been over this before. You'd flunk a Statistics 101 class. You know too little about the topic to understand how little you know.

    Just look at yourself, claiming that the best minds on the planet are all wrong about statistics, and that you know the RealTruth. Me, when I see the brightest people on the planet saying I'm wrong, I assume that I probably am wrong, and that I should research the subject more. But then, I'm not consumed with narcissism.

    Like a tidal gauge, or satellite measurement.

    Where do you come up with this stuff?
     
  7. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,262
    Likes Received:
    1,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In order to pull off the condescending act, you actually have to be smart. That means I can do it. You can't.

    That's loopy nonsense, and I'm trying to figure out why the simple concept of "baseline" confounds you so.

    1985-2005, the sea level baseline being discussed, is the LIA? You're off your rocker. The LIA was completely over more than a century before that.

    That's not right. That doesn't even rise to "wrong".

    And doing so would change nothing concerning the current very fast sea level rise and its bad effect on us humans. That's the point. It's not a difficult point, but it still flies right over your head.
     
  8. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,281
    Likes Received:
    663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, you just made that up.
    No it doesn't. It barely mentions them other than to ignore and dismiss them.
    Speaking of lying big, I made no such claim, and you know it.

    [​IMG][/QUOTE]
    Readers are invited to peruse that absurd graphic and confirm that it effectively -- and absurdly -- says the sun has no effect on climate.
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  9. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,281
    Likes Received:
    663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Right, but anti-CO2 screamers deny that the changes that have always been natural up to now could still be natural.
    No, normal people are aware that that is absurd and hysterical anti-CO2 nonsense with no basis in fact. There is no evidence that recent change has been more rapid than other Holocene climate changes, and no evidence it has been net harmful to humans.
    You made that up.
    As opposed to causing mass suffering and death by denying poor people access to cheap fossil fuel energy.
    It's the anti-CO2 screamers who have drunk the gaia Kool-Aid.
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  10. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    3,359
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You can't measure global sea level without a valid reference point, dude... Land has a tide. It rises and sinks.

    Tidal gauges are built on land, dude. Land rises and sinks. It is not a valid reference point. Satellites do not measure global sea levels. Satellites are not magick.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2020
  11. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    5,262
    Likes Received:
    1,477
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And that land tide also moves the ocean bottoms.

    And so crumbles yet another one of your conspiracy theories.

    You keep declaring that you have special knowledge that the rest of the world has overlooked, but that's never the case. When the world disagrees with you, it's not because the world has messed up, it's because you're the one who has messed up.
     
  12. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    17,422
    Likes Received:
    14,325
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I bet it will be Obama's sea side residence on the Vineyard. Or, no.. wait... Al Gore's place on the beach in Malibu... The rest of us can wait until their homes are inundated first....
     
  13. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    3,359
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, you're just further crumbling your own theory.

    There is no valid reference point for measuring global sea level.
     
  14. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    31,263
    Likes Received:
    6,853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The sea level will increase by one foot in the next 100 years. That’s ~ 1 inch per decade and ~ 1/8 inch per year. This is a non problem easily adapted to.
     
    Sunsettommy likes this.
  15. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,159
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How about this city that succumbed to sea level rise long before the industrial revolution? I win.:)

    DWARKA, INDIA
    The city has a proper mention in the holy book of Hindus. The city was considered a myth until the National Institute of Ocean Technology found the ruins of the city in Gulf of Khamabhat. The Hindus believe that the city was built by Lord Krishna and have around 70,000 palaces in it. The Researchers has taken the wood from the site and have noted the carbon dating. According to carbon dating, it is known that the site dates to around 9,000 years old.

    It is also believed that the Arabian Sea was 100m lower than its current level.



    https://earthnworld.com/10-mysterious-underwater-cities-of-the-ancient-world/
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2020
    AFM likes this.
  16. bringiton

    bringiton Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    6,281
    Likes Received:
    663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    +/- 6in, assuming no substantial sequestration of water by large-scale hydrological projects. Given the increasing shortages of fresh water and declining costs of dam construction, diversion, pumping, etc., I expect to see a lot more large-scale sequestration like the Three Gorges and TransAqua projects.
    And at a microscopic fraction of the cost of futilely trying to stop it by reducing fossil fuel use.
     
    AFM likes this.
  17. AFM

    AFM Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2014
    Messages:
    31,263
    Likes Received:
    6,853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And who could forget about Atlantis? :D
     
    bringiton and Josephwalker like this.
  18. Sunsettommy

    Sunsettommy Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    236
    Likes Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    What about DOGGERLAND?

    [​IMG]

    LINK
     
  19. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    28,667
    Likes Received:
    9,433
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Med has dried up and refilled several times, as we know from certain very thick salt deposits. I don't think anyone of them was there when mankind existed though

    Gibraltar once had a waterfall higher than Niagara and several MILES across, that must have been something to see, though it was only there for a few centuries.
     
  20. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,938
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, the last time was well over 5 million years ago. Australopithecines had not even evolved at that point yet, and Ardipithecus had just split away from Chimps. And some have postulated that is one of the reasons why Europe has no primates. The constant opening and closing of the Med made a region completely inhospitable to migration from Africa north.

    Most of the fauna that evolved in Europe predate those events. That is why things like lions, elephants, and other animals evolved so differently (and became extinct) while those in Africa did not.
     
  21. Farnsworth

    Farnsworth Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Messages:
    678
    Likes Received:
    174
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Re the OP, I can only laugh at the blatant dope addled abject ignorance of believing if the U.S. voted for Democrat over Republicans then the Democrat will stop 'man made climate change n stuff'. Neither Party can can a do a thing about it unilaterally. No American election is going to force India or Red China to stop using coal and all kinds of other chemicals, no matter what the liars tell you when they have their stooges give you speeches on college campuses and feed grade school children all that bullshit via assorted 'grants' to faux 'academics' designed to propagandize them young with scare stories.

    Reminds me of my Jewish grandparents and their talking about the ridiculous horror stories their Jewish parents would tell their kids about Da Evul WASP Xians to this day. Never mind it's this Evul WASP country that took in over half the world's Jews fleeing Cossacks and 'enlightened' Europe in just a couple of decades, and remains the main guarantor of Israeli security, those American Xians are evul, I tell you, Evul!

    When I was in Jr. High the fear mongering leftists, and Carl Sagan, were blathering on and on and on about how the pollution was going to cause an 'Ice Age' and kill all the life on Earth. Nuclear war was also supposed to cause a 'nuclear winter', too.
     
    Last edited: Aug 5, 2020
    Sunsettommy and AFM like this.
  22. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    28,667
    Likes Received:
    9,433
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lions were known in Europe even into historical times.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lions_in_Europe

    While it predates man it's fascinating that you had this huge area that is so low down that the air was probably too thick for comfortable breathing. There's a story there.
     
  23. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    28,667
    Likes Received:
    9,433
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nuclear war WOULD cause a nuclear winter, but it wouldn't matter because the radioactivity would kill everything but cockroaches anyway. This has been known since the 50's.

    Fit companions for Fearless General Bonespurs I suppose
     
  24. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,938
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am aware of that. Of course, the lion also did not evolve in Africa. It actually evolved in Asia and migrated from there to Africa and North America. And not being arboreal, it was not as dependent as primates are in migrating from place to place requiring trees. One of the biggest bottlenecks of primate migration is the fact that they were arboreal, and without trees rarely migrated far from where they originated.

    Which has long caused consternation among zoologists when populations are found in a place where they should not be (South America). Yet are not present in places even closer to their home region where they should have been able to thrive (Europe). Want to drive a zoologist crazy? Ask them why monkeys are in South America, but not Europe. Or why in spite of primates living in most Western Pacific islands, there are none in Australia.

    As for the breathing, any creatures would be able to adapt over generations. Much as humans have evolved for life in the Andes, where most would have a hard time living. And yes, there actually is a story there. Called "Down in the Bottomlands", by Harry Turtledove. A kind of interesting alternate history, where the last remaining groups of Neanderthal continue to live there into the modern era. And part of the story (essentially it is a mystery) involves using a plot to use "starbombs" (nuclear weapons) to blow a hole in the "Barrier Mountains" (Gibraltar) and flood the region and create a new central sea between what is now Africa and Europe.
     
  25. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    9,938
    Likes Received:
    966
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually, that has been largely discredited. Even by the person who created and popularized the concept in the first place.

    Most are not aware that that is a concept created and popularized by Carl Sagan, along with 4 other scientists. First theorized in the 1970's, it really took off in the 1980s and he wrote several books on the theory. He gave many lectures and speeches on this very topic during the Cold War, and in the leadup to the 1990 Gulf War. Even in 1990 writing a report stating that if Iraq followed through with their threats even the destruction of 100 wells would cause a global Nuclear Winter effect. And we know that over 700 oil wells were destroyed and set on fire, and the predicted "Nuclear Winter" never materialized.

    Then in 1991 he quickly back peddled, and along with most of the creators of the theory admitted they were wrong. I have some questions over the decades over some of the claims of Dr. Sagan. But I also still respect him because he was a real scientist, and was never afraid to admit when he was later proven to be wrong. Towards the end of his life even he became skeptical of much of the "Climate Scientists" predictions, as he had already experienced how drastically wrong they had been in the past.

    And no, the radioactivity would not be that devastating either. The majority would be short life particles, and fairly quickly be flushed out of the environment.
     
    Farnsworth likes this.

Share This Page