A half degree more global warming could flood out 5 million more people

March 9, 2018 by Liz Fuller-Wright, Princeton University
Credit: Princeton University

The 2015 Paris climate agreement sought to stabilize global temperatures by limiting warming to "well below 2.0 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels," but a recent literature review found the 2 degree limitation "inadequate" and concluded that limiting global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees would "come with several advantages."

To quantify what that would mean for people living in coastal areas, a group of researchers employed a global network of tide gauges to create probabilistic, localized sea-level projections that assess differences in the frequency of storm surges and other extreme sea-level events across three scenarios: global increases of 1.5, 2.0 and 2.5 degrees Celsius. They used long-term hourly tide gauge records and extreme value theory to estimate present and future return periods of extreme sea-level events through the 22nd century.

They concluded that by 2150, the seemingly small difference between an increase of 1.5 and 2.0 degrees C would mean the inundation of lands currently home to about 5 million people, including 60,000 who live on small island nations.

The study was published online in Environmental Research Letters on Feb. 2, 2018 by researchers at Princeton University working with colleagues at Rutgers and Tufts Universities.

In addition, they found that higher temperatures will make extreme events much more common. In New York City, for example, they estimate that "100-year floods" will become annual events under a 1.5 degree rise and twice-annual events with a 2.0 degree rise.

Extreme sea levels are defined as the combined height of high tide plus storm surge (sometimes called the storm tide). When driven by hurricanes or other large storms, extreme sea levels flood coastal areas, threatening life and property. Rising mean sea levels are already magnifying the frequency and severity of extreme sea levels, and experts predict that by the end of the century, coastal flooding may be among the costliest impacts of climate change in some regions.

The risk from is exacerbated by the rising , which in turn depends on the trajectory of global mean surface temperature. Even if are stabilized, sea levels are expected to continue to rise for centuries, due to the long residence time of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, the thermal inertia of the ocean, and the slow response of large ice sheets to forcing.

Overall, the researchers predicted that by 2100, a 1.5 degree temperature increase will drive the global mean sea level up by 19 inches (48 centimeters, 90 percent credible interval of 28–82 cm), while a 2.0 degree increase will raise oceans by 22 inches (56 cm, 90 percent credible interval of 28–96 cm), and a 2.5 degree increase will raise sea level by 23 inches (58 cm, 90 percent credible interval of 37–93 cm). As an independent comparison, a semi-empirical sea level model calibrated to temperature and global mean sea level over the past two millennia made similar predictions, within 7 to 8 centimeters of these projections.

Explore further: Avoiding increases of extreme heat events over East Asia by 0.5 degrees C

More information: D.J. Rasmussen et al. Extreme sea level implications of 1.5 °C, 2.0 °C, and 2.5 °C temperature stabilization targets in the 21st and 22nd century, Environmental Research Letters (2018). DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aaac87

Related Stories

More ambitious climate targets could save coastal ecosystems

December 14, 2017

The difference between the Paris climate agreement's two alternative temperature targets – 1.5°C (2.7°F) and 2.0°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels – may be the difference between life and death for some coastal ...

Recommended for you

Amazon River pirating water from neighboring Rio Orinoco

August 16, 2018

The Amazon River is slowly stealing a 40,000-square-kilometer (25,000-square-mile) drainage basin from the upper Orinoco River, according to new research suggesting this may not be the first time the world's largest river ...

69 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
3.9 / 5 (15) Mar 09, 2018
The poor will die while the rich get subsidies.

Big Fist governments want it that way.
Turgent
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 09, 2018
We feed the mice marijuana for 45 days. Additionally the mice smoked the equivalent of 48 reefers a day. We removed the brains and mixed them with hydrazine, blended, dehydrated, irradiated, baked, and boiled them. The evidence, beyond any shadow of a doubt, proves marijuana causes brain damage.
24volts
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 09, 2018
Looks like 5 million people are going to be moving to higher ground since the ice at the poles IS going to melt slowly but surely until it's all pretty much gone. We have another few thousand years in this cycle before it's going to start freezing up again. We might very well be speeding it up a bit but it's going to happen regardless of what we do.
grandpa
1.4 / 5 (20) Mar 09, 2018
All I here is global warming this, global warming that. This totally reminds me of the fundamentalists who claimed that the King James bible was the only inspired version of the English translation. People join herds and follow the herd. Nothing wrong with this. It is a survival mechanism. It is one of the things that makes humans great. I just so surprised that scientific people don't see that they are just following the herd on the global warming stuff. Overall a three degree C raise in temperature would bring the earth temperatures closer to the earths history of the last billion years It would get the earth away from the ice ball earth problem that has been happening for the last couple million years. Not a bad result.
TrollBane
4.6 / 5 (18) Mar 09, 2018
...and off the top rope comes grandpa with the flying Science Religion Reverse Facts technique.
gkam
4.1 / 5 (14) Mar 09, 2018
Hey, Gramps, many of us have been worried about this since we got educated.

I earned my Master of Science in this field in 1982. How did you get your opinion?
leetennant
4.8 / 5 (19) Mar 09, 2018
All I here is global warming this, global warming that.


Yeah, weird that. This is like people complaining that all they hear out of CERN is physics stuff.
aksdad
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 09, 2018
A half degree more global warming could flood out 5 million more people

Yeah, no. Rather than be bothered with using simple science and deriving a reasonable estimate of future sea level rise from past and current rates they created models to guess how much sea level would rise due to warming. They didn't validate the models against measurements so, unsurprisingly, their guesses are pretty crazy.

They guess that sea levels will rise anywhere from 48 to 58 cm by 2100 if temperatures rise 1.5°C to 2.5°C above pre-industrial levels (around 1870). Using science and math and extrapolating from current rates of sea level rise (about 1.5 to 3.2 mm/yr or 15 cm to 32 cm per century), they will be about 12 to 26 cm higher by 2100 (82 years x 1.5 or 3.2 mm/yr). That's half to a quarter of what these researchers predict.

https://climate.n...a-level/

They're counting on accelerating sea level rise, but so far we see nothing of the sort in the record.
aksdad
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 10, 2018
Global temperatures have risen about 1°C since the pre-industrial era (circa 1870) and there's been about 23 cm of sea level rise over 148 years.

Sea level record (lower graph):

https://climate.n...a-level/

Temperature record:

http://berkeleyea...arge.png

According to the authors' prediction, only another 0.5°C temperature rise (half of what we've already experienced) will magically result in a deluge of water pouring into the oceans. In order to rise another 48 cm (lowest of their guesses), the rate of sea level rise will have to dramatically increase; from 70% (satellite-measured rate) to 360% (tide-gauge-measured rate).

Like most alarmist studies, this strains credulity. No wonder no one listens anymore.

(The rate difference between tide gauges and satellites, 1.5 vs. 3.2 mm/yr, is due to instrument precision and statistical methods. There hasn't been a jump in sea level rise.)
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2018
All I here is global warming this, global warming that.


That's all you ever heard since you were born and that's all you'll ever here, understanding the science behind the realiti of Human Induced Climate Change was never engraved into your dna nor intellect.
HeloMenelo
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2018

Like most alarmist studies, this strains credulity. No wonder no one listens anymore.


One of Antigoracle's worst straw man thumb sucked babble yet, every one with half a pea between the ears does listen and can understand, since you are incapable of growing half a pea, you and your barrage of chest thumping puppets are the only one's that is incapable of listening let alone undertsanding the very reality of Human Induced Climate Change proved beyond any doubt whatsoever that you and your numb skulled puppets and everyone that can read think and understand is living in right now. (asking your daddy never seems to help either)
SteveS
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2018
Yeah, no. Rather than be bothered with using simple science and deriving a reasonable estimate of future sea level rise from past and current rates they created models to guess how much sea level would rise due to warming.


From the article

"To quantify what that would mean for people living in coastal areas, a group of researchers employed a global network of tide gauges to create probabilistic, localized sea-level projections that assess differences in the frequency of storm surges and other extreme sea-level events across three scenarios"

They didn't validate the models against measurements so, unsurprisingly, their guesses are pretty crazy.


From the article

"As an independent comparison, a semi-empirical sea level model calibrated to temperature and global mean sea level over the past two millennia made similar predictions, within 7 to 8 centimeters of these projections."

The paper

http://iopscience...ac87/pdf
gkam
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2018
"will magically result in a deluge of water pouring into the oceans"

Well there we have it: This guy has no idea of how reality works.
rrwillsj
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2018
Well, the denier shills for the Carbon Lobby are agitpropping with obscurant half-truths and deliberate double-speak.

The problem is not Global Warming. The problem is Global Climate Change.

The Northern Temperate Zone from the Atlantic, well into Asia suffering brutal Arctic conditions.
While the Northern Temperate Zone across the Pacific is suffering Equatorial level Hot-Dry alternating with violent Hot-Wet.

With similar weather patterns across the Southern Temperate Zone. While the Arctic and Antarctic Polar Regions continue to defrost.

Allowing Human degradation of the only available biosphere, for reason beside profits? Is shorty-sighted with blinkers on. Deniers, a whole new class of pony-girls!

I just cannot imagine how much of a bribe the deniers are receiving. That they are so willing to betray their own children and grand-children for a quick buck!
gkam
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2018
"they are so willing to betray their own children and grand-children for a quick buck!"

And their followers are blinded by political prejudice, and even after the Republican Wars, the Republican National Debt, and the sordid history of that party, they are suckers for Trickle-down, "WMD!", and "MAGA".
grandpa
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 10, 2018
Why should I believe any global warming alarmist. The vast majority support abortion or choice that kills 50 million every year and they worry about 5 million people having to move over a 200 year period.
jasjax360
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 10, 2018
Unfortunately this is not based on real science. They don't know what they are talking about. These opportunistic studies are designed to attract and justify research grants and future job prospects. Also you shouldn't call everyone that disagrees with you part of some global cabal. From the very language of the posters you can see their politics breathe through so why pretend they care about the science.
Is there any science that you could be provided that would counter your beliefs. If your answer is no then you have beliefs system that has nothing to do with science. This has nothing to do with carbon dioxide because there are many ways to sequester it and that is rarely discussed. This is about imposing a certain way of life on others. Climate should simply be something we still study instead of something we make such grand proclamations about. I see far more reservation in other areas of science.
gkam
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2018
Once again, I recommend education to overcome emotionally-powered political prejudice.
Turgent
1 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2018

et. al.,

Its clear there are many on these forums who are mean-spirited jaundiced eyed zealots, liars and BSers, and who simply enjoy creating animosity. A considerable number have no grasp of sciences 101. The term scientific method is alien. 95% cannot even understand hard algebra or a quadratic equation. Hence, they lack the critical skills to engage in enlightened dialogue. The more a subject moves toward hard science the fewer of these excrement flies buzz around.

avandesande2000
1 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2018
.1% of population
PTTG
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2018
The real damage that the denialists, shills, and crackpots cause is that they pollute the discourse, causing everyday people to doubt the scientific method and scientific experts to doubt the efficacy of democracy.

Don't let the shills win. Rationality and democracy are intrinsically linked.
jasjax360
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 11, 2018
The real damage that the denialists, shills, and crackpots cause is that they pollute the discourse, causing everyday people to doubt the scientific method and scientific experts to doubt the efficacy of democracy.

Don't let the shills win. Rationality and democracy are intrinsically linked.

Science is about experimentation, observation and measurement. Debate is welcome. Demeaning those who disagree with you has nothing to do with science.

Also where is your evidence linking belief in anthropogenic global climate change and democracy. Furthermore science is not about the politics of the believers but the evidence.

What kind of discourse do you propose where the premise is not questioned. The whole point of democracy is that everyone gets to have their say by way of voting. And lastly Is it not rational to question something in the absence of evidence. Apocalyptic religions tend to begin this way with everybody going on faith for fear of some preached about end.
gkam
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2018
The controversy is phony.

The facts are here: http://www.ipcc.c...ar5/wg1/

Read it and weep or suffer severe embarrassment like with "WMD!".
HeloMenelo
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2018

et.Its clear there are many on these forums who are mean-spirited jaundiced eyed zealots, liars and BSers, and who simply enjoy creating animosity. A considerable number have no grasp of sciences 101. The term scientific method is alien. 95% cannot even understand hard algebra or a quadratic equation. Hence, they lack the critical skills to engage in enlightened dialogue. The more a subject moves toward hard science the fewer of these excrement flies buzz around.


What is clear as day is that You are clearly just beyond too dumb to understand the overwhelming indisputable evidence supporting science, You demonstrate that to us everyday.

This has got to be the joke of the century numbnut antigoracle's sockpuppet turDgent himself lacking the basic intellect to understand science let alone grasping the overwhelming task (his ability) to undertsanding critical evidence (btw the flies is buzzing around the monkey clan which is you) and it shows... everyday
Stevepidge
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2018
Sooo, Florida was underwater in the past waaaaaay before "Anthropogenic global warming" and you tards seem to think humans would be the reason for a return of said sea levels? You people are insane. It is PLAINLY obvious that any change in earth's sea levels are cyclic on a grand scale. This type of rhetoric reminds me of ancient priests whom would convince the sheeple that the sun would never rise again as the Winter Solstice approached unless certain sacrificial rituals were performed. Science my ass.
gkam
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 11, 2018
Gosh, Steve, sorry to hear about your lack of knowledge.

Maybe you can find help here: http://www.ipcc.c...ar5/wg1/
Turgent
1 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2018
"Overall, the researchers predicted that by 2100, a 1.5 degree temperature increase will drive the global mean sea level up by 19 inches (48 centimeters, 90 percent credible interval of 28–82 cm),"

A "credible interval" is used rather than a confidence interval. Without the data and treatment this could measurably be different than a confidence interval. Still the band huge.

One meter of sea level rise requires the melting of 514,000 cubic kilometers or 1.7*10^23 cc of above sea level ice. The net energy of fusion (transition of ice to water) is 333 J/g. This melting requires 5.7*10^25 Joules. The polar regions are a net solar energy loss area. Therefore 7.1*10^23 joules/year (5.7*10^25/80) must be transported into the regions annually and all from latitudes less than 70 degrees.

cont.
Turgent
1 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2018
The Antarctic Circumpolar Current keeps out warm water. The heat transfer to that polar ice would be the equivalent of 1.7*10^8 one megaton bombs annually for each meter sea level rise.

A ½ meter rise requires ½ that amount. For the real stupid that is 85,318,832 one megaton bombs.

Key is how do you melt the ice?

NASA "Global sea level has fluctuated widely in the recent geologic past. It stood 4-6 meters above the present during the last interglacial period, 125,000 years ago, but was 120 m lower at the peak of the last ice age, around 20,000 years ago."

https://www.giss....nitz_09/

This says that more sea level rise is on the way as we approach the interglacial midpoint.

This seems to be an academic exercise in AGW Porn unless these other factors are accounted for.

Troll Patrol could there be anything wrong with the numbers or scientific argument?
grandpa
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 11, 2018
I am glad this global warming scare propaganda is going the way of the dodo. The last couple million years clearly indicate earth was headed for ice earth. That our lucky stars humans have come to restore the balance. Almost evidence for God, Gaia, or intelligent life that guided humans to rebuild the CO2 levels, so the earth would not go into iceball earth.
gkam
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2018
"I am glad this global warming scare propaganda is going the way of the dodo. "

This propaganda? http://www.ipcc.c...ar5/wg1/

That is a compilation of decades of research by hundreds of professional scientists, with graphs for the Simple Folk. You can find them in the Introduction and Summary.
grandpa
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 11, 2018
"I am glad this global warming scare propaganda is going the way of the dodo. "

This propaganda? http://www.ipcc.c...ar5/wg1/

That is a compilation of decades of research by hundreds of professional scientists, with graphs for the Simple Folk. You can find them in the Introduction and Summary.
Why would you think scientists don't succumb to religious like fervor. Global warming is the fashioning of a God in scientist's image. At first global warming started out as a real scientific endeavor, but it has now transformed into a religion. Take a look at the graphs of CO2 and temperature for the last 100 million years. The earth was starting to freeze and become lifeless in comparison.
Turgent
1 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2018


This says that more sea level rise is on the way as we approach the interglacial midpoint.


Therefore it is much better to clear out the coastal plains now before further development and GW super storms. We must adapt and assimilate. Resistance is futile.
gkam
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2018
"Why would you think scientists don't succumb to religious like fervor."

Because I know better. You obviously have NO IDEA how studies are done and how professionals work, and the requirements of science.
Turgent
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2018
gkam is an authority on the subject. He wrote one on the dangers of carbon fibers, circa 1970.
Turgent
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2018


This for the idiot/troll patrol. source WSJ

"Debates over climate change are filled with dire estimates of its cost. This many trillions of dollars of damage, that large a share of gross domestic product destroyed, so-and-so many lives lost, etc. Where do such figures come from? Mostly from laughably bad economics.

This has nothing to do with the soundness of climate science. The games begin when economists get their hands on scientific projections and try to translate temperatures into human impacts. They conduct statistical analyses of the effects that small year-to-year temperature variations have on things like mortality and economic growth, and try to extrapolate to the effect of very large, slow shifts in underlying climate. This creates absurd estimates that ignore human society's capacity for adaptation. This is the latest iteration of the same mistake environmental catastrophists seem insistent on making in every generation.

cont.
Turgent
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2018
The best illustration lies deep in a 2015 paper https://web.stanf...2015.pdf]https://web.stanf...2015.pdf[/url]
published in Nature by professors from Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley. They found that warm countries tended to experience lower economic growth in abnormally warm years, while cold countries experienced higher growth in such years. Applying that relationship to a much warmer world of the future, they concluded that unmitigated climate change would likely reduce global GDP by more than 20% from what it otherwise would reach by century's end.

Doomsday Climate Scenarios Are a Joke
https://www.wsj.c...20800377
https://web.stanf...2015.pdf]https://web.stanf...2015.pdf[/url]
gkam
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2018
Is that the WSJ which championed the Bush Wars of Mass Killing and Mass Corporate Profit?

War is good business.

Did you invest your kids?
Bart_A
1.1 / 5 (13) Mar 12, 2018
gkam, it gets a little boring when you keep linking to the same IPCC report.
Maybe you don't recall that before they released this report was the IPCC scandal where we learned the following:

(1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;
(2) these scientists view global warming as a political "cause" rather than a balanced scientific inquiry;
(3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.

Bart_A
1 / 5 (13) Mar 12, 2018
gkam says,
Because I know better. You obviously have NO IDEA how studies are done and how professionals work, and the requirements of science.


Whoa. Please change your condescending tone. "scientists" like you do more harm than good in your belittling of fellow scientists.

HeloMenelo
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2018
You can take the monkey out of the bush (antigoracle aka turDgent and his barrage of sockpuppets above) but you cannot take the bush out of the monkey. ;) It seems that the more he types, the dumber he gets. I see you found your password for your Bart fart puppet too. :D
HeloMenelo
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2018
gkam says,
Because I know better. You obviously have NO IDEA how studies are done and how professionals work, and the requirements of science.


Whoa. Please change your condescending tone. "scientists" like you do more harm than good in your belittling of fellow scientists.


No he does NOT numbty, he exposes complete cracknut cases like YOU to the world, therefor enhancing the TRUTH, and have been doing a stellar job so far, he will definately continue to expose your moronic replies ;)

As for you antigoracle aka turDgent aka bartf et..al.. socknut, we only here nuts cracking everytime you open your mouth, no science at all.
HeloMenelo
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2018
gkam, it gets a little boring when you keep linking to the same IPCC report.
Maybe you don't recall that before they released this report was the IPCC scandal where we learned the following:

(1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions;
(2) these scientists view global warming as a political "cause" rather than a balanced scientific inquiry;
(3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.


What a farce of a reply, if i had to list all the things Deniers do to try and BS people into thinking climate change is not real, the list will be so long the physics forum server will cave in, keep cracking those nuts, it's what you're good at ;)
SteveS
5 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2018
This map shows the parts of continents will actually rebound by melting if glaciers and which would benefit from warming in this way.


mackita, you are obviously a glass half full sort of person. Unfortunately if you take another look at your map you will see that most of the areas at lower latitudes (the more populous) will actually sink faster due to this rebound, and even with global warming many of the de-glaciated areas will still be tundra and bogs at best.
Turgent
1 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2018
SteveS

I agree with your point that there should be a ying and yang. However, it would seem that the offset should mostly if not all occur on the ocean floors. Being the asthenosphere is uniformly plastic it would require less energy to move the thin ocean floors (10 km deep up and down rather than the much more massive continental crust 40 km depth. Another factor is that 70% of the planet is ocean floor. Guesstimating that 65% of the planet is deep ocean floor then there is a good possibility that ocean floor is the more elastic (expandable) part of the balloon.

Just conjecture here.

Zzzzzzzz
5 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2018
Unfortunately this is not based on real science. They don't know what they are talking about. These opportunistic studies are designed to attract and justify research grants and future job prospects. From the very language of the posters you can see their politics breathe through so why pretend they care about the science.
Is there any science that you could be provided that would counter your beliefs. If your answer is no then you have beliefs system that has nothing to do with science. This has nothing to do with carbon dioxide because there are many ways to sequester it and that is rarely discussed. This is about imposing a certain way of life on others. Climate should simply be something we still study instead of something we make such grand proclamations about. I see far more reservation in other areas of science.

Willful ignorance is a key milestone on the way to becoming expert at fecal regurgitation. Congrats, jasjax....
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2018
Willful ignorance is a key milestone on the way to becoming expert at fecal regurgitation.


As usual It's what to be expected from an antigoracle/turDgent sockpuppet, lot's of yakking and absolutely no backing, trying to strawman every single word he can find into his own primitive understanding in his isolated imaginary world. I don't know if it's funny or sad. Everyone sees through it, even the poorly literate.
barakn
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2018
One meter of sea level rise requires the melting of 514,000 cubic kilometers or 1.7*10^23 cc of above sea level ice. The net energy of fusion (transition of ice to water) is 333 J/g. This melting requires 5.7*10^25 Joules.. -Turgent
No, it doesn't. Water expands as it warms (beyond the 4° C maximum density), so we'd still see sea-level rise without any ice melting. The sophomoric level of Turgent's back-of-the-envelope calculation is typical of deniers.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2018
"by 2150, the seemingly small difference between an increase of 1.5 and 2.0 degrees C would mean the inundation of lands currently home to about 5 million people"

- Yeah well, by that time most everyone currently living in those areas, will be dead. Subsequent gens will have grown up, gotten the education's that George kamburoff never did, and moved on.

In the meantime rising property taxes, declining values, and shrinking real estate markets will have driven the remainder out, leaving sparsely populated ghost towns.

And the sea will gradually move in, season after season, erasing and cleansing whatever's left.

We see this in places like new Orleans already.
http://louisianaj...html?m=1

It's happened since the beginning of time. Dishonest alarmist politicians like to use images of Katrina to garner support but that's not how major population movements happen. They happen gradually, over many gens.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Mar 12, 2018
Whoa. Please change your condescending tone. "scientists" like you do more harm than good in your belittling of fellow scientists
Ahaahaaa Bart you should know by now that when George kamburoff claims to be an engr or a scientist or an environmental mgr or a black ops spook who worked directly for McNamara in southeast asia, he is lying through his teeth.

He has no education, no relevant experience, and no degrees he hasn't bought outright. Hes had 15+ short term temp jobs, all of which he lost. And then he sat idle for 18 years as a 'consultant'. All by his own admission.

Why? Because he's a lying cheating psychopath, and deceiving people is how he finds purpose in his life.

Perhaps you should be reading posts instead of just writing them.

George has been especially randy of late. Wassamatter George, you off your meds again?
Turgent
1 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2018
barakn

-Turgent
No, it doesn't. Water expands as it warms (beyond the 4° C maximum density), so we'd still see sea-level rise without any ice melting. The sophomoric level of Turgent's back-of-the-envelope calculation is typical of deniers.


Dip stick get on point and back up your BS with math & science.

But you're too stupid to do +,-,x,& /. Dumb arse.

You're just a deranged hater, typical ignorant AGW Porn addict. You and George should coordinate.
gkam
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2018
Purgent, you are just embarrassing yourself.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2018
Purgent, you are just embarrassing yourself.


You really are an embarrassing kike like creature.
gkam
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2018
Are you a bigot?
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (2) Mar 12, 2018
Are you a bigot?


yes. What of it.
Turgent
1 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2018
I would rather you call me a schmuck. Yiddish
gkam
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2018
"You really are an embarrassing kike like creature."

Nope. Religion is silly.
leetennant
5 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2018
SteveS

I agree with your point that there should be a ying and yang. However, it would seem that the offset should mostly if not all occur on the ocean floors. Being the asthenosphere is uniformly plastic it would require less energy to move the thin ocean floors (10 km deep up and down rather than the much more massive continental crust 40 km depth. Another factor is that 70% of the planet is ocean floor. Guesstimating that 65% of the planet is deep ocean floor then there is a good possibility that ocean floor is the more elastic (expandable) part of the balloon.

Just conjecture here.



Sure. And I think the problem is the unicorns and the impact their unicorn rainbow farts are having. I mean, when you think about the inherently unknown quantities of unicorn rainbow farts and guesstimating that unicorn emissions now make up 12.72% of the atmosphere, then there's a good possibility all the our problems are because of unicorns.

Just conjecture here.
HeloMenelo
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2018


barakn

-Turgent
No, it doesn't. Water expands as it warms (beyond the 4° C maximum density), so we'd still see sea-level rise without any ice melting. The sophomoric level of Turgent's back-of-the-envelope calculation is typical of deniers.


Dip stick get on point and back up your BS with math & science.

But you're too stupid to do +,-,x,& /. Dumb arse.

You're just a deranged hater, typical ignorant AGW Porn addict. You and George should coordinate.


Projecting your own shortcommings and obsessions onto others, won't improve your stance ;)
HeloMenelo
4 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2018
One meter of sea level rise requires the melting of 514,000 cubic kilometers or 1.7*10^23 cc of above sea level ice. The net energy of fusion (transition of ice to water) is 333 J/g. This melting requires 5.7*10^25 Joules.. -Turgent
No, it doesn't. Water expands as it warms (beyond the 4° C maximum density), so we'd still see sea-level rise without any ice melting. The sophomoric level of Turgent's back-of-the-envelope calculation is typical of deniers.


Once again turDgent (antigoracle sock) thinks he can prove anything wrong by projecting his own imaginary insights backed by his goons sockpuppets (in which case it always portrays baboon barking and chest thumping from his side) with not a hint of science in sight.
SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Mar 13, 2018
However, it would seem that the offset should mostly if not all occur on the ocean floors


Just conjecture here


No need for conjecture, just look at USA on mackita's map.

http://cdn.antarc...ig11.png
PeterPassword
5 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2018
All I here [sic] is global warming this, global warming that. This totally reminds me of the fundamentalists who claimed that the King James bible was the only inspired version of the English translation. People join herds and follow the herd. Nothing wrong with this. It is a survival mechanism. It is one of the things that makes humans great. I just [sic] so surprised that scientific people don't see that they are just following the herd on the global warming stuff. Overall a three degree C raise in temperature would bring the earth temperatures closer to the earths [sic] history of the last billion years It would get the earth away from the ice ball earth problem that has been happening for the last couple million years. Not a bad result.

Your illiteracy matches your science knowledge. You are on the wrong site, all your friends are over at wattsup.com home of all the denier shill lies ever created.
Try https://www.skept...nce.com/ for the facts.
PeterPassword
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2018
Every time climate change is mentioned out comes the plague of undead; implacable in the face of science, they repeat their favourite shill lies as if they have some kind of science understanding, fail to grasp answers to their spurious 'points', claim AGW is a religion when it is the deniers who are members of a contrarian cult obsessed with wealth & lifestyle being limited despite most of them being pennyless angry teens alone in their rooms, older people remember when seasons were the same year on year, snow came in winter & summers were hot. Everyone can see seasons don't exist now; winter can flip into summer and then back without a glimpse of spring. Animal and plant species are confused, with plants flowering at the start of winter and animals moving north as warming proceeds. In Britain, Hawthorn, a native shrub with white flowers, is known colloquially as May Blossom as it once bloomed then, it now blooms in February. Sometimes you just have to be in the environment to know.
PeterPassword
5 / 5 (6) Mar 14, 2018


They're counting on accelerating sea level rise, but so far we see nothing of the sort in the record.


You're counting on their informed guesses being wrong, while your uninfornmed guesses are of course right. Fact is, there's no reassurance here for deniers, the complexity of sea level rise, predicated as it is on so many feed-in factors; polar ice melt, glacier melt, expansion of ocean water as it warms and permafrost melt, is likely to be far more than anyone at present can estimate. Since all major cities where the majority of humans live are on coasts, this poses an existential threat for all societies.
zz5555
5 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2018

They're counting on accelerating sea level rise, but so far we see nothing of the sort in the record.

This isn't even close to being true. The acceleration was clear in the 20th century data and, now, even with the much shorter satellite record the acceleration is clear (https://tamino.wo...ation-2/ ). You can deny the data and pretend it's not accelerating but that seems cowardly to me. Personally, I think it's much better to face the truth then to cower in fear, but that's just me.
Turgent
1 / 5 (6) Mar 14, 2018
No need for conjecture, just look at USA on mackita's map.

http://cdn.antarc...ig11.png

It is Gaia looking back at all the flagellants and laughing. Being water is 1 g/cc and ocean floor 2.9 g/cc common sense further supports it.

All hail Gaia.

RealScienceMatter
5 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2018
Is that what your sock told you ?
HeloMenelo
5 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2018
It's the monkey bark he heard echoing from within the cave ;)
Turgent
1 / 5 (4) Mar 15, 2018
I'm agnostic on AGW and CC scare and the following:

https://www.youtu...BbBy8BEY

however, there are some new ideas here that deserve as much consideration of some of the other reaches were see.
dramputti4
5 / 5 (2) Mar 16, 2018
No sh$t

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.