70 Metre Rise In Sea Level?

[CapelDodger]

Thousands of scientists have refuted the global warming scam.

None have. Not one. Zip. Nada. It would only take one, after all, and guess what - the "scam" is still going.

There are scientists who have denied it, but nobody serious listens to them any more.

The Pacific islands that have rising sea levels is because the globe slowly changes shape over time and at the moment it is bulging more at the equator.

Are you pulling my bell-end, tosh? (That's Brit-speak for "Geddoudahere!")

The ancient maps of Antarctic are in the hands of the Vatican along with much knowledge.

Have they let you see it? I wouldn't trust their word that they've got it.

The North West Passage was open for some of our early explorers ...

Is that why John Cabot didn't come back that last time? Maybe he got to the Pacific and settled in Tahiti (I would have).

... it's not open now.

Not just at the moment, but it is mid-winter. It'll be open in the summer, just as it was the last two summers.

Yep the sky is falling, keep up the panic, makes you sound smart.

Panic never made anybody sound smart - well, not in my experience, anyway. Being smart is the best way to sound smart. Which, frankly, you don't.

(Do you have anything on the North-East Passage? Did the Russians keep it a secret back in the day?)

 

[CapelDodger]

In your phenomenally fertile imagination.

I love it! I welcome you to the CTs Concerning Global Warming Science thread to present your evidence (the one thread where a/gw conspiracy theorists dare not go, preferring instead the drive-by approach).

I've taken it there (I'm a sucker for Vatican chicanery.) http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4394909#post4394909

 

[six7s]

What you put me in mind of is that before modern technology, living by major waterways (large rivers, oceans) was practically a requirement for civilization. As a result most major population centers can be found in such locations.

It's also worth noting that the most fertile soils (apart from volcanic deposits, which have their own obvious problems) are on floodplains and river deltas.

Perhaps... I have a hunch that there's some rather fertile soil to be found in and around forests, too)

Whatever/however... it occurs to me that one point most 'worth noting' is that, as most high-density human settlements are located in areas prone to flooding and/or volcanic eruptions, we are the heirs to a whole raft ('scuse teh pun) of adaptive skills...

One other point I find 'worth noting' is that we thrive on a varied diet of stuff that grows abundantly in and/or around water

Even if I was to put us humans first and foremost, why should I be worried about the welfare of my greatⁿ-grandchildren?

 

[CapelDodger]

Perhaps... I have a hunch that there's some rather fertile soil to be found in and around forests, too)

Not so much. A lot of the fertile soil we have used to be temperate forest, but most of that's gone now. Rainforest soil is generally quite poor.

Whatever/however... it occurs to me that one point most 'worth noting' is that, as most high-density human settlements are located in areas prone to flooding and/or volcanic eruptions, we are the heirs to a whole raft ('scuse teh pun) of adaptive skills...

One strategy is to run away and coming back when the dust settles. Which is not an option when the tide comes in to stay.

One other point I find 'worth noting' is that we thrive on a varied diet of stuff that grows abundantly in and/or around water

True, but these days most food is farmed. Limnic environments are excellent for hunter-gatherers, though, so there's a future for the species .

Even if I was to put us humans first and foremost, why should I be worried about the welfare of my greatⁿ-grandchildren?

Why indeed? I'm not. What has posterity ever done for us?

 

[truethat]

this might be an exceedingly stupid question but here goes.

Is it possible to slowly remove land beneath the ocean in order to balance the rising sea levels?

 

[six7s]

Not so much. A lot of the fertile soil we have used to be temperate forest, but most of that's gone now. Rainforest soil is generally quite poor.

Relatively speaking, yes... However... if a bunch of hippies can grow food in the sands at Findhorn, I ain't fretting, yet

One strategy is to run away and coming back when the dust settles. Which is not an option when the tide comes in to stay.

Another tried-and-tested strategy being to up sticks and shift camp

See:

• North America
• South America
• Europe
• Asia
• &c.

Or, in short, anywhere that ain't Lucy-land

One other point I find 'worth noting' is that we thrive on a varied diet of stuff that grows abundantly in and/or around water

True, but these days most food is farmed.

If there's a relevant point to your statement, I'm afraid its gone straight over my head

Limnic environments are excellent for hunter-gatherers, though, so there's a future for the species .

Is there any serious risk?

Why indeed? I'm not. What has posterity ever done for us?

How about sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health? Or was that our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers' posteriority?

 

[six7s]

this might be an exceedingly stupid question but here goes.

Is it possible to slowly remove land beneath the ocean in order to balance the rising sea levels?

this might be an exceedingly stupid reply but here goes.


Why even be concerned - let alone worried - about it?


USA Today: Answers Archives - Earth's water cycle, humidity

Q: If all the water that is in the world's ice formation were to melt and all the water that was in the atmosphere should condense and fall on the Earth, would the entire earth be totally under water? Would there be any mountains visible even a small tip of them? If the Earth was covered by what depth would the water be?

A: If all of the water on Earth could somehow go into the oceans, we'd still have plenty of land left, you wouldn't even have to go into high mountains to find dry land.

Let's start with the ice. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that if all of the ice on Earth melted, including all of it in Antarctica, Greenland, and on smaller ice caps and glaciers, sea levels would rise by 80.44 meters, which is 264 feet (rounded off.). The Geological Survey estimates that if all of the water in the atmosphere as vapor could somehow condense at the same time, it would cover the entire Earth with one inch – that's right, one inch – of water. Since oceans cover a lot more area than land, even the water that ran off the land into the ocean wouldn't add even two inches to the total from the melting ice.

Even if all of the water that's now underground could somehow come to the surface, and no water flow back underground, we're still talking about a lot of dry land left. The Geological Survey estimates that the amount of water underground is about 2/7ths as much as that locked up in ice. In other words, it would add about 75 feet to the total sea level rise caused by ice. In other words, any place with an elevation of 350 feet or more would be safely above the ocean, assuming that the ocean temperature stays around the same and there is no thermal expansion. (This is getting further and further from reality, a warmer world would have more water vapor in the air.)

While this much water would flood coastal areas, plenty of dry land would be left.

 

[CapelDodger]

Relatively speaking, yes... However... if a bunch of hippies can grow food in the sands at Findhorn, I ain't fretting, yet

Hippies may well come through this a lot better than your average townie. I grow fruit and veg myself, but I do have the garden for it. Not everybody does, and they're not having mine.

Another tried-and-tested strategy being to up sticks and shift camp



See:

• North America
• South America
• Europe
• Asia
• &c.

Or, in short, anywhere that ain't Lucy-land

Been there, found those, filled them up.

If there's a relevant point to your statement, I'm afraid its gone straight over my head

If we lose a lot of farmland many people will be in trouble, and most farmland is low-lying. We can't all take to fishing and catching frogs.

Is there any serious risk?

There is to people living in deltas. (In truth, the most immediate danger is the state of the oceans, which is bad and getting worse.)

How about sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health? Or was that our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers' posteriority?

We are their posterity, and we never did anything for them either. They did those things for their own benefit anyway.

 

[six7s]

Hippies may well come through this a lot better than your average townie.

Quite possibly

However, I fail to see the relevance, given that 'your average townies' are a minority population (planet-wise)

Been there, found those, filled them up.

Filled 'em up with what?

If we lose a lot of farmland many people will be in trouble, and most farmland is low-lying.

Yeah? Are you sure? Even so... most farmland is kinda near where farmers live...

If/when people move, then their farms move, too

We can't all take to fishing and catching frogs.

So some idiots will die... this is a bad thing?

(In truth, the most immediate danger is the state of the oceans, which is bad and getting worse.)

This is one point I can't argue against... other than to say a few gazillion cubes of ice to dilute 'em, a few billion less mammals to pollute 'em and few millennia on spin-cycle and they'll be Persil-clean

We are their posterity

Check my spelling

 

[macdoc]

However, I fail to see the relevance, given that 'your average townies' are a minority population (planet-wise)

Umm more than half of the people on the planet are urban.
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTPOVERTY/EXTMIGDEV/0,,contentMDK:21405637~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:2838223,00.html

Yeah? Are you sure? Even so... most farmland is kinda near where farmers live...

If/when people move, then their farms move, too

Umm much farmland is alluvial - you tried to farm rocks lately???

Loss of land to sea-level rise:

Some of the world’s most densely populated areas could lose fertile arable land, especially in low-lying delta areas such as those of the Nile, the Mekong and the Ganges-Brahmaputra. A one metre sea-level rise, for example, could result in the loss of 5 800 km2 in the lower Nile delta, affecting 15 per cent of Egypt’s habitable land (Nicholls 1994).

In Bangladesh, a one metre rise could flood almost 30 000 km2, affecting over 13 per cent of the population, while in Vietnam 40 000 km2 could be lost affecting 23 per cent of the population (Table 1) (IPCC 2001b).

Even where land is not flooded, soil quality may decline due to salinization of soils and groundwater sources and increased risk of tidal surges.

http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/yb2006/063.asp

 

[six7s]

Umm more than half of the people on the planet are urban.

So? Even with an exceedingly steep bell curve, the sector that represents 'your average townies' is a minority

Umm much farmland is alluvial - you tried to farm rocks lately???

Yes. Have you?

In Bangladesh, a one metre rise could flood almost 30 000 km2, affecting over 13 per cent of the population

http://www.unep.org/geo/yearbook/yb2006/063.asp

Had a look up stream? There's more than a few hectares up there and, with an increased global temp, some of it might support more than just a few yakherds, no?

 

[BenBurch]

...
Yes. Have you?
...

Seriously, you are farmer? What type of soil do you have then?

 

[macdoc]

Average townie = minority bit of sophistry when your INTENT was clearly otherwise.

Farming rocks.....well that DOES Put your comments in perspective

Move up, No. It's quite warm enough to be farmed if it could be.
There is this small problem of the Himalayas.

http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/4955/Bangladesh.A2003026.0450.1km.jpg

 

[six7s]

Seriously, you are farmer? What type of soil do you have then?

This snippet seems to describe much of the surrounding district that I have called home for approx half of my life:

...rolling hill country founded on deeply weathered fluvio-glacial outwash gravels (Moutere Gravels), with a little limestone and granite in the west. The hills are drained by numerous valleys with flat alluvial floors. There is a small amount of coast containing an estuarine shore and a series of bluffs. The climate is sunny and sheltered, with very warm summers and mild winters...

Source: www.tdc.govt.nz/

It's an area renowned - at least recently- for 'the four Fs':

• Farming
• Fishing
• Fruit
• [rule 10]-all-else

 

[six7s]

Average townie = minority bit of sophistry when your INTENT was clearly otherwise.

Confirmation bias, much?

Try scrolling up and see who first used the term

Then come back down and try again

Farming rocks.....well that DOES Put your comments in perspective

And I'm the one resorting to sophistry? Hah!

I take you have spent as much time farming as you have thinking

Move up, No. It's quite warm enough to be farmed if it could be.
There is this small problem of the Himalayas.

A problem that, as Alexander, Genghis and - more recently - Orville and Wilbur would attest, has more than one solution

Your point being?

 

[BobK]

For the foreseeable future and no matter how deep the water gets, the US will have plenty of land for growing food. Unless those dunderheads in congress foolishly turn it into fuel.

Only Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey and the District of Columbia have mean elevations of less than 300 feet. Of that group you can count on one finger those that are generally considered farm states.

State elevations.

 

[Damien Evans]

Gee Damien didn't know you were the be all and end all, my mistake. If you want to see the above look in the mirror. Thousands of scientists have refuted the global warming scam. The Pacific islands that have rising sea levels is because the globe slowly changes shape over time and at the moment it is bulging more at the equator. The ancient maps of Antarctic are in the hands of the Vatican along with much knowledge. The North West Passage was open for some of our early explorers, it's not open now. Yep the sky is falling, keep up the panic, makes you sound smart.

No.

 

[macdoc]

- Orville and Wilbur would attest, has more than one solution

What - you are contemplating air lifting a few million Bangladeshis over the Himalayas?

The low elevation coastal zone -- the continuous area along coastlines that is less than 10 meters above sea level -- represents 2 percent of the world's land area but contains 10 percent of its total population and 13 percent of its urban population, says the report "State of the World's Cities 2008/9: Harmonious Cities" launched by the United Nations Human Settlements Program (UN-HABITAT) after analyzing urban inequalities in 28 developing countries.

But at a time when over 50 percent of the world's population lives in urban areas, the report sets out to determine which cities are in danger and which communities might well be drowned out.
There are 3,351 cities in the low elevation coastal zones around the world. Of these cities, 64 percent are in developing regions; Asia alone accounts for more than half of the most vulnerable cities, followed by Latin America and the Caribbean (27 percent) and Africa (15 percent). Two-thirds of these cities are in Europe; almost one-fifth of all cities in North America are in low elevation coastal zones, according to the report which UN- HABITAT publishes every two years.
Aimed at policy makers and planners, the new UN report warns that few coastal cities will be spared.
In the developed world, 35 of the 40 largest cities are either coastal or situated along a river bank. In Europe, rivers have played a more important role in determining the growth and importance of a city than the sea; more than half of the 20 largest cities in the region developed along river banks.

and that's the stats at 10 meters ....not 70


Still sea level rise is really minor compared to other factors that would lead up to that.

 

[six7s]

<aWholeBunchOfCrapSnipped/>

Please, try to think and discuss

I asked you a question

Your point being?

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by macdoc
<aWholeBunchOfCrapSnipped/>

second confirmation.......

••

Long before we get anywhere near a 70 meter rise or even a 1 meter rise we'll be facing much greater issues with the ocean....

The group says acidity of ocean surface waters has increased by 30 percent since the 17th century.



“The chemistry is so fundamental and changes so rapid and severe that impacts on organisms appear unavoidable,” according to James Orr, who headed the symposium’s scientific committee. Dr. Orr is a chemical oceanographer at the Marine Environmental Laboratory in Monaco, an affiliate of the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations body.

According to the declaration, “ocean acidification may render most regions chemically inhospitable to coral reefs by 2050.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/science/earth/31ocean.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print