OT; A battle field slips beneath the waves

[btd64]

Along with an entire nation;
This is an interesting article....GP

https://www.businessinsider.com/world-w ... ver-2019-1

[Canoerebel]

The article says the island may be inundated in decades, whereas when I read the post title I thought something had already happened to a battlefield.

Given the uncertainty of this science, the models its based on, and the abject failure of most previous long-range calamitous predictions, I'm skeptical that Tarawa will slip beneath any waves in the next 20 years or 200.

[Denniss]

With the polar and mountain ice caps melting - where do you think the water goes to ?

[spence]

Given the uncertainty of this science, the models its based on, and the abject failure of most previous long-range calamitous predictions, I'm skeptical that Tarawa will slip beneath any waves in the next 20 years or 200.

So how about I sell you some beach front real estate?

[Canoerebel]

I was born and raised in Miami.

[MakeeLearn]

Prof. Sledge had one the best understanding of climate change I've heard from anyone.

"Asphalt... keeps the freshness in."

[tarkalak]

The whole "Ice caps thawing" armageddon is a bit overrated.

The current Ice Age (yeah, we live in an Ice Age) started around 2.5 million years ago and the previous one was over 200 million years ago, or way before the dinosaurs even showed up. Between them there was no permanent ice on the planet and apparently life didn't bat an eye.

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: tarkalak

The whole "Ice caps thawing" armageddon is a bit overrated.

The current Ice Age (yeah, we live in an Ice Age) started around 2.5 million years ago and the previous one was over 200 million years ago, or way before the dinosaurs even showed up. Between them there was no permanent ice on the planet and apparently life didn't bat an eye.

You may want to re-investigate that claim. Just sayin.

[Fishbed]

Hum well yeah about life not batting an eye. If you were a cockroach that is. Or maybe a beaver... I mean, if by this expression you mean that Earth has gone through several mass extinctions without batting an eye, that's true enough, but Humans are a bit full of themselves and reached a point of civilization where they certainly have decided against being the next specie on the list if they can avoid it.

Sure, we did survive one badass early Ice Age, and survived micro-episodes since then, but we also had, how should I put it... Simpler needs back then? We didn't have 7 billion souls who all thought they had a right to grow old (and by old I mean beyond 30 years old). Makes quite a difference when you need to access shrinking resources when facing a common problem. I don't doubt I will be long dead before we start to really hurt, it's just that I don't feel really at ease knowing what we have to expect in 200 years from now if by then we have not become better than what we are now. That, and I would probably choose very carefully which Pacific island to pick for my retirement [:'(]

[tarkalak]

ORIGINAL: Alain-James

Hum well yeah about life not batting an eye. If you were a cockroach that is. Or maybe a beaver... I mean, if by this expression you mean that Earth has gone through several mass extinctions without batting an eye, that's true enough, but Humans are a bit full of themselves and reached a point of civilization where they certainly have decided against being the next specie on the list if they can avoid it.

Sure, we did survive one badass early Ice Age, and survived micro-episodes since then, but we also had, how should I put it... Simpler needs back then? We didn't have 7 billion souls who all thought they had a right to grow old (and by old I mean beyond 30 years old). Makes quite a difference when you need to access shrinking resources when facing a common problem. I don't doubt I will be long dead before we start to really hurt, it's just that I don't feel really at ease knowing what we have to expect in 200 years from now if by then we have not become better than what we are now. That, and I would probably choose very carefully which Pacific island to pick for my retirement [:'(]

The only extinction event between the dates I cited was caused by an asteroid.

Any extinction event that we might face today will likely be caused by a cosmic change that we could not possibly control, most likely a change in the Sun.

What I meant was that, we live in a very cold climate compared to past ages. Even if all the ice caps and glaciers melt we will have the oceans a few meters higher and several millions of people displaced. That would be a huge disaster but not something we couldn't handle.

[MakeeLearn]

Hold until relieved...

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: tarkalak

The only extinction event between the dates I cited was caused by an asteroid.

Any extinction event that we might face today will likely be caused by a cosmic change that we could not possibly control, most likely a change in the Sun.

What I meant was that, we live in a very cold climate compared to past ages. Even if all the ice caps and glaciers melt we will have the oceans a few meters higher and several millions of people displaced. That would be a huge disaster but not something we couldn't handle.

Well as you might have seen in my comment, I do not plan on faulting an asteroid or ice caps for our extinction. Beyond mass extinction events which are, I agree, pretty rare, life as a whole sure didn't bat an eye - but individual species still did go quietly into the night. Because they had lost their habitat. Because they got preyed on by new predators. We have none of these problems because we overcame them in many ways that are beyond the realm of possibility for mere animals.

Doesn't make us absolutely stronger, for it came with other cons (our ability to kill each other on a large scale, among other things). Right now our policy in terms of global protection is among these cons. Because we believe for good reason out of danger in terms of extinction as a specie beyond some sort of cosmic event, we allow ourselves a free reign over what becomes of everything else.

In this regard, our ability to survive our own mistakes shouldn't make us oblivious to the fact that we're degrading everything else for no good reason (greed not being a good one naturally), and leaving some of our most exposed ones to the perils created, in large part, by the most favored one. In that regard, I am not even asking for change. Just for a bit of honesty and self-acknowledgement from our kind. But I am a bit silly [;)]

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: tarkalak

ORIGINAL: Alain-James

Hum well yeah about life not batting an eye. If you were a cockroach that is. Or maybe a beaver... I mean, if by this expression you mean that Earth has gone through several mass extinctions without batting an eye, that's true enough, but Humans are a bit full of themselves and reached a point of civilization where they certainly have decided against being the next specie on the list if they can avoid it.

Sure, we did survive one badass early Ice Age, and survived micro-episodes since then, but we also had, how should I put it... Simpler needs back then? We didn't have 7 billion souls who all thought they had a right to grow old (and by old I mean beyond 30 years old). Makes quite a difference when you need to access shrinking resources when facing a common problem. I don't doubt I will be long dead before we start to really hurt, it's just that I don't feel really at ease knowing what we have to expect in 200 years from now if by then we have not become better than what we are now. That, and I would probably choose very carefully which Pacific island to pick for my retirement [:'(]

The only extinction event between the dates I cited was caused by an asteroid.

Any extinction event that we might face today will likely be caused by a cosmic change that we could not possibly control, most likely a change in the Sun.

What I meant was that, we live in a very cold climate compared to past ages. Even if all the ice caps and glaciers melt we will have the oceans a few meters higher and several millions of people displaced. That would be a huge disaster but not something we couldn't handle.

Again, research this. Your argument in and of itself is valid, but missing several key factors.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The article says the island may be inundated in decades, whereas when I read the post title I thought something had already happened to a battlefield.

Given the uncertainty of this science, the models its based on, and the abject failure of most previous long-range calamitous predictions, I'm skeptical that Tarawa will slip beneath any waves in the next 20 years or 200.

Tarawa highest elevation: 10 feet.

Absolute minimum amount of sea level rise from just 2' C of warming (which we are already more than halfway to in just the last few decades, and > 2'C almost certainly already locked in): 4.6 meters = 15 feet

So in a few decades, we'll be wading over Tarawa because it will be completely submerged.


I'm sorry to say, but your assertion is simply disconnected from reality. Beyond that, Tarawa is at only 1 degree north - because the Earth is an oblate spheroid, sea level rise will be more pronounced near the equator than at more northern/southern latitudes (like CONUS).

New research out just last week showed that the impact on sea levels from SW Greenland is more extreme than previously thought. The only uncertainty in the science is that every estimate has been revised to be worse for us, and not better.

[Canoerebel]

The leading researchers into anthropogenic global warming (aka climate change) are smart and dedicated. A majority of the experts are persuaded that it exists and that its a real issue. They believe so strongly in it that contrary notions drive them nuts. Thus increasing calls to suppress opposition research and viewpoints, from decertifying meteorologists to criminalizing skepticism to censoring opposition viewpoints to calling a member of this community "simply disconnected from reality." The anthropogenic global warming movement has become almost cult like - believe or you cannot be taken seriously.

I (mostly) respect the scientific community that has developed the consensus views on climate change. I understand why most politicians, educators and media have bought in. I do not think they are stupid, mean-spirited, "disconnected from reality," or that their views should be suppressed or mocked.

Good science often comes from the few who are skeptics. There are some amazing scientists who remain skeptical, putting their careers and reputations on the line.

My background is in the environmental sciences. My understanding of climatology (a lifelong passion) and statistics and other fields leads me to believe that anthropogenic global warming is at a minimum exaggerated and at a maximum simply wrong. Of course, there's no question that the climate is cyclical and varies tremendously.

In 2014, the press made several announcements that "melting of the Antarctic ice sheets is now irreversible." My family and I were in the midst of a long camping trip out west. I told them to watch and see whether that decisive statement proved true or not. Within a short time, there were stories that the Antarctic ice sheet was growing at a unprecedented rate. Since then, the measurements have fluctuated. It's far from settled.

Ten to fifteen years ago, some of the leading political global warming folks said there would be no more snow by now. Of course, they were wrong. It doesn't mean they were stupid or ill-intentioned, it just means their analysis of data and their models were inaccurate.

There's been interesting data in the past five to eight years that the earth is cooling. It's not decisive but its worth considering. It's one reason that the movement changed its name from "global warming" to "climate change."

I think it's likely that, two decades from now, Tarawa will be in the same condition it is today. I'm nearly positive there will be snow storms and glaciers and ice caps and everything else. And if there's not, it'll be because of natural cycles rather than manmade issues.

That's just my opinion. I didn't get it from Fox News (I've never seen Fox news). I didn't get it from college professors or anyone else. It's just my honestly held opinion based upon my own study and knowledge, beginning in the 1980s.

I respect your right to form and hold a contrary opinion, Loka. I wish you respected mine.

[Lokasenna]

Regardless of whether one buys into the overwhelming weight of evidence that anthropogenic climate change is a reality, it's still also true that the oceans have been rising at a constant rate since before we pumped gigaton upon gigaton of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere. Heat-trapping gases trap heat, heat melts ice, etc.

Everyone is welcome to have an opinion. But the thing about opinions is that they can be wrong. I'm sure plenty of mine are wrong, and when I find out that they are I'll adjust to that new information by updating my opinions.

I don't see this as a political issue. It's simply reality. On the "plus" side, in about 50 years I'm going to have essentially bay-adjacent real estate - and it's worth noting that the foremost risk assessors in the world (insurance companies and the DoD) agree with this assessment of what reality is (and isn't).

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
In 2014, the press made several announcements that "melting of the Antarctic ice sheets is now irreversible." My family and I were in the midst of a long camping trip out west. I told them to watch and see whether that decisive statement proved true or not. Within a short time, there were stories that the Antarctic ice sheet was growing at a unprecedented rate. Since then, the measurements have fluctuated. It's far from settled.

Please provide a citation. Here's mine: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2019/ ... nce-again/. There is no ideological or political slant to numbers. The numbers that represent the extent of ice coverage just are what they are. What trend do they show?

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
There's been interesting data in the past five to eight years that the earth is cooling. It's not decisive but its worth considering.

This is lying with statistics. Any data that is presented responsibly (no fudging with graph axes, using an appropriate time scale, etc.) shows a clear trend - yes, there is noise in the data points, but the only way it shows any "cooling" within the last "five to eight years" is if you cherrypick and remove all of the context. Removing that context is similar to not controlling for age when looking at mortality rates.

I'm sure the top 5 hottest years (in terms of global average temperature) on record all occurring in the last 8 years, and the top 10 occurring in the last 20 years, is just a fluke, too. And the top 20 all occurring in the last 24 years. Numbers are numbers, and like hips they don't lie.

[mind_messing]

My background is in the environmental sciences. My understanding of climatology (a lifelong passion) and statistics and other fields leads me to believe that anthropogenic global warming is at a minimum exaggerated and at a maximum simply wrong. Of course, there's no question that the climate is cyclical and varies tremendously.

In this case it's actually pleasant to tell you that your understanding of climatology is wrong.

As Loka as (correctly) pointed out, the models are changing regularly, but not for the better.

It's part of a wider issue that humanity currently has in relation to the enviroment, not just sea levels rising.

The exploitative relationship that humanity has with the enviroment has been in existance since the dawn of time, but it's in the last hundred or so years that mass industry has caused the relationship to become excessively destructive.

I'm not a tree-loving hippy by any stretch, but you don't need a solid understanding of climatology to understand that human greed today is causing untold problems for the immediate generations. It's not a problem for fifty or a hundred years in the future, it's a problem now.

[Canoerebel]

Greed and ignorance affect the environment significantly but not, in my opinion, as global warming.

Loka, there are counterpoints to each of the assertions you make, and numbers certainly susceptible to misinterpretation, exaggeration, and all kinds of problems.

We could get into point and counterpoint ad nauseum, with neither of us persuading the other an iota. The larger point that I was making is that there are scientists with contrary view and that those views are being actively and energetically suppressed. That's scary. No dissent is accepted. Your comment about me being "disconnected from reality" serves as an excellent example of this group-think.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Greed and ignorance affect the environment significantly but not, in my opinion, as global warming.

Loka, there are counterpoints to each of the assertions you make, and numbers certainly susceptible to misinterpretation, exaggeration, and all kinds of problems.

We could get into point and counterpoint ad nauseum, with neither of us persuading the other an iota. The larger point that I was making is that there are scientists with contrary view and that those views are being actively and energetically suppressed. That's scary. No dissent is accepted. Your comment about me being "disconnected from reality" serves as an excellent example of this group-think.

The issue is that it is not group-think.

Dissenting voices being suppressed in the scientific community is imperitive when those voices convey deliberate misinformation that is then used to justify actions. Case in point - the anti-vaxination community.

Suggested reading, from as good a source as you're like to find: https://climate.nasa.gov/

[Canoerebel]

[X(]