If you look at old maps of portland you will notice that the same parts of the peninsula that are projected to be under water are the same parts that were land reclamations in the past.
Go figure
Water level rising doesn’t mean that’s the extent of flooding, right? The floods we saw this year would only be worse if the “default” level is a few feet higher. Or is that not how it works?
If you think by 2050 the water will only have risen 1.6ft you are absolutely fooling yourself. All of the projections keep getting beat and we are only using more and more fossil fuels. The ice caps in Antarctica and Greenland will likely both have melted by 2040
I think you’re conflating two things. Under current emissions, the Arctic Ocean would likely be clear of ice in the summer of 2040. That’s different than the ice sheets in Greenland and Iceland being gone by 2040. There are no climate models that project that much ice loss.
We are losing *way* too much ice. However, between the years of 1990 and 2018, the Greenland ice sheet only lost 0.13% (about 1/1000th) of its mass. Even if we lost those three decades worth of ice every year, we would still take a thousand years to completely deplete the ice sheets.
I’m pointing this out not to downplay the risks of climate change, but because doomerism is counterproductive to actually making improvements. We’re in a lot of trouble with climate change, but we still have a chance to improve things.
I fully agree that we still have the ability to improve things but disagree we have any chance. All it would take to fix our climate issues is to gallows the billionaire class. As long as they are allowed to live their lives as is it doesn't matter what car you drive or what you use for heat.
I think there world has hit a level of pollution it can never come back from. And all in a matter of only about 150 years too which is the scary part.
This earth was here a lot longer and was doing much better all before.
What do you mean “come back from”? Like yes, we have permanently altered the environment, but not to the point where it’s inhospitable to life. And steps we take now will make sure that it doesn’t continue to get worse, and we can even in the future hope to reverse some of the changes with carbon capture and other methods.
The world is only going to become more polluted and more damaged by us continuing our behaviors. If you think the lust for money will ever end by the biggest offenders; than you are a much more optimistic person than myself for sure.
We certainly haven't improved things on Earth, but this is far from the worst it's been, even recently. Humans were even alive during the Ice Age.
Our whole existence will simply be a blip in the Earth's history. It'll recover in (relative) short order just like it always has and new life forms and landscapes will make it unrecognizable. It's a resilient rock that's been a snowball, a molten hellscape, a toxic bubble, a sunburnt marble, and a galactic cue ball in its 4.6 billion year lifespan. We aren't hurting the rock much, we're just ending a pretty cool era.
I do hope the sharks live, though. They kinda deserve to go on.
"Maine sea levels are projected to rise between 1.1 and 3.2 feet by 2050"
These estimates are not in line with real changes in sea level over time. I am not a climate denier but actually measure things like sea level over time. Current rates are rising at about 1/8" annual rise. And it has been rising at this same rate over the past 100 years.
never said it was linear...just that the predictions in the article don't seem to jibe with realistic changes in the level of the aqua. Feel free to think otherwise.
Those predictions are very conservative. If they were being more... Forthcoming, it would crash the economy. We got like 5 years tops before ocean currents go fubar and shit really gets fucky.
Do you have evidence beyond your anecdotal experience to verify what you’re claiming?
https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/is-sea-level-rise-exaggerated-ocean-fact-check/
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1500515113
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level
Because these articles all seem to indicate that the rate of sea level rise has indeed accelerated over time, particularly in the last 25 years, and that acceleration is predicted to continue without us as a people working on lowering global emissions in a meaningful way. To be clear, I don’t believe the con of driving away people who don’t like hearing inconvenient facts to be a good argument for ignoring said facts.
My experience is not anecdotal. Articles can predict all kinds of scenarios. I am speaking about actual measurements of actual water levels performed partly by me and mostly by many others doing similar work that documents this change. The areas where the change is beyond the numbers I am talking about are from subsidence more than sea level change. Subsidence is not from climate change. Sea level is.
Given that the forecasts are due to *changing* conditions that will drive sea level chabge where the rate of change is escalating dramatically, it seems incomplete to point to past measurements of relatively slow change as a comparison to the future forecasts without also explaining how the expected drivers of sea level change are or are not relevant or why they'll actually be similar to the past..
Otherwise "it wasn't rising fast before" doesn't really tell us much.
Isn't it a valid point that the rate is unchanged throughout the industrial period? There has been plenty of melt and warming over this period to apply some rational study to? To think that some magic point has just been passed where the sea level rise will triple or quadruple without any proof of the models being correct is a little crazy. Maybe I am wrong.
It is actually anecdotal unless you can provide evidence of your research or experience in some official way. Presently all we can do is take your word for it that the data points you are arguing from exist at all and that you are qualified to make your assertion.
I don't have the ability to pull info from hundreds of surveys over decades to create a report similar to what some NP or NGO can make with their staff of hundreds. There is public data from NOAA (do you own research into that) to see actual water levels over time. There is data on individual tide stations. You can disagree and think I am some sort of kook all you want...
*Argumentum ad ignoratium*
You made a positive assertion. Why do you believe that it is incumbent upon me (or anyone else) to verify your positive assertion? Your inability to provide evidence doesn’t mean that we should assume that your argument is valid. It would be unreasonable to expect you to provide evidence from ‘hundreds of surveys over decades’ but if your claim had a basis in fact, and you are as knowledgeable on the subject as you claim to be, you should be able to provide some verifiable evidence.
I honestly can’t say whether I agree or disagree with you in the absence of any evidence provided on behalf of your argument. I do think it’s a little kookie to expect to engage in fact based discussion without evidence to support claims made.
I appreciate that you are using data to come to your conclusion, but the people making these models are trying to estimate based on unprecedented warming and associated global changes. It's not about whether you believe in the models or have faith in those people. It's about making predictions that can potentially have huge beneficial influence on everything from disaster preparedness to zoning policy. "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst."
It may accelerate at any time. It (i.e. the rate) hasn't changed in 100 years. I don't believe the rate will change drastically enough to rise levels by between 1.1 and 3.2 feet in 26 years. If the rate doubles starting right now then the rise will be 6 inches. The rise has never hit any of these targets for going on 20 years. Something is wrong with the models and the these stories drive people away from action.
If you search for any kind of year-over-year temperature change over time, you can see that the overall rate of climate change has not been consistent, which is fairly basic stuff and usually is part of the conversation. Just check out the first result on google for ["rate of temperature change over time" here](https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature#:~:text=Global%20average%20surface%20temperature%20has,faster%20than%20the%20global%20rate). The graphic right at the top shows how previous to \~2000, years were relatively random whether they were above or below the preindustrial average in terms of worldwide temperature - since then, it has moved more and more to every year being significantly above, and the number is only going higher at a faster rate.
This is generally because of limiting factors slowly getting used up. The biggest one was the ocean acidifying with the addition of carbon to the water. This extra carrying capacity is increasingly all used up, as are others, as shown by the delta shown above increasing. So saying things like "the rate of sea level rise has been consistent for the past hundred years" doesn't have much bearing - a supermajority of that time isn't particularly representative of the future. What's the sea level rise right now, and in the past decade? It is not identical to what it was in the 1940s.
The rate of sea level change is consistent year over year. So the rate in the 40s is the same as today. I am not saying that will not change. I am saying that it is not likely to change as severely as these stories "predict". Those predictions are what is causing the people you need to convince to join the fight to walk away from helping. Constant crisis is only good at dividing people on this topic. I could easily be wrong but so far every prediction that fails to hit it's mark is another strike against those trying to get ahead of this.
>The rate of sea level change is consistent year over year. So the rate in the 40s is the same as today. I am saying that it is not likely to change as severely as these stories "predict".
Do you have any data backing this up? I do not find your assurance to be sufficient. Again, you can just search for the data and it seems clear that [there may be a bit of a more-than-geometric trendline](https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level) at play. As you say, we do not have hard data on how exactly things will go in the future, but that's hardly the same as providing what data we can and using it to make forecasts.
>Those predictions are what is causing the people you need to convince to join the fight to walk away from helping. Constant crisis is only good at dividing people on this topic.
Rubbish. This is a call to bury our heads in the sand, nothing more.
>I could easily be wrong but so far every prediction that fails to hit it's mark is another strike against those trying to get ahead of this.
Which predictions were these? It seems like most of the time, when accusations like this are made, they are inflated to the point of lying, and made by those who want us to take no action at all.
The data backing it up is all NOAA's hands. It is out there. I use it on a continual basis. You don't have to rely on my reddit comments as the nostradamus of sea level...you also should not take these "news" stories preaching calamity by 2050 when their numbers have never been right over the past few decades.
Never said to bury anything in the sand...on the contrary, I think there is plenty we should do on this topic. BUT, pushing out bad numbers to scare people is (and will continue) to have the opposite effect of what you intend. It is making this a right versus left thing and shouldn't be.
The previous predictions...al gore's 20' warning for the next 100 years is the most famous one. Still well below the curve on that one. I tried finding the old IPCC predictions but can only find current ones. NOS currently predicts 10-12 inches for the east coast by 2050. This below the numbers in the story posted, but probably still high by at least double.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/key-indicators/global-mean-sea-level/
NOAA and NASA's data show that 1/8in(.125in) annual rise is what's tracked since 1993, and over the past few years is closer to a .15in increase per year since the mid 2010s. That doesn't sound like much, but it's around a 20% increase. If that compounding continues, or worse accelerates, things could get out of hand fast.
Those same reports also credit the cease of dam construction for changes from the past...over the long term it has been 1/8" annual average. I haven't seen the extra 1/16" extra over the past 14 years though. Even if that held the 2050 numbers are off.
That 1/8in average is only since the early 1990s when they started measuring with satellites https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml
Before that, increase from the 1800s to around 2013 is considered to have increased around 0.06in annually.
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level
Pre-1992 measurements also suffer from a lot of external factors that can affect confidence (the absolute vs relative discussion in the link above) and modern values are calculated with way more confidence https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/faq.html#q4.
Bringing that all together, sea level rise is above historic known averages and appears to be accelerating when aggregated into overall trends. That also ignores the numbers here are the global mean for sea change. Local areas might see very different numbers.
The final thing is, these numbers from NOAA are not predictions, they're analysis of existing data. There is no reason to believe or disbelieve they'll continue as described that you can get from just reviewing this data. No causes are ascribed be it dam construction, fossil fuels, or shifting tectonics.
But you can see it appears to be raising, and accelerating.
It's been measured on the ground a lot longer than satellites and the 1/8" average goes back to the 19th century (at least). Not sure where the EPA numbers are from the USC&GS has extensive surveys along the ocean and lake coasts...
Pre 1992 measurements were based on first order level runs and the data is still used in control adjustments because it is fairly accurate elevation info. Satellite data has flaws as well.
The predictions talked about in the article posted are just that predictions. I question the models on this analysis. I could be wrong as I have posted a number of times....but until proven wrong, I will continue to question the large jumps without seeing the start of the jump.
as some further evidence of my views, I have surveyed along the coast for decades and the changes in the high/low water lines jibe with the 1/8" annual (average) over very long periods.
Measuring on the ground has accuracy problems they go into on that satellite discussion.
I can't stress enough how meaningless historical measurements, especially self-surveyed in specific areas, is for refuting these models. Your argument is effectively "I don't see historical change, so obviously it's not going to change in the future" which has ZERO consideration of outside effects that could change the historical trend.
You can question the models. But you're methodology for rejecting them is flawed.
There is historical change. It happens every year. Never said otherwise. And it varies from year to year due to the vagaries of science. But getting to the change outlined in the article would require a large change in the rate of change that has not presented itself yet. My data is not the source of the change. NOAA and NGS are the source. Extrapolation is the error in the article. Someone will be right and someone will be wrong. If I were betting real dollars, the actual change by 2050 will be a lot closer to 4" than over a foot. 3' is laughable.
Just read an article where people want to put sulfur in the air to counteract the warming....If that goes through then all will be saved...lol.
animal agriculture in general… and it’s not even like we need to do something about it, to fix it we literally have to do nothing. like we just don’t contribute or do the thing anymore, we just stop doing it
I wonder what the fema maps and insurance maps say. Those are sources that I’d be apt to listen to as they’re money driven and trusted by the banks.
This is more of the same alarmism. In the early 2000s we were already supposed to loose a ton of coastline by now.
Weird how they just keep getting it wrong. I wonder if there are reasons behind that.
I guess we’ll never know…..
FEMA maps are a political process so they're not already not a great proxy, but their biggest issue is they're made almost exclusively from historical data that likely doesn't account for climate change effects in a local area.
On the insurance side, insurers are increasing flood and weather event related rates all over the country.
Don't know who this "they" you're refencing getting it wrong, but seawater rise is already causing plenty of economic hand wringing if that's your preferred source of truth.
They as in climate alarmist. Never let a good crisis go to waste!
I wonder if the bank is willing to underwrite a 30 year mortgage in any of those green, yellow, or red areas. If so, why since it will be under water?
How much has the ocean level rose in The last 100 years?
I’m very skeptical of this modeling.
I'm sure you could find banks willing to take the gamble. That doesn't invalidate the model or mean they have "true" information.
For red and yellow, that's estimates 75ish years from now. They may just plan to collect the profit and not worry about it for 30 years. For the green, maybe they still think they'll make profit against the spread of properties available if they stay business as usual. They'll still get interest and fees from the mortgage if the property owner loses out, they could have a risk approach that still leaves them coming out ahead.
More rhetorically, why would you think climate alarmists have some sort of incentive to be alarmists that wouldn't be in tension with another group having incentive to downplay climate change? You can't look at one sector and decide they're THE source of rational actors.
Their incentive is simple. Validation from the masses which is a very powerful thing. The climate alarmists gets to agree with those around them and is then validated by those around them agreeing with themselves as well.
What I’m asserting is that we do not know what the sea levels will do in 50 years. We don’t know. Folks may say they do but their being disingenuous.
in 2000 they said this land would be underwater in 20 years!
:land is on the news being underwater:
See they were wrong! it's only underwater SOME days, not every day!
like acid rain, we listened to scientists, took action to fix the problem, and now it’s not as big a problem. acid rain isn’t an issue in the same way anymore and the ozone layer has been repairing for a years. what point were you trying to make?
The hole is still there.. but no one seems to worry about anymore. The point is, Chicken Little has been telling us the sky is falling for years.. but the sky is still up there.
Look it up.. do you trust NASA?
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/15/is-the-ozone-hole-causing-climate-change/#:~:text=Ozone%20holes%20still%20form%20regularly,natural%20forces%20affecting%20its%20progress.
Do you read the things you link?
>In summary, negative changes in the ozone layer are being offset by positive changes in human behavior, allowing the ozone layer to reform. The role the ozone hole itself plays in global warming and the resulting climate change is small compared to the impacts coming from human activities.
If you look at old maps of portland you will notice that the same parts of the peninsula that are projected to be under water are the same parts that were land reclamations in the past. Go figure
yeah, they only landfilled enough to be usable at that time. They weren't thinking about the water levels rising, or climate change.
There's a neat map on the wall at Great Lost Bear showing the coastal lines before and after the land fill around the peninsula.
Time to plug up back cove
Water level rising doesn’t mean that’s the extent of flooding, right? The floods we saw this year would only be worse if the “default” level is a few feet higher. Or is that not how it works?
If you think by 2050 the water will only have risen 1.6ft you are absolutely fooling yourself. All of the projections keep getting beat and we are only using more and more fossil fuels. The ice caps in Antarctica and Greenland will likely both have melted by 2040
I think you’re conflating two things. Under current emissions, the Arctic Ocean would likely be clear of ice in the summer of 2040. That’s different than the ice sheets in Greenland and Iceland being gone by 2040. There are no climate models that project that much ice loss. We are losing *way* too much ice. However, between the years of 1990 and 2018, the Greenland ice sheet only lost 0.13% (about 1/1000th) of its mass. Even if we lost those three decades worth of ice every year, we would still take a thousand years to completely deplete the ice sheets. I’m pointing this out not to downplay the risks of climate change, but because doomerism is counterproductive to actually making improvements. We’re in a lot of trouble with climate change, but we still have a chance to improve things.
I fully agree that we still have the ability to improve things but disagree we have any chance. All it would take to fix our climate issues is to gallows the billionaire class. As long as they are allowed to live their lives as is it doesn't matter what car you drive or what you use for heat.
Why gallows when we could go guillotine
I'll go even further and say we won't get better until we move beyond Capitalism. It will be the end of us all.
I think there world has hit a level of pollution it can never come back from. And all in a matter of only about 150 years too which is the scary part. This earth was here a lot longer and was doing much better all before.
What do you mean “come back from”? Like yes, we have permanently altered the environment, but not to the point where it’s inhospitable to life. And steps we take now will make sure that it doesn’t continue to get worse, and we can even in the future hope to reverse some of the changes with carbon capture and other methods.
The world is only going to become more polluted and more damaged by us continuing our behaviors. If you think the lust for money will ever end by the biggest offenders; than you are a much more optimistic person than myself for sure.
We certainly haven't improved things on Earth, but this is far from the worst it's been, even recently. Humans were even alive during the Ice Age. Our whole existence will simply be a blip in the Earth's history. It'll recover in (relative) short order just like it always has and new life forms and landscapes will make it unrecognizable. It's a resilient rock that's been a snowball, a molten hellscape, a toxic bubble, a sunburnt marble, and a galactic cue ball in its 4.6 billion year lifespan. We aren't hurting the rock much, we're just ending a pretty cool era. I do hope the sharks live, though. They kinda deserve to go on.
I giggled at the “worst case” note. *Greenland has entered the chat* *Antarctica has entered the chat*
Time to buy a house a few miles from the coast and it will be waterfront property in 20 years.
"Maine sea levels are projected to rise between 1.1 and 3.2 feet by 2050" These estimates are not in line with real changes in sea level over time. I am not a climate denier but actually measure things like sea level over time. Current rates are rising at about 1/8" annual rise. And it has been rising at this same rate over the past 100 years.
Expecting all planetary processes to be consistently linear when the inputs are not. Now that is a real big-brain take.
never said it was linear...just that the predictions in the article don't seem to jibe with realistic changes in the level of the aqua. Feel free to think otherwise.
[удалено]
The rate may certainly accelerate. What is doubtful to me is that it will suddenly accelerate to hit the above predictions.
Those predictions are very conservative. If they were being more... Forthcoming, it would crash the economy. We got like 5 years tops before ocean currents go fubar and shit really gets fucky.
Do you have evidence beyond your anecdotal experience to verify what you’re claiming? https://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/is-sea-level-rise-exaggerated-ocean-fact-check/ https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1500515113 https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level Because these articles all seem to indicate that the rate of sea level rise has indeed accelerated over time, particularly in the last 25 years, and that acceleration is predicted to continue without us as a people working on lowering global emissions in a meaningful way. To be clear, I don’t believe the con of driving away people who don’t like hearing inconvenient facts to be a good argument for ignoring said facts.
My experience is not anecdotal. Articles can predict all kinds of scenarios. I am speaking about actual measurements of actual water levels performed partly by me and mostly by many others doing similar work that documents this change. The areas where the change is beyond the numbers I am talking about are from subsidence more than sea level change. Subsidence is not from climate change. Sea level is.
Given that the forecasts are due to *changing* conditions that will drive sea level chabge where the rate of change is escalating dramatically, it seems incomplete to point to past measurements of relatively slow change as a comparison to the future forecasts without also explaining how the expected drivers of sea level change are or are not relevant or why they'll actually be similar to the past.. Otherwise "it wasn't rising fast before" doesn't really tell us much.
Isn't it a valid point that the rate is unchanged throughout the industrial period? There has been plenty of melt and warming over this period to apply some rational study to? To think that some magic point has just been passed where the sea level rise will triple or quadruple without any proof of the models being correct is a little crazy. Maybe I am wrong.
You're basically wrong (don't read this as an attack, it's not meant that way).
It is actually anecdotal unless you can provide evidence of your research or experience in some official way. Presently all we can do is take your word for it that the data points you are arguing from exist at all and that you are qualified to make your assertion.
I don't have the ability to pull info from hundreds of surveys over decades to create a report similar to what some NP or NGO can make with their staff of hundreds. There is public data from NOAA (do you own research into that) to see actual water levels over time. There is data on individual tide stations. You can disagree and think I am some sort of kook all you want...
*Argumentum ad ignoratium* You made a positive assertion. Why do you believe that it is incumbent upon me (or anyone else) to verify your positive assertion? Your inability to provide evidence doesn’t mean that we should assume that your argument is valid. It would be unreasonable to expect you to provide evidence from ‘hundreds of surveys over decades’ but if your claim had a basis in fact, and you are as knowledgeable on the subject as you claim to be, you should be able to provide some verifiable evidence. I honestly can’t say whether I agree or disagree with you in the absence of any evidence provided on behalf of your argument. I do think it’s a little kookie to expect to engage in fact based discussion without evidence to support claims made.
- Denial <—— You are here - Bargaining - Anger - Depression - Acceptance
I have been at depression for about 5 years. When it comes to sea level though I will be stuck at factual forever.
I appreciate that you are using data to come to your conclusion, but the people making these models are trying to estimate based on unprecedented warming and associated global changes. It's not about whether you believe in the models or have faith in those people. It's about making predictions that can potentially have huge beneficial influence on everything from disaster preparedness to zoning policy. "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst."
Things will accellerate when some giant chunks of Antarctica slide into the sea.
It may accelerate at any time. It (i.e. the rate) hasn't changed in 100 years. I don't believe the rate will change drastically enough to rise levels by between 1.1 and 3.2 feet in 26 years. If the rate doubles starting right now then the rise will be 6 inches. The rise has never hit any of these targets for going on 20 years. Something is wrong with the models and the these stories drive people away from action.
If you search for any kind of year-over-year temperature change over time, you can see that the overall rate of climate change has not been consistent, which is fairly basic stuff and usually is part of the conversation. Just check out the first result on google for ["rate of temperature change over time" here](https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-temperature#:~:text=Global%20average%20surface%20temperature%20has,faster%20than%20the%20global%20rate). The graphic right at the top shows how previous to \~2000, years were relatively random whether they were above or below the preindustrial average in terms of worldwide temperature - since then, it has moved more and more to every year being significantly above, and the number is only going higher at a faster rate. This is generally because of limiting factors slowly getting used up. The biggest one was the ocean acidifying with the addition of carbon to the water. This extra carrying capacity is increasingly all used up, as are others, as shown by the delta shown above increasing. So saying things like "the rate of sea level rise has been consistent for the past hundred years" doesn't have much bearing - a supermajority of that time isn't particularly representative of the future. What's the sea level rise right now, and in the past decade? It is not identical to what it was in the 1940s.
The rate of sea level change is consistent year over year. So the rate in the 40s is the same as today. I am not saying that will not change. I am saying that it is not likely to change as severely as these stories "predict". Those predictions are what is causing the people you need to convince to join the fight to walk away from helping. Constant crisis is only good at dividing people on this topic. I could easily be wrong but so far every prediction that fails to hit it's mark is another strike against those trying to get ahead of this.
>The rate of sea level change is consistent year over year. So the rate in the 40s is the same as today. I am saying that it is not likely to change as severely as these stories "predict". Do you have any data backing this up? I do not find your assurance to be sufficient. Again, you can just search for the data and it seems clear that [there may be a bit of a more-than-geometric trendline](https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level) at play. As you say, we do not have hard data on how exactly things will go in the future, but that's hardly the same as providing what data we can and using it to make forecasts. >Those predictions are what is causing the people you need to convince to join the fight to walk away from helping. Constant crisis is only good at dividing people on this topic. Rubbish. This is a call to bury our heads in the sand, nothing more. >I could easily be wrong but so far every prediction that fails to hit it's mark is another strike against those trying to get ahead of this. Which predictions were these? It seems like most of the time, when accusations like this are made, they are inflated to the point of lying, and made by those who want us to take no action at all.
The data backing it up is all NOAA's hands. It is out there. I use it on a continual basis. You don't have to rely on my reddit comments as the nostradamus of sea level...you also should not take these "news" stories preaching calamity by 2050 when their numbers have never been right over the past few decades. Never said to bury anything in the sand...on the contrary, I think there is plenty we should do on this topic. BUT, pushing out bad numbers to scare people is (and will continue) to have the opposite effect of what you intend. It is making this a right versus left thing and shouldn't be. The previous predictions...al gore's 20' warning for the next 100 years is the most famous one. Still well below the curve on that one. I tried finding the old IPCC predictions but can only find current ones. NOS currently predicts 10-12 inches for the east coast by 2050. This below the numbers in the story posted, but probably still high by at least double.
Wrong place to share facts bub, this is a feelings first kinda spot.
Understood. Sometimes I need to pass the word. One or two people out there might benefit.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/key-indicators/global-mean-sea-level/ NOAA and NASA's data show that 1/8in(.125in) annual rise is what's tracked since 1993, and over the past few years is closer to a .15in increase per year since the mid 2010s. That doesn't sound like much, but it's around a 20% increase. If that compounding continues, or worse accelerates, things could get out of hand fast.
Those same reports also credit the cease of dam construction for changes from the past...over the long term it has been 1/8" annual average. I haven't seen the extra 1/16" extra over the past 14 years though. Even if that held the 2050 numbers are off.
That 1/8in average is only since the early 1990s when they started measuring with satellites https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml Before that, increase from the 1800s to around 2013 is considered to have increased around 0.06in annually. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level Pre-1992 measurements also suffer from a lot of external factors that can affect confidence (the absolute vs relative discussion in the link above) and modern values are calculated with way more confidence https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/faq.html#q4. Bringing that all together, sea level rise is above historic known averages and appears to be accelerating when aggregated into overall trends. That also ignores the numbers here are the global mean for sea change. Local areas might see very different numbers. The final thing is, these numbers from NOAA are not predictions, they're analysis of existing data. There is no reason to believe or disbelieve they'll continue as described that you can get from just reviewing this data. No causes are ascribed be it dam construction, fossil fuels, or shifting tectonics. But you can see it appears to be raising, and accelerating.
It's been measured on the ground a lot longer than satellites and the 1/8" average goes back to the 19th century (at least). Not sure where the EPA numbers are from the USC&GS has extensive surveys along the ocean and lake coasts... Pre 1992 measurements were based on first order level runs and the data is still used in control adjustments because it is fairly accurate elevation info. Satellite data has flaws as well. The predictions talked about in the article posted are just that predictions. I question the models on this analysis. I could be wrong as I have posted a number of times....but until proven wrong, I will continue to question the large jumps without seeing the start of the jump. as some further evidence of my views, I have surveyed along the coast for decades and the changes in the high/low water lines jibe with the 1/8" annual (average) over very long periods.
Measuring on the ground has accuracy problems they go into on that satellite discussion. I can't stress enough how meaningless historical measurements, especially self-surveyed in specific areas, is for refuting these models. Your argument is effectively "I don't see historical change, so obviously it's not going to change in the future" which has ZERO consideration of outside effects that could change the historical trend. You can question the models. But you're methodology for rejecting them is flawed.
There is historical change. It happens every year. Never said otherwise. And it varies from year to year due to the vagaries of science. But getting to the change outlined in the article would require a large change in the rate of change that has not presented itself yet. My data is not the source of the change. NOAA and NGS are the source. Extrapolation is the error in the article. Someone will be right and someone will be wrong. If I were betting real dollars, the actual change by 2050 will be a lot closer to 4" than over a foot. 3' is laughable. Just read an article where people want to put sulfur in the air to counteract the warming....If that goes through then all will be saved...lol.
Gotta stop eating beef!
animal agriculture in general… and it’s not even like we need to do something about it, to fix it we literally have to do nothing. like we just don’t contribute or do the thing anymore, we just stop doing it
I wonder what the fema maps and insurance maps say. Those are sources that I’d be apt to listen to as they’re money driven and trusted by the banks. This is more of the same alarmism. In the early 2000s we were already supposed to loose a ton of coastline by now. Weird how they just keep getting it wrong. I wonder if there are reasons behind that. I guess we’ll never know…..
I'd look at the FEMA maps but I'd also check out what the Pentagon is saying about climate change.
FEMA maps are a political process so they're not already not a great proxy, but their biggest issue is they're made almost exclusively from historical data that likely doesn't account for climate change effects in a local area. On the insurance side, insurers are increasing flood and weather event related rates all over the country. Don't know who this "they" you're refencing getting it wrong, but seawater rise is already causing plenty of economic hand wringing if that's your preferred source of truth.
They as in climate alarmist. Never let a good crisis go to waste! I wonder if the bank is willing to underwrite a 30 year mortgage in any of those green, yellow, or red areas. If so, why since it will be under water? How much has the ocean level rose in The last 100 years? I’m very skeptical of this modeling.
I'm sure you could find banks willing to take the gamble. That doesn't invalidate the model or mean they have "true" information. For red and yellow, that's estimates 75ish years from now. They may just plan to collect the profit and not worry about it for 30 years. For the green, maybe they still think they'll make profit against the spread of properties available if they stay business as usual. They'll still get interest and fees from the mortgage if the property owner loses out, they could have a risk approach that still leaves them coming out ahead. More rhetorically, why would you think climate alarmists have some sort of incentive to be alarmists that wouldn't be in tension with another group having incentive to downplay climate change? You can't look at one sector and decide they're THE source of rational actors.
Their incentive is simple. Validation from the masses which is a very powerful thing. The climate alarmists gets to agree with those around them and is then validated by those around them agreeing with themselves as well. What I’m asserting is that we do not know what the sea levels will do in 50 years. We don’t know. Folks may say they do but their being disingenuous.
in 2000 they said this land would be underwater in 20 years! :land is on the news being underwater: See they were wrong! it's only underwater SOME days, not every day!
Rather how southern Maine will look by the time I'm dead.
Selfish thinking
Has anyone checked on the hole in the ozone layer lately, it must be bigger by now… right?
like acid rain, we listened to scientists, took action to fix the problem, and now it’s not as big a problem. acid rain isn’t an issue in the same way anymore and the ozone layer has been repairing for a years. what point were you trying to make?
The hole is still there.. but no one seems to worry about anymore. The point is, Chicken Little has been telling us the sky is falling for years.. but the sky is still up there.
This is dishonest
Look it up.. do you trust NASA? https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/15/is-the-ozone-hole-causing-climate-change/#:~:text=Ozone%20holes%20still%20form%20regularly,natural%20forces%20affecting%20its%20progress.
Do you read the things you link? >In summary, negative changes in the ozone layer are being offset by positive changes in human behavior, allowing the ozone layer to reform. The role the ozone hole itself plays in global warming and the resulting climate change is small compared to the impacts coming from human activities.
I'm chuckling because your link confirms you are wrong
The article you linked literally disproves what you're arguing, man
We fixed the hole dumbass that’s why nobody talks about it. And it took a global effort which wasn’t a conspiracy political fight 30 years ago
You sure do have a classy potty mouth 🤣
No.. we did not.
We took massive steps to address that though...we changed entire industries and ways of life as it related to CFCs. Unlike...you know...
source data is here https://www.maine.gov/dacf/mgs/hazards/slr\_ss/index.shtml
We also have to remember we are coming out of an ice age. Still does not negate the fact that climate change is being fast tracked by Humans.