If All the Ice Melted

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I've read more than one conspiracy theory that says The Wall(TM) is really about stopping the mass migration north that will begin in a few decades due to devastating warming along the equator. The logic went that the right actually believes in climate change MORE than the left, but has to keep it on the down low, or the left would figure out what the wall was really for.

Climate change is real and inevitable. It has been well known and documented for decades. Exxon knew it was happening in 1977, and started spreading misinformation about the subject before it even became a publicly debated issue. Climate science deniers don't disbelieve in climate change, it's just politically inconvenient for them to admit the obvious. The head EPA Administrator/Coal Lobbyist says “most of the threats from climate change are 50 to 75 years out.”

One of the interesting things about climate change is that it won't affect everyone in the same ways. Some areas will be devastated, others will be mildly inconvenienced. Side note: It's no secret that if *poor people* are going to be affected by something, there is no political will to address it, because *poor people* have no political clout. This is doubly true for the economic impact of climate change-- the thing that is well-known, yet we deny that it exists.

We know that climate change is real (including the people who are causing it) and WILL disproportionately affect people in central and south America, as compared to the interior of the continental United States. There WILL be climate refugees. This is as obvious as it is inevitable. Putting this in terms of "the right," "the left," and "The Wall" is dragging a serious topic into the realm of political theater. None of it is conspiratorially secret, none of it is on the down low.

[Clodfobble]

Oh, I agree there will be climate refugees. I'm personally anticipating that I'll have to leave Texas before I'm elderly. But I can also tell you that my father, as just one example, truly does not believe in climate change. The "conspiracy" is that he secretly does believe in it--which makes the conspiracy false, insofar as it tries to guess at his motives for supporting the wall.

[Flint]

I understand what you're saying. Sure, he doesn't believe in climate change. But, why? What was the motivation behind the focused obfuscation of the issue, why did the leaders he trusted for information partisanly hammer the point that climate change "might not be" a pressing concern? I doubt it was accidental--imagine the effort that's gone into it.

...

To the issue of refugee policy, I ask myself what is more likely the motivation behind the focused drive to reject refugees: #1 the anti-refugee policy wonks are incorrigible xenophobes who simply hate brown people, or #2 the anti-refugee policies are laying the groundwork for the response to an inevitable geo-political threat.

Maybe a little of both? But probably the policy wonks driving political movements aren't stupid.

[slang]

I've seen your climate change flood map and read your comments.

My first thought was to get Al Gore Smoking in here for some sock puppet humor that makes me laugh much more than anyone else.

Just didn't fit the moment.

So then thought maybe I should list some of the things that I do in my daily life that actually supports this climate change hoa...ah, I mean problem. Does it matter what my motivation is if it fits the template of being better for the planet?

Those are;

* riding a bike for transportation instead of driving a fossil fuel powered vehicle. Also Ubering but a fair amount of biking. Because it helps me. Not particularly worried about the planet that's been here for billions of years.

* Limiting my smokeless powder discharge which I'm guessing kills the planet as well as everything else I do. Shot placement instead of spray. Black powder discharge has been at zero for 10 years plus. Yay me.

* Searching out and supporting businesses that sell grass fed poultry, pork and beef. These products are significantly more expensive but tend to be fresher and healthier. Also tend to be better for the land that they are raised on. And or provide a better life for the animals. They have a good life with one bad day.

* Have completely stopped burning tires in the back yard. That one was a joke. I still burn the tires but nobody is perfect.

So each of these examples actually supports a better environment or healthier me without any conscious concern for the planet. Or climate change.

I've had people with graphs and charts and photos pushing this hoa...ah, I mean emergency for 30 fucking years. Wagging a finger in my face. Calling me names. In 5 years, 10 years, 20 years. I'm fatigued with these predictions. And the ClimateGaters.

"We're all going to die! Or drown! Don't you care, you ignoramus!?"

Well, no. However, for my own reasons that have nothing to do with climate change, I can earn a sticker. And in my own opinion, I actually do more for climate change than most people just talk about. To virtue signal, which is rampant.

Ok, so back to my thought process...

So then I look at the map and think "Jesus Christ, California still isn't completely under water. What can I do to change that?"

"What's the use of this climate catastrophe if it leaves California with dry land? Florida is gone but Cali survives?"

Next I look closer at the map, where Florida was but is now under water. Sadness to be sure. But then look at the southern islands.

Puerto Rico seems to be unharmed.

That just makes PR that much more of a great place to spend time now. Before the big flood.

With that thought I'm even more of a PR fan.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Slang, did you miss the part about that map shows what would happen if ALL the ice melted. Nobody believes that will happen until maybe the Sun cooks the Earth millions of years down the line. However at the rate we're going some low places will flood, some low Pacific islands already have a problem. With the increased intensity of hurricanes/typhoons it's an even bigger problem for them.

One of the problems is 30 or more years ago when scientists first brought the issue to light, the journalist started the sky is falling shit and it didn't happen.
I remember is the 60's the prediction that at the rate of population growth in the US it wouldn't be long before we would each have a square yard to stand on.
That wasn't the prediction of scientists, it was journalists. Well, 60 years later I have 4.5 acres to stand on.

If Americans are worried about the threat of Central Americans moving north, think how the Canadians must feel about the threat Americans moving north.

[slang]

Ok, so I can still be a PR fan since even with worst case, it's going to survive

We can start prepping to invade PR when Florida drowns. They don't have a WALL!

Thanks for your explanation, Bruce.

We need to shank journalist today more than ever. That's something I can support.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

However at the rate we're going some low places will flood, some low Pacific islands already have a problem. With the increased intensity of hurricanes/typhoons it's an even bigger problem for them.

IPCC AR5 says low confidence in observed increases in number and/or intensity of monsoons and does not predict whether heavy precipitation events in any particular location will increase or decrease.

Which Pacific islands have a problem? They used to think Tuvalu would be well on its way to under water, but the science evolved when satellite imagery showed the islands were actually growing.

2004 Smithsonian article: Will Tuvalu disappear?

2018 Phys.org article: 'Sinking' Pacific nation is getting bigger

[xoxoxoBruce]

Solomans

[Undertoad]

Very good.

[Undertoad]

Not ETA, the main argument against climate change being responsible for swallowing these islands is from the study's author.

https://www.theguardian.com/environm...acific-islands

“All these headlines are certainly pushing things a bit towards the ‘climate change has made islands vanish’ angle. I would prefer slightly more moderate titles that focus on sea-level rise being the driver rather than simply ‘climate change’,” Albert told the Guardian.

The major misunderstanding stems from the conflation of sea-level rise with climate change. As a scientifically robust and potentially destructive articulation of climate change, sea-level rise has become almost synonymous with the warming of the planet.

However, as Albert’s paper points out, the ocean has been rising in the Solomon Islands at 7mm per year, more than double the global average. Since the 1990s, trade winds in the Pacific have been particularly intense. This has been driven partly by global warming and partly by climatic cycles - in particular the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

So it's mixed, but climate change is a part of it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes, stronger storm surges.

Residents of the Carteret Islands in New Guinea are being moved.

[Undertoad]

To be thorough: AR5 says extreme high sea level sea is "likely" to have been observed since 1970 but has an X under "Attribution" - very low attribution of this to climate change. However it is "extremely likely" to be seen from 2050-2100.

Sea level increases have been with us since before mankind starts really pumping out the gasses. It's the recent changes that they feel are due to new melting, and the thought is that the rate of change will increase. Science is mixed on whether that has been happening already, hence the X.

I saw that some scientists from the Netherlands believe the sea floor is changing due to higher water levels. 1/3 of the Netherlands is under sea level so they have an interest in understanding it. A deep interest, lol.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I read the sea floor around Florida is changing also, as the reefs die out and the Gulf Stream current making a left right there has an effect.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Sea level increases have been with us since before mankind starts really pumping out the gasses.

Change never happened so much so fast. If something else can explain it, then posted is science that says why. Naysayers always deny. And never once do what honest science demands - say why.

What other facts explains so much climate change so fast? Naysaying is not a productive answer. What explains climate changes that has never happened so much so fast? What other science explains what is only wild speculation? History says an answer based in logic, math, meteorology, and other sciences will not happen. Only more denials.

It happened once over tens and hundred of thousands of years. That proves change in 100 years is normal? Total nonsense that can only exist if one ignores numbers. Climate change typically required changes that took longer than the existence of mankind.

Don't worry. Be happy.

[Undertoad]

Thread is about sea level change, tw. Here's the official graph of it.



via EPA