Which is actually what I said about the thousands to low ten thousands of years range.
Sort of. It was fairly stable for a few thousand years until a couple of centuries ago. It was unstable from about 15k to about 12k years ago when there were several pulses of iceberg swarms from the various ice sheets. Conditions are similar now as to when the last few pulse of iceberg swarms from Antarctica occurred.
And much of the land going under the water is a local effect not a global one.
I suppose it depends on what you mean. Sure, where the slope of the land is more shallow than where it is more steep that is true. Like if there is a cliff at the shore, less land will be inundated than, say on the Gulf Coast. But cities tend to be built on plains and not on cliffs. So your point is irrelevant.
Yes it is.
No it isn't. Remember, past performance is not a predictor of the future. Factoring in data from before the Industrial Revolution is going to pollute any projection. The rate of increase of the CO2 content due to burning of fossil fuels has been increasing exponentially. So the more years you use where the mining and burning of FF was negligible is going to cause your projections to be low. Heard the phrase "figures lie and liars figure"? This is one way to spot it. If you generated these numbers, you are a liar and trying to deceive. If you got it from someone else, they are trying to deceive you. Period. No other way to say it. Again, the rate of increase is increasing. The current rate of increase is 3.2mm/yr. And the rate has more than doubled over the past 2 decades. There is no reason to suspect it will decrease*. So any linear projection is going to be wrong. Like really, really wrong. And intentionally deceptive.
I supposed you could consider it that, but if so in a slower and much less expensive way than building elsewhere and packing up everything portable and making one big move.I supposed you could consider it that, but if so in a slower and much less expensive way than building elsewhere and packing up everything portable and making one big move.
Straw man, Tim. You seem to like being dishonest. I never said all in one big move. No matter how you slice it, it costs to move a city. How long you have to do it will vary, but it will have to happen regardless.
Who said anything about Al Gore? I know you wing nuts get a hard on thinking about him, but I never mention him except when y'all do. The reality is that all of the projections of sea level rise by scientists, didn't think I needed to specify that but..., have been too conservative. The rate of increase projected has been too conservative, and by a lot.
*There are some scenarios where the rate of increase might decrease. For example, if the thermohaline circulation were to shut down, that could slow the melting of the ice sheets significantly. Maybe even reverse it for a decade or two. But the climate in Europe would be more like North America with much of Europe more like Canada. Ever look at the population density of northern Canada? Follow the lines of latitude and see what parts of Europe would be affected. We know this can happen because of fresh water influx, here is a hint: what happens when ice is melted?, because it has happened in the past. You probably wouldn't consider that an existential threat either, though. |
