Home | About | Donate

Water’s Rising Because It’s Getting Warmer


#1

Water’s Rising Because It’s Getting Warmer

Andrea Dutton, Michael Mann

Would the Journal run the op-ed “Objects Are Falling, but Not Because of Gravity”? That’s pretty similar to climate contrarian Fred Singer saying The Sea Is Rising, but Not Because of Climate Change” (op-ed, May 16).


#2

I recently read that we’ve now produced over 1 trillion barrels of oil. We burned most it.

Believing that current climate change isn’t a man-made phenomena is almost sad.


#3

No argument here. Looks like Singer is still trying to create doubt about climate change. And of course the conspiracy theorists on the right believe every word he says as they are confident that the “liberal media” and scientists are not to be believed about climate change.


#4

Not only rising, the rate of rise is accelerating exponentially. And the doubling time keeps halving, from 40 years, to less than 20, possibly sea level rise will double every decade before long.

Greenland joined the scrimmage a few years ago, when summer melt reached its coldest points. Now Antarctica is rising from the bench, casting off Larsen A, B, and C, getting ready to party out West, and even getting surprisingly sprightly out East.

Friends don’t let friends buy property in Florida.


#5

#6

I have to say that Guy McPherson should not be promoted by conscientious people, in my opinion. It turns out he’s been acting like an out and out creep: a sexual predator. Here’s how it works: McPherson’s “Near Term Extinction” lectures have been the occasion of such frequent emotional trauma that he got certified as a therapist to administer to the ladies. Sex therapy, in some instances - if it can be called that. Apparently McPherson is into sadistic dominance games, like Eric Schneiderman.

I would not relate something so scurrilous were not these charges well documented by responsible parties, namely Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith and the Deep Green Resistance movement.


#7

This natural phenomenon is one reason why there is a backlash against science; a new twist on “kill the messenger.”


#8

What natural phenomenon? Sea levels are rising because of global warming which is mainly caused by human activity. I don’t see anything natural about that.


#9

I hadn’t heard that, but doing a search confirms what you say.
Statement on Guy McPherson


#10

This was more about the rejection of science per se, not specifically climate change.


#11

Rejection of science per se? You mean there are people who reject the theory of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, the theory of the atom, the electromagnetic spectrum, the solar system centered on the sun, the milky way galaxy, the germ theory of disease, the role of the immunological system. What do these rejecters of science believe? what is their view of the universe, of human biology, etc. Are you celebrating ignorance or what?


#12

“You mean there are people who reject…?” Yes, there are people who believe thermodynamics is proof of god, the earth is flat, that we are the center of the universe, the planet is 6,000 years old, that humans did not evolve from filthy monkey men, and that a blob of cells is a person. US Congress critters think snowballs are proof that Anthropogenic Climate Disruption is a lie and that rocks are the reason for sea level rise. These people have faith, the belief in something without any empirical evidence and the media needs to quit lending them a voice.


#13

They got their man in the White House. He isn’t religious but he also doesn’t need empirical evidence for stating what he says is true. Some of these people want to end a government based on the US Constitution and establish a theocracy. They are not content with being able to freely practice their religion but want to impose their religious beliefs on everyone else. No thank you.


#14

Take a paper copy of the WSJ and bury it three feet under ground. This is how you can practice carbon sequestration…


#15

The people who are free to talk about global warming need to give more current data, more immediate info. Projections of trends affected prmarily by humans are of course more likely to be accurate in the short-term anyway. Investors care very little about what will happen after they are dead! A hundred years??? Talk about now, and the immediate future, please.

Talk in terms of ten years. How much has the ocean risen around Florida in the last ten years? What is the average altitude of, say Ft. Lauderdale, above sea level? When the ocean heats up one degree, how much does the water expand? At the current temperatures, with the South Pole and Canada and Russia and Greenland melting, how much will oceans rise in ten years? How much oceanfront land will be affected? Where? Which populations? How many people? What is Ft. Lauderdale doing?

I know Ft.L, my old city, brings in more beach sand regularly as the beach goes under. I see that they have added a wall for the more frequent storm surges. I know Miami raised the level of some streets, keeps pumps going, and posts WHICH streets will flood on which days…
What is being done about the many nuclear power plants on the oceanfronts and seaside???


#16

Probably any “more immediate info” strategy would be just as fruitless as all the pretty-darn-soon info which has been out there since “Limits to Growth” was published in 1972. Nobody has been burying the information - short and long term. It’s all out there.

Anyone who googles your question about Florida will find the answer instantly, from US News:

In the 1990s, the rising sea doubled its previous rate, reaching about an inch a decade, said Sweet. And then, over the past 10 years, tide gauges in Fernandina Beach, Mayport and Key West recorded an increase of about 0.9 centimeters per year, a little more than a third of an inch per year.

The rate of SLR doubling (< 20 years) is really what people need to know about. Right now global sea level is rising half a centimeter per year. With doubling every 20 years, that comes to a quarter meter by 2050, two meters by 2100. With doubling every 10 years, you get half a meter in 2050 and nineteen meters in 2100.

I’m thinking maybe it would help if I didn’t use the metric system, but in reality that would do no better in raising consciousness than trying to appeal to the profit motive of predators, trying to make climate consciousness look like a good investment.

We can’t get over the idea that healing the Earth might cost too much, that it’s only okay to get rid of fossil fuels if it doesn’t slow down the mighty engine of consumer capitalism. Most leaders of the climate movement keep pitching green growth. That’s the most oppressive reality for me: even the most well-informed are still so far from acknowledging the destruction inherent in our assumptions.


#17

At first I was annoyed that WSJ articles are linked to (which are behind a pay wall and I’m certainly not giving them any of my money), but now I see this short piece was published in the WSJ.

One other nit: where does the 1 foot number come from? Is this rounding up from 9 inches? (e.g. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level). If so, 33% is too much rounding error. If there is another source that says we are over 11 inches now, I’d like to see it.

As an aside, probably the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard a politician say in my entire life was when Mo Brooks wanted to push back on sea level rise by claiming land eroding into the sea as something to do with it. I didn’t check the calculations at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/17/heres-how-big-a-rock-youd-have-to-drop-into-the-ocean-to-see-the-rise-in-sea-level-happening-now/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.40a499f608ff but obviously the ocean is damn big relative to land erosion so any effect is not even remotely measurable over human time scales unlike global warming effects. Mo Brooks should be doing a job that doesn’t require using his brain since his is obviously incapacitated.


#18

“Anthropocene”, Oxford Very Short Introduction (2018)

Just finished this by Ellis, a member of the 35 member Anthropocene Working Group, set to recommend a time marker by 2020 for an Anthropocene Geologic time zone, possibly an epoch?

Best summary yet of the situation, with a geographer’s multidisciplinary approach - most excellent !!!


#19

The rate at which positive feedback loops will kick in is the real question. It is possible that rather than exponential growth, it could become catastrophic explosive growth. We are entering areas of unknowns.


#20

I understand that the information is out there, somewhere. It just amazes me that the information that is published isnt made more immediate. The immediate information that nonbelievers in global warming get is a big ballyhoo provided courtesy of one cold winter for the northern hemisphere which is NOT clearly explained to the public. Yeah, metric mght be an issue. Places like Florida, Bangladesh, Rangoon, Bangkok, New York, and Shanghai all have immediate issues. Nonbelievers aren’t going to google.

But for me personally, I’m in China. I’m sure it is out there, just yahoo doesn’t work that well for me anymore. The pictures are all blocked. Google.com, with its military connections, is banned here in China. My Chinese is not good enogh to use online. Blogs, YouTube, Facebook and twitter are all out. To get information, I read a dozen sites, and sometimes check lists of sites.