Misopinionated,

Wow, I was just waiting for someone to mention Bangla Desh and its imminent drowning.

Forty-odd years ago, I learnt in my Geomorphology class that the Bengal tectonic plate (or sub-plate?) was tilting downwards to the south-east and upwards to the northwest, giving the impression that Bangla Desh was being flooded when it was, in fact, the tectonic plate tilting. And to the west, in India's Bengal, the edge of the plate was rising.

You could also mention the Nile Delta, how it is being inundated: indeed, as the Aswan Dam up-stream holds back the silt of the Nile from the delta (and fills up), the sea washes away what is already there in the delta; so it appears to be getting flooded.

As well, what about New Orleans being subject to flooding because of rising sea-levels ? Not really: the barrier islands off the coast have been cleared and no longer protect the coast-line from erosion and hurricanes.

But of course, you would know all this, being an environmental scientist.

Joe

Hi Max,

I cannot see how the solutions to climate change would solve the problem that global warming enthusiasts insist is real. The only attempt at atmospheric carbon sequestration being conducted is by increasing the amount of terrestrial vegetation, but given the many fires occurring around the world, this would seem to be a snakes and ladders approach. Yet, from Trump's recent trillion trees comment, the approach still has strong support.

One fact about atmospheric carbon is that oceans sequester 90% of it without the risk of catching fire, but global warming enthusiasts are generally as opposed to geoengineering (don't tell them that tree planting is geoengineering) as they are to nuclear power. If global warming enthusiasts are serious about reducing atmospheric carbon, they need to start focusing research on the oceans.

Cheers

Max, I and many others have already said what LEGO is saying.
It matters not what WE all say, we're not privy to the truth.
The truth is, if we have contributed to CC, it isn't enough to make all this noise and fuss about.
Especially as a country.
So I for one will not be conned into making any "lifestyle" changes because someone is making money out of all this, somehow.
I don't know how people can get sucked in like this, until we realise people are generally stupid.
Mis-informed, un-informed, lacking maturity, common sense and the list goes on.
If you actually believe that melting glaciers etc; will give a rise of 60 odd metres of ocean, you have sealed your fate and that one statement alone tells us more about your beliefs and credibility than anything else you might say.
We are forever being told that Florida is being flooded by rising water, due to CC.
Rubbish, the truth is Florida is sinking!
Think about it, if Florida is being flooded, why aren't the adjoining land masses also being flooded?
Is there some kind of invisible wall in the ocean that we have all missed?
No, get a grip man, it's all some elaborate hoax, for the purpose of making money.
Instead of following and accepting the message the scum-bags tell you, why don't you do something different, like us, and look into the messenger.
You will get far more truths and answers, (or questions) this way.

LEGO,
The Harpers Ice Age piece is fascinating and shows how science evolves over time! But the real cause of ice ages was finally understood in the 1970’s. Please watch this 10 minute summary. Please.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M

Also, past Milankovitch ice age temperatures were missing an explanation of 40% of the temperature extremes, both hot and cold. Sunlight changes were not enough. Then they realised that while Milankovitch wobbles in Earth’s orbit triggered 60% of the warming and cooling, the rest came from CO2 feedbacks. During a glacial period CO2 was trapped in the oceans and under the ice, cooling the earth another 40%. As Earth wobbles started to warm up the oceans and land, CO2 was released, making it 40% warmer. Al Gore was right to show the association in Inconvenient Truth, although he didn’t unpack it thoroughly. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_etal.pdf


If civilisation survives the next few centuries of climate change, we should be in space. We were actually COOLING over the last 6000 years, heading into the next ice age by 3500AD.
http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

By then we will have a huge space population that could park large mirrors in orbit near the poles to balance out future Milankovitch reductions in solar input. We’ll cancel the ice ages. But right now our job is to stop climate change, stop 7 million people a year dying from dirty energy sources (both fossil fuels and the wood and dung smoke of energy poverty), NOT worry about future ice ages!

Palm-fringed Arctic and balmy dinosaurs?
This post deals with 400 million years ago. The sun was about 2% cooler back then, and continents were different, changing ocean currents and albedo of Earth, etc.
Read this link a few times.
http://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm

10 minutes each
Part 1: Oil is important http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3kiPALQRpQ
Part 2: Oil is finite and will peak and decline one day http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOkfTKGMLW8 (
Part 3: Oil (etc) is pushing us into super-greenhouse that have caused Extinction Level Events in the past.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQloUVD88h4

Finally, current projections for climate change are not 2 degrees as you assert but HORRIFIC if we continue on our current path.

ALTRAV,
> If you actually believe that melting glaciers etc; will give a rise of 60 odd metres of ocean, you have sealed your fate and that one statement alone tells us more about your beliefs and credibility than anything else you might say.

First, Mr Opinion contributed it, not me. I agree with him, but just pointing out that it would be great if you could be precise.

Second, we don’t “believe” it, we accept the peer-reviewed science. Unlike you, who "believe" without any evidence in a global conspiracy to corrupt science and tax us more... or something.

National Geographic have beautiful maps of 66meter seas the link below. Look at Europe and Australia, and Bangladesh is just gone! All around Adelaide is underwater and we have a new inland sea.

Third, what was the timeline on ALL the ice melting? National Geographic says:- “There are more than five million cubic miles of ice on Earth, and some scientists say it would take more than 5,000 years to melt it all.”
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2013/09/rising-seas-ice-melt-new-shoreline-maps/
That’s a long time, and over time we would adjust. Most housing stock is rebuilt every 50 to 60 years, but some skyscrapers are built to last centuries. But even centuries is nothing compared to 5000 years! We’d gradually move our cities out the way. Agriculture? Who knows? We’re talking about 5000 years! There could be Agriculture 3.0 models following the algae to vat-grown meat & vat-grown ice cream.

BUT most IPCC predictions are for 1m. (Any memes that “The Maldives should have sunk by now” were not from the science, but bad reporting.) Yet the physics of melting ice sheets is not really understood. 1m ignores the chance of catastrophic ice sheet failure, or Greenland & various Antarctic sheets ‘slipping’ into the ocean. Some say 5% chance of 2 meters!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/2203700-sea-level-rise-could-hit-2-metres-by-2100-much-worse-than-feared/

Finally, I’m sick and tired of pissant “It’s a conspiracy or hoax” memes. Grow up, take off your tinfoil hat, and look at the science. I have friends with degrees in climate science, and they are normal middle-class people like you and me.

Well Max, there is currently a replication crisis in science, so I don't see good reason to accept something on the basis of peer review, especially when the research is predicting how things might be centuries hence.

I note that you mention sea level rise as a catastrophic consequence of global warming, so again, why is there no focus on the oceans by global warming enthusiasts? In one research paper (peer reviewed, for what it's worth) the authors ran a climate simulation using a model similar to that used by the IPCC to test the potential cooling effect of sulphate aerosols generated by ocean fertilisation. The simulation showed the potential to delay the effect of global warming by fifty years with this approach.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4543957/

My bet is the people calling for action on climate change would be the same ones protesting against any attempt to conduct real world geoengineering research to test ideas such as that above.

Cheers