Posted on 11/01/2019 6:28:50 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Scientists have dramatically underestimated the impact rising seas will have on cities around the world, according to research published in the journal Nature Communications.
One hundred and fifty million people are currently living in places that will be below the high-tide line in 30 years - three times as many people as the old projection methods estimated.
Previous estimates relied on satellite data to forecast sea-level rise, but satellites can’t distinguish between ground level and taller elements integrated into the landscape, like trees and buildings. The paper, authored by Scott Kulp and Benjamin Strauss of the Princeton, used artificial intelligence to identify errors in the data and correct them.
Their model paints a grim picture: whole swaths of Vietnam, Thailand, coastal China, India, Egypt and Iraq swallowed by ocean.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.newstimes.com ...
“If the sky falls at the same time globull warming melts all the ice, won’t those pieces of the sky fill in the low spots?”
Only if the catastrophic earthquakes “settle” all the rubble evenly.
That has to be one of the strangest arguments I have ever read. Long before satellites existed people were able to determine the elevation of land. They used surveying tools, rulers, barometers, and just plain common sense. I don't think that, for example, people in Bangkok don't know how far the land is above the water in their rivers and canals. At least the people who built the docks know, because they cut the pilings to length to support the docks above the water. And I think we can assume everybody else does too when they look at the docks, or see the distance from their boat to the land they are climbing up to.
You don't need satellite data to determine the height of the land, you can just look at maps and other written data.
With logic like what is reported in the article we will need artificial intelligence since we won't have any real, human intelligence left.
I think the Dutch invented the solution to this problem several centuries ago.......dikes (aka levees).
If they were able to do it with wind-driven pumping technology, “surely” modern man can manage it with today’s energy and pumping tech.
Today the surface of the earth is covered 71% by water. Millions of years ago, at least 80% of the earths surface was water. We are drying up!
Tony heller (On youtube) likes to point out that the sea level is rising in some areas, falling in others, and in still others it is unchanged.
It’s because the land itself is rising and falling here and there, relative to the ocean, which is flat.
Well, then, it is a good thing we are in a significant solar minimum set of sun spot cycles ( 11 year cycle periods) and the thermal lag effect will soon begin to become evident and the earth will cool slowly, reducing the ice melt and attenuating the rise of sea levels and preserving these low lying cities. On the other hand, glaciers and snow cap and lower temperatures and lesser rainfall will expand and threaten higher altitude locations ( including much of the worlds most productive farm lands of the mid continent N, S America and Europe/Asia thereby threatening the population of the earth with starvation...
Good thing we are pumping lots of oil and gas so we can heat the atmosphere artificially thereby preventing the pendulum effect and save humanity from the cold of deep dark space the sun’s fickleness....
Oh the humanity!!!
Their model paints a grim picture: whole swaths of Vietnam, Thailand, coastal China, India, Egypt and Iraq swallowed by ocean.
They say that like it was a bad thing...
SWALLOWED BY THE OCEAN???????
Or not.
But I am still astounded that intelligent people think our climate changing problems are because of things like Trump pulling out of the Paris accord. It was voluntary to begin with and I'd bet those countries that are still committed to it, haven't hit their targets of reducing CO2 either. What a bunch of baloney.
I have read and listened to the economist Bjorn Lomborg, who believes in climate change but argues that it's impact is much less severe than the extremists make it sound. And that the enormous costs could be better spent on other world problems like poverty and potable drinking water.
This is not verbatim, but basically he has said that if ALL (not just some, but all) of the wealth available in the world were spent to fight climate change, it would have such a small impact that it would be a complete waste of the world's resources.
This is why so many people don't believe in climate change, or if they do, they are not willing to give up their modern lifestyles to make such small changes in the outcome.
The climate change fanatics like AO-C and Greta the Outraged, are trying to instill fear into the equation and people just are not buying it. The world is not going to implode in 12 more years if we don't commit to this Green New Deal. Telling people they have to revert back to living in the Stone Age to save the planet is just not credible to most intelligent folks.
This article about the world's ocean cities being buried under water within 30 years is just another example of fear mongering and going over the top with the climate change argument. People are not even paying attention when they read crap like that.
How dare you??? leave out the eminent prominent climate specialist Greta somebody the smarta** teenager with the smirk on her face that the media fawns over.
Ur safe - if all the ice in the world melted including the ice cubes in ur fridge the rise would only be 40 feet or so - in contrast with the melt of the Ice Cap which caused 400-750 ft rise.
Alas, with a population in excess of 7 billion, that figure is lost in the rounding.
Well, if the 2004 Tsunami didn’t wipe them out, I think they will be pretty resilient. Especially in the face of a weak, unproven, theory.
What surprises me is that no one has brought up nawlins. They have been under water for years. Not a problem, until you add in a hurricane. Despite the past destruction, they are still willing to pay the price. Are Jazz and Mardi Gras that important?
Perhaps they should take the lesson King Canute gave to his court about not trying to command Mother Nature.
More BS based on ZERO science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.