
It's Too Late to Save Over 400 U.S. Cities from Rising Seas, Scientists Say - Bud
http://www.alternet.org/environment/rising-sea-levels-will-overtake-hundreds-american-cities
======
Recurecur
If things are as bad as claimed, then we'll have no choice but to geoengineer
our way out of the problem. Orbiting sunshades to reduce insolation is one
option.

On the other hand, satellite data shows no meaningful warming for almost
twenty years, and some scientists think that climate sensitivity to CO2 is
substantially lower than the IPCC has been claiming. Perhaps we have a lot
more time after all...

~~~
asgard1024
> satellite data shows no meaningful warming for almost twenty years

I would like to point out that last year was a global temperature record and
this year will probably be a record too.

In any case, temperature (and especially surface one) can be deceiving. Ocean
heat content (which is in a more direct relation to sea level rise) actually
increases quite unabated:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_heat_content)

As for the sunshades, well, good luck with that:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_sunshade)

It's simply a lot cheaper to not burn any more coal or oil.

~~~
Recurecur
"I would like to point out that last year was a global temperature record and
this year will probably be a record too."

Not according to the satellite data, which is far less manipulated and
inherently more accurate than the NOAA surface record.

"In any case, temperature (and especially surface one) can be deceiving. Ocean
heat content (which is in a more direct relation to sea level rise) actually
increases quite unabated"

The claim made in the linked graph equates to an average temperature change of
.004 deg C for all ocean water since 1978. The Do you really think we know
this? What are the error bars? The graph is made even less credible by the
near-instantaneous 5e22 spike around 2013 in the three month average...

"As for the sunshades, well, good luck with that"

What choice will we have if the alarmists are correct? The claim was that
anything over 350 PPM would be catastrophic. We're now at 400 and climbing,
with no end in sight.

"It's simply a lot cheaper to not burn any more coal or oil."

That's not going to happen for a long time.

China's emissions will increase until 2030, and it's already the major
contributor. India is also on a path to burn a lot of coal. There's almost
zero chance of CO2 concentrations not hitting 500 PPM, and they will likely
hit 600 PPM easily.

The win/win scenario involves vastly expanded next-gem nuclear electric
generation, but there seems little likelihood of that happening.

~~~
Recurecur
Whoops, re-reading this I realized it should be a 0.04 deg C change - I
slipped a decimal. The point stands though.

