WolfStock1

(facepalm) You have got to be kidding me. You left out the context qualifier: "If the whole world was experiencing what Delos is experiencing" which was specifically done as an absurdity said to point out the absurdity of YOUR claims. Look - just nevermind. You obviously just can't follow discussions and logic. So - just nevermind.

Exactly, which is why we are criticizing your thesis of doom in your post the other day. Continental drift is constant. It operates over tens of millions of years, but it also operates over tens of seconds. As such it is very much not scientifically irrelevant. In this case specifically it is operating faster than climate change, with regards to how it is affecting the land/sea level relationship at this one location. Why are you ignoring that simple fact? You can't just ignore it away. I have made no such suggestion. It's not "political" - it's economic. It's about the welfare of society. Reducing the extent of warming will be *hugely* expensive and painful. It's not just a matter of people arguing in a room somewhere - it's about the prosperity of the world. Including, BTW: lives. Yes - it will certainly cause greater loss of life to reduce CO2 to a level that you're wishing for, than not. Just look at the life expectancy rates of developed countries vs undeveloped countries. What's one key component of that? Reliable electricity and transportation. What's a the primary input to reliable electricity and transportation? Fossil fuels. What's a key attribute of poverty? They tend to have *much* higher pollution - including many still using wood and charcoal for most cooking (look it up - Africa and India especially). This causes health problems, including premature death due to lung conditions. This is in part because they don't have fossil-fuel-driven electrical power plants. Yes there a couple of notable small exceptions - e.g. Norway gets almost all of of its electricity from hydro and not fossil; they won the topography lottery. But the rest of the 99% of the world relies on fossil fuels for their prosperity. Even Norway does for transportation; despite winning the electricity lottery. Yes this can, and will, change slowly over time. It has to, because fossil fuels are limited. But it will be painful, because of physics. And it will take hundreds of years - not dozens. Trying to push the changes by policy mandates, rather than letting them happen organically as technology evolves just increases the pain and reduces prosperity.

Sorry but think about this statement. Yes the "result is the same" but ONLY FOR DELOS. (that place where only 25 people live, and that at the current rate will be fully underwater in about 120,000 years.) For the vast majority of the world the result is NOT the same. Not only that but the policy implications are completely different. If the whole world was experiencing what Delos is experiencing - faster water level rise due mostly to tectonic-movement-driven subduction - then any attempts to halt sea level rise via CO2 reduction are simply pointless. Even if CO2 increase was stopped today and reversed - we would all still be doomed. Thus - why bother? Unless perhaps you think we have the ability to stop continental drift (?) You really need to consider your stance here - you're sounding quite foolish IMO.

?? No no - you just erected a complete strawman. I made no claim that sea level hasn't been rising at Delos over any period of time. If you think I did - please show me where. Otherwise - you need to retract that.

Yes - and? You didn't read what I wrote. I'm not doubting that the level is rising relative to the the land at Delos. However the point is that it's not that the water is rising fast there - it's that the land is sinking. That shows for instance a delta of about 80cm in the last 134 years. But that's far faster than the general rate of sea level rise over that same period which is roughly estimated to be 20cm. So the Delos case doesn't extend to the rest of the world. The population of Delos is about 25 people, in case you're wondering. Even in their extreme case of "sea level rise" (which is mostly land sinking) I seriously doubt they're standing and watching with horror as their homes are consumed by the sea at a rate of less than a centimeter a year. Likewise it's ludicrous to propose that the rise (or sinking, rather) of 5 meters over the course of 5000 years was a crisis. I'm not doubting whether your information is verifiable - I'm saying that it's not applicable.

Re: Delos - Well except for one thing - Delos demise wasn't because of sea level rise - it was because it was destroyed by attacks and looting, and also due to much of the island sinking due to tectonic plate movement, which is *much* faster (~2.5cm per year) than the sea level rise (~2.8mm per year). Delos is right on the Hellenic Arc - the main border of the African and Eurasian plates, where there is significant subduction happening. You might want to check facts like that before you post things like you did. While I think ChescoWx is wrong with much of his positions here - he's right about the climate change scare being discredited by playing loose with facts and principles in scaremongering. He's right about the terminology you've been using in your post. You present as if there is some sort existential crisis happening, when there very much isn't. Yes it's a slow motion problem - but it's a *lot* slower than you present. In general societal infrastructure - houses, businesses, roads, etc. - are re-built due to simply aging out *much* faster than they will be threatened by rising sea levels; every century or so for most things. So the solution is simply - when something gets torn down and rebuilt, due to being very old (say 100 years or 200 years) - simply build the replacement a bit higher - either inland or by literally adding new land (it's quite easy actually - e.g. ask the Emirates, Dutch, Bostonians, Manhattanites, etc.). Yes there may be some additional expense (beyond the normal expense of rebuild). But IMO it will be *far* less expensive than trying to actually prevent sea level rise; especially since such prevention is most likely futile.

IMO this poll is meaningless without a timeframe. Are we talking 2-4 over the course of 30 years? 300 years? 3,000 years? 30,000 years? It matters because the impacts for each would be vastly different, including the level of danger. When it comes to climate change I like to use the analogy of an airplane's altitude. What matters isn't so much how *far* the airplane changes altitude - but how *fast* it changes altitude. Dropping 1,000 ft in two minutes generally isn't a problem. Dropping 1,000 ft in two seconds is generally a big problem. Same thing for nominal altitude. Being at 0 ft Above Ground Level (AGL) is not a problem if that's where you were a few minutes ago, but it's a big problem if you were at 1,000ft AGL a couple seconds ago. Thus why the whole "the earth has been at temperature X before" is a foolish and meaningless position w/regards to CC. The poll is also meaningless without supplying additional conditions. Is this all-else-being-equal? Presumably so, but it would be nice to state as such.

Thanks. Yes definitely seems like having a "big picture" education is important. It is interesting the variety of companies that hire meteorologists.

Hi all - got a couple of questions if I may. I tried posting this one thing in the Meteorology 101 section but it seems like no one pays attention there, so figured I'd try here. My son's looking to go into meteorology, and I was wondering about a couple of things. First - since we live in VA, he was looking to most likely do the program at VT for meteorology. What are folks' thoughts on that program vs other ones around the east? It seems pretty good (we just visited), but it sounds like there are other ones around that may be as good or better - e.g. PSU, UMd, FSU. Rankings are all over the place, so not reliable at all. One disadvantage is that the VT program is only undergrad. We were wondering how much that might matter though - if desired he could do undergrad at VT and graduate school at one of the others. Also it seems like most meteorology careers don't require graduate degree - fair to say? Cost of course is a consideration, and a big driver towards VT - getting in-state tuition. Other question I had in the other thread is about AI and about the impact of NOAA cuts. Thoughts? (below is link to the thread) Thanks!

Been wanting rain for weeks - got a bit Thursday at least. Was out at Staunton area all weekend - rained all day Saturday. Great! Except weather station back home shows exactly zero. What the? Then I see this: Nice to be in that hole of zero rain west of DC. (facepalm)

Is anyone besides me having problems accessing a few weather sites all of the sudden? Specifically: - the NOAA river gauge site: https://water.weather.gov/ - Mike's weather page:https://www.spaghettimodels.com/ Mike's seems to be really spotty the last several days, for me at least (it's down right now). Wondering if it's just me. Thanks Edit: I guess they moved the NOAA site - it's now https://water.noaa.gov/

Sorry but that's a hilarious picture. Looks like some kind of stoned cookie monster or something.

Why does it matter? People don't build homes etc. "due to" a hurricane. Many of these places - including Crenshaw - survived Harvey just fine, and many of these places have been built since Harvey and are thus counted towards the stats in that article. The Houston area didn't get completely destroyed and have to be rebuilt from nothing after Harvey. The point is - most homes and businesses are being built much better to withstand flooding these days, thus it's not as foolish as it's made out to be. IMO the key is - people need to know that there are risks, be wiling to accept them (including insurance), and IMO the government should not subsidize the risk like it often does.

FWIW - lots of those houses are being built on quite-high stilts now, e.g. here's a neighborhood and a school in Port Bolivar: Everything has to be about 15' above ground level now - above BFE (Base Flood Elevation - 100-year flood plain). So these generally aren't your grandparents homes.

This is showing winds of 66 kph - so it's fast enough.