The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[RedDevil]

The total amount of water is not relevant, the distribution of that water is what matters.
Greenland and the Antarctic contain about 3-4% of the Earths water as ice. If that melts the seas rise about 70 meters, which would displace half the worlds population.

Even a 0.1% addition to the total water mass would raise the seas by over 2 meter / 7 feet and drown many countries and states. As the melt seems to accelerate exponentially, it won't take long to get there - likely well within a century. I probably won't experience that, but my kids may have to move out.

[litesong]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

.....10,000 kilometers sounds like a lot to me. And all that was your worst case scenario......

You & "4 oil cans" think alike (& others), because you're AGW deniers. 10,000 cubic kilometers per year is what I said & you did not repeat properly. AGW deniers minimalize AGW effects, because that is what they must do. Also, I did NOT say that was a worse case scenario. You did tho, because AGW deniers have their own "sigh-ants", will not deal with real science, & must..... minimalize.

[redpoint5]

The end game for Earth is a water world. Erosion is wearing away the high land points and filling in the low spots. Eventually the world will cool to the point that no new volcanic or tectonic action will create new land, and it will be covered by sea, with the only fresh water perhaps in frozen polar regions and clouds.

Our species needs to get much better at living on the water. That isn't an excuse to do nothing to influence climate, but one likely outcome of sea inundating previously habitable land might be innovation to contend with it.

Originally Posted by litesong

You & "4 oil cans" think alike (& others), because you're AGW deniers. 10,000 cubic kilometers per year is what I said & you did not repeat properly. AGW deniers minimalize AGW effects, because that is what they must do. Also, I did NOT say that was a worse case scenario. You did tho, because AGW deniers have their own "sigh-ants", will not deal with real science, & must..... minimalize.

Point to a single instance of me denying anthropogenic global warming on any forum, and I'll eat my hat. You've lumped me into a category of evildoers so you don't have to contend with what I say.

Which part of 10,000km^3 did I repeat improperly?

AGW deniers, by definition, don't minimize AGW effects; they deny they exist at all. Something which I have never done.

Now that you've got the name calling out of the way, what is your best formulated plan to deal with global warming?

[oil pan 4]

70m? Sounds like a personal problem.
Then I will only be 4,200 feet above sea level.

Originally Posted by litesong

You pay big money for sub-standard items. I believe that.
I loved my electric bike, till someone stole it.

I didn't over pay for anything.
The 2011 leaf I bought had lost 85% of its value by 7 years when I got it and I still have it.

Gallup says that only 3% of likely voters believe that the "environment, pollution and global warming" are the most important problem.
This month it surged to 6% probably because of all the press the virtue signalers got last week but this week no one cares. Normally it's 3 to 4% and that's rounding up most of the time.
Still 97 to 94%. So best case scenario maybe 10% of people will say the "environment, pollution or global warming" are the number 1 problem and that's a stretch.
I'm not saying man made climate change isn't real, just that the vast majority of people don't really care.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/mo...t-problem.aspx

[litesong]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Which part of 10,000km^3 did I repeat improperly?

First, you can't even quote yourself properly. You said "10,000 kilometers". Then you said, "10k^3" with no designations. Second, neither term is what I said. Third, your questioning term above is, again, not what I said.
Yes, AGW deniers (like redpoint5) love to think themselves smarter than scientists, when their "sigh-ants" comes out differently than scientists' science. But, three errors, which aren't even 8th grade science errors tells lots about "redpoint5", an AGW denier.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Now that you've got the name calling out of the way, what is your best formulated plan to deal with global warming?

I'm still awaiting confirmation of that, but speaking to the gen pop, you have your cosmic forcing, and your sovereign individuals forcing en-mass.

[redpoint5]

maybe to 10,000 cubic kilometers per year

Sure, I left out the km unit, but you knew what I meant. Your implication by saying maybe to 10,000 cubic kilometers per year is that it's among the worst projections based on your source.

You missed my point entirely (on purpose?), that we don't have any grasp of big and small numbers, especially without context. I made no scientific claims.

Point out where I've denied AGW, or stop attributing that name to me.

[Frank Lee]

I got the distinct impression that some here are more concerned with the dollars and cents of it than anything else- better to do nothing than threaten the dollars and cents.

I got the distinct impression that some here don't think anything can be done even if there is climate change- and that was a big IF.

With 7,500,000,000 and growing em effers infesting the planet, some even think we're at risk for UNDERpopulation issues! Oh my lying eyes.

And then there are those that act like this climate thing is new information.

Or that it is up to OTHERS to do something: government, business, religious, ANYONE but themselves.

I also perceive that some here think there is no appetite for addressing the issues. On that one, the cynic in me agrees. But I've recently seen reports of youth angry with their elders for creating and doing little to nothing to mitigate the sh!thole they stand to inherit.

Well that's human nature I guess. Some are smart enough to put two and two together but the masses are not moved to do anything proactive until impending doom is so obvious that it may be too late.

[RedDevil]

As a side note, the Earth will never be a 100% water world. The sun gradually gets brighter, and somewhere between 1.2 and 2 billion years from now it will boil all the water; that's long before tectonic movement grinds to a halt, never mind the time it takes for rain to grind the mountains down to below sea level.

Maybe we should move to Mars well before that.

[freebeard]

So, four major groups? Thanks, it's hard for me to distinguish the various posters. I read them all in the same voice. It's all jibber-jabber to me. But let me address the third group:

And then there are those that act like this climate thing is new information.

That's the thing it is new information.

The most productive dinner conversation I've had in decades included the grandchildren of a guy I went to high school (and worked at the feed & seed company) with. Instead of the usual intrafamily squabbling, I led with 'don't believe the teenagers, the world won't end in ten years'. And they went right down the space weather rabbit-hole with me. The mom said she'd never heard they talk about it before. I said nobody was talking about it four years ago, and they hadn't absorb the old way of thinking.