Climate Change discussions

[rushmc 18]

kallend

*********
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN_oynx1D8w&spfreload=1

Would that be the same Roger Pielke who wrote:

As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!

That one?

Perhaps his government grant wasn't renewed and he decided to be truthful.

Nope. His recent research funded by the National Science Foundation. Maybe YOU could do some fact checking BEFORE posting nonsense.

As has been posted before, government grants to the alarmists are far bigger than anything you have posted

Facts are getting in your way again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,621]

Here's another discussion for you:

www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/01/rick-santorum/santorum-cites-flawed-climate-change-figure-and-mi/

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,621]

rushmc

************
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN_oynx1D8w&spfreload=1

Would that be the same Roger Pielke who wrote:

As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!

That one?

Perhaps his government grant wasn't renewed and he decided to be truthful.

Nope. His recent research funded by the National Science Foundation. Maybe YOU could do some fact checking BEFORE posting nonsense.

As has been posted before, government grants to the alarmists are far bigger than anything you have posted

Facts are getting in your way again

He's a denier.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

kallend

***************
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN_oynx1D8w&spfreload=1

Would that be the same Roger Pielke who wrote:

As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!

That one?

Perhaps his government grant wasn't renewed and he decided to be truthful.

Nope. His recent research funded by the National Science Foundation. Maybe YOU could do some fact checking BEFORE posting nonsense.

As has been posted before, government grants to the alarmists are far bigger than anything you have posted

Facts are getting in your way again

He's a denier.

Perhaps all deniers should be required to swap all land and property they own with the people of this island nation. http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/04/world/asia/nauru-ocean-danger/index.html

[winsor 186]

kallend

Here's another discussion for you:

www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/01/rick-santorum/santorum-cites-flawed-climate-change-figure-and-mi/

Consider the source.

[winsor 186]

kallend

***************
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN_oynx1D8w&spfreload=1

Would that be the same Roger Pielke who wrote:

As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!

That one?

Perhaps his government grant wasn't renewed and he decided to be truthful.

Nope. His recent research funded by the National Science Foundation. Maybe YOU could do some fact checking BEFORE posting nonsense.

As has been posted before, government grants to the alarmists are far bigger than anything you have posted

Facts are getting in your way again

He's a denier.

He turned me into a newt!

[lawrocket 3]

Amazon

***Scientists that disagree with the administration, hope they don't get disappeared

Woo Hoo - facts are good to have

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN_oynx1D8w&spfreload=1

Facts are a great thing.....

And here is a look at your grandchildrens America.... better buy land inland now....FACT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW5e61XSMHk&feature=iv&src_vid=VbiRNT_gWUQ&annotation_id=annotation_1859225607

Don't worry..... you will not be around.... but I have a feeling that your descendants will not remember their ancestors kindly. They will not be able to visit many of their ancestors gravesites.... There will be no rest in peace for so many. Burial vaults tend not to do well in floods... and beach erosion far inland to Columbia...

Amazon. Put down the Kool Aid. None of our posterity will ever see anything like all the ice melting. It's a simple matter of math (which is something most environmentalists are bad at. Spending ten minutes going through it instead of bitching about the Koch brothers may prove enlightening.

Allow me to do the work for you.

Okay. HEre goes. Average high temperature for the year is -49 F in Antarctica. I will give benefit of doubt and be conservative and go with that as a baseline (the average temperature is way lower). Heck, let's call it -40 C for an additional margin of error (-40 C matches with -40F). Let's also go on the high end and assume climate CO2 sensitivity is 4C. That is, doubling CO2 concentration will increase temperature 4 degrees Celsius.

That means ten iterations of doubling CO2 just to get average high temperature to around 0 degrees C. Assume let's start at 400ppm (which is in the press). Let's go through the CO2 concentrations required for a 40C temp increase to bring average Antarctic high temperature to the freezing point.

(1) 400ppm,
(2) 800 ppm
(3) 1600 ppm
(4) 3200 ppm
(5) 6400 ppm (fatal to humans with long exposure)
(6) 12800 ppm (fatal to humans within a couple of minutes at this level)
(7) 25600 ppm
(8) 51200 ppm
(9) 102400 ppm
(10) 204800 ppm (yes, CO2 will have to be 20% of the atmosphere)

So the math is really quite easy. All it takes is just a fundamental understanding of the processes involved. This is what it would take to warm Antarctica just to an average freezing temperature for its average high. If you want to melt it you gotta get above freezing for average temperature. So let's iterate one more time and get to 409,600 ppm.

yours is the type of tripe that unfortunately has taken hold in popular belief. People like you think that the science has ordained that all the ice will melt by the time my grandkids are born.

Your ideas are what pass for the popular understanding of science nowadays. And ironically, it's typically people who believe this crap who think that they have an appreciation of science greater than someone like me who says "that's utter hogwash."

You've said what a politician would say. But I assure you, Iran has a better chance of developing a nuke in the next decade that any human has the opportunity of seeing all the ice melt.

This is also why the alarmist community is not believed by anyone with analytical ability. No, I am not a scientist. I don't have to be one to do simple multiplication.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,384]

>That means ten iterations of doubling CO2 just to get average high
>temperature to around 0 degrees C.

>If you want to melt it you gotta get above freezing for average temperature.
>So let's iterate one more time and get to 409,600 ppm.


I can only imagine how much you would scream bloody murder if a "climate change alarmist" did a similarly facile calculation . . . .

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>That means ten iterations of doubling CO2 just to get average high
>temperature to around 0 degrees C.

>If you want to melt it you gotta get above freezing for average temperature.
>So let's iterate one more time and get to 409,600 ppm.


I can only imagine how much you would scream bloody murder if a "climate change alarmist" did a similarly facile calculation . . . .

True. This is a very oversimplified calculation.

But the point is that "if all the ice were to melt" is ridiculous. Yet people not only believe that it will happen (it will, in less than a billion years due to solar intensification) but that my grandchildren will see it happen.

What are your thoughts, Bill? Do you agree that my grandchildren will be traveling to Safari with the wildebeests in Western Antarctica? Or be applying bug spray to prevent malaria while waterskiing on the vast inland lake of Greenland?

Time for some realism. But the point remains: anthropogenic activities have to raise the polar temperature by in excess of 40 degrees C in order to melt all the ice. People will be extinct long before that happens.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,384]

> Yet people not only believe that it will happen (it will, in less than a billion
> years due to solar intensification) but that my grandchildren will see it happen.

I haven't seen a single scientist claim that. (Of course, I've seen plenty of nonsense on both sides claimed on forums like this.)

>What are your thoughts, Bill? Do you agree that my grandchildren will be
>traveling to Safari with the wildebeests in Western Antarctica? Or be applying
>bug spray to prevent malaria while waterskiing on the vast inland lake of
>Greenland?

No. But I do suspect that your grandkids will be more likely to move to someplace with more water.

>Time for some realism. But the point remains: anthropogenic activities have to
>raise the polar temperature by in excess of 40 degrees C in order to melt all
>the ice.

All the ice everywhere? Agreed. But we have some pretty serious problems far before that happens.

[Amazon 7]

lawrocket

***>That means ten iterations of doubling CO2 just to get average high
>temperature to around 0 degrees C.

>If you want to melt it you gotta get above freezing for average temperature.
>So let's iterate one more time and get to 409,600 ppm.


I can only imagine how much you would scream bloody murder if a "climate change alarmist" did a similarly facile calculation . . . .

True. This is a very oversimplified calculation.

But the point is that "if all the ice were to melt" is ridiculous. Yet people not only believe that it will happen (it will, in less than a billion years due to solar intensification) but that my grandchildren will see it happen.

What are your thoughts, Bill? Do you agree that my grandchildren will be traveling to Safari with the wildebeests in Western Antarctica? Or be applying bug spray to prevent malaria while waterskiing on the vast inland lake of Greenland?

Time for some realism. But the point remains: anthropogenic activities have to raise the polar temperature by in excess of 40 degrees C in order to melt all the ice. People will be extinct long before that happens.

You do not need to melt it... that will happen after the water intrudes under the ice which will provide lubrication to allow huge quantities of ancient ice currently sitting on land to slide off into the ocean since the floating ice sheet that previously was preventing that is now going away. That will provide a very quick rise in sea level further exacerbating the process for more of the ice to move. There is 4800 METERS thick Ice in places in Antarctica yet at the the South Pole itself is only 2700 meters thick depressing the landmass there down to near sea level other places the volume of ice has depressed the land mass down below sea level.

[lawrocket 3]

Amazon

******>That means ten iterations of doubling CO2 just to get average high
>temperature to around 0 degrees C.

>If you want to melt it you gotta get above freezing for average temperature.
>So let's iterate one more time and get to 409,600 ppm.


I can only imagine how much you would scream bloody murder if a "climate change alarmist" did a similarly facile calculation . . . .

True. This is a very oversimplified calculation.

But the point is that "if all the ice were to melt" is ridiculous. Yet people not only believe that it will happen (it will, in less than a billion years due to solar intensification) but that my grandchildren will see it happen.

What are your thoughts, Bill? Do you agree that my grandchildren will be traveling to Safari with the wildebeests in Western Antarctica? Or be applying bug spray to prevent malaria while waterskiing on the vast inland lake of Greenland?

Time for some realism. But the point remains: anthropogenic activities have to raise the polar temperature by in excess of 40 degrees C in order to melt all the ice. People will be extinct long before that happens.

You do not need to melt it... that will happen after the water intrudes under the ice which will provide lubrication to allow huge quantities of ancient ice currently sitting on land to slide off into the ocean since the floating ice sheet that previously was preventing that is now going away. That will provide a very quick rise in sea level further exacerbating the process for more of the ice to move. There is 4800 METERS thick Ice in places in Antarctica yet at the the South Pole itself is only 2700 meters thick depressing the landmass there down to near sea level other places the volume of ice has depressed the land mass down below sea level.

Oh. So Global Warming is going to melt the ice under 4800 meters of it. I get it. Because atmospheric heating will go through the ice and hit the rock underneath, warming it, and causing the ice to slide.

And in twenty years or so. My goodness, Jeanne.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[winsor 186]

lawrocket

Oh. So Global Warming is going to melt the ice under 4800 meters of it. I get it. Because atmospheric heating will go through the ice and hit the rock underneath, warming it, and causing the ice to slide.

And in twenty years or so. My goodness, Jeanne.

Now I'm really scared.

[Amazon 7]

lawrocket

*********>That means ten iterations of doubling CO2 just to get average high
>temperature to around 0 degrees C.

>If you want to melt it you gotta get above freezing for average temperature.
>So let's iterate one more time and get to 409,600 ppm.


I can only imagine how much you would scream bloody murder if a "climate change alarmist" did a similarly facile calculation . . . .

True. This is a very oversimplified calculation.

But the point is that "if all the ice were to melt" is ridiculous. Yet people not only believe that it will happen (it will, in less than a billion years due to solar intensification) but that my grandchildren will see it happen.

What are your thoughts, Bill? Do you agree that my grandchildren will be traveling to Safari with the wildebeests in Western Antarctica? Or be applying bug spray to prevent malaria while waterskiing on the vast inland lake of Greenland?

Time for some realism. But the point remains: anthropogenic activities have to raise the polar temperature by in excess of 40 degrees C in order to melt all the ice. People will be extinct long before that happens.

You do not need to melt it... that will happen after the water intrudes under the ice which will provide lubrication to allow huge quantities of ancient ice currently sitting on land to slide off into the ocean since the floating ice sheet that previously was preventing that is now going away. That will provide a very quick rise in sea level further exacerbating the process for more of the ice to move. There is 4800 METERS thick Ice in places in Antarctica yet at the the South Pole itself is only 2700 meters thick depressing the landmass there down to near sea level other places the volume of ice has depressed the land mass down below sea level.

Oh. So Global Warming is going to melt the ice under 4800 meters of it. I get it. Because atmospheric heating will go through the ice and hit the rock underneath, warming it, and causing the ice to slide.

And in twenty years or so. My goodness, Jeanne.
Go ahead chuckles.... laugh it up....
Does a layer of water UNDER ice provide more or less friction to the ice to flow into the sea???
Does Ice float on water???
Would that ice once floating affect sea level??

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/antarctica/11476817/Warm-water-channel-found-under-one-of-Antarcticas-largest-glaciers.html

[billvon 2,384]

>Oh. So Global Warming is going to melt the ice under 4800 meters of it.

You two are talking past each other.

No, it's not going to melt all the ice in the Antarctic. But it is going to melt a lot. Not by raising the temperature in the Antarctic above freezing, which you are claiming as necessary. Rather, a few things will happen:

1) Air temperatures will go up slightly. This will melt some of the ice on the surface of the glaciers. This will make them lighter.

2) Water temperatures will go up slightly. This will melt some of the ice beneath the glaciers.

3) Sea level will rise slightly. This will tend to provide more buoyancy to the glaciers.

The result of all this is that the grounding line - the line where the glacier stops touching the ground and starts floating on water - will come inland significantly. At that point the glacier speeds up dramatically since there's no more friction slowing it down. It ends up in the ocean, breaks off, moves into warmer water and melts there.

This is happening now. It does NOT mean all the ice in Antarctica will melt within 100 years - but it does mean that a lot more will melt than you can account for by rising air temperatures over Antarctica.


From Geophysical Research Letters:
=========================
Widespread, rapid grounding line retreat of Pine Island, Thwaites, Smith, and Kohler glaciers, West Antarctica, from 1992 to 2011

First published: 27 May 2014

Abstract

We measure the grounding line retreat of glaciers draining the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica using Earth Remote Sensing (ERS-1/2) satellite radar interferometry from 1992 to 2011. Pine Island Glacier retreated 31 km at its center, with most retreat in 2005–2009 when the glacier ungrounded from its ice plain. Thwaites Glacier retreated 14 km along its fast flow core and 1 to 9 km along the sides. Haynes Glacier retreated 10 km along its flanks. Smith/Kohler glaciers retreated the most, 35 km along its ice plain, and its ice shelf pinning points are vanishing. These rapid retreats proceed along regions of retrograde bed elevation mapped at a high spatial resolution using a mass conservation technique that removes residual ambiguities from prior mappings. Upstream of the 2011 grounding line positions, we find no major bed obstacle that would prevent the glaciers from further retreat and draw down the entire basin.
============================

[lawrocket 3]

You understand the difference between a glacier and the glacier tongue, right? The seawater is warmer and goes under the Totten Glacier tongue, thinning it.

This is where climate reporting has gotten us. The Totten Glacier is something like 800 miles long and 500 miles wide. So sea water encroachment occurs at the base, where the tongue is.

Piss poor reporting. But certainly fits with the narrative. Sea water, warm sea water, is going to climb up the underside of a a glacier hundreds of miles and slide it. Recall that sea water flows downhill? There is some cohesion but find me some seawater that flowed a few hundred miles inland under a glacier and I'll reconsider.

I really wish science reporters would quit selling shit like this aimed squarely at the believers. It's like there is a touring group of reformed faith healers out there promising eternal damnation instead. In twenty years all the ice in Antarctica will be gone. Right. Because glaciers now melt from the top down and slide, instead of a laying from the bottom up.

The last remnants of glaciers in Antarctica will be on the coastlines. Don't think so.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,384]

>You understand the difference between a glacier and the glacier tongue, right?

Yep. The glacier becomes the glacier tongue at the grounding line. Grounding lines are moving rapidly inland.

>Recall that sea water flows downhill?

?? Uh - no it doesn't. Watch any glacier calve. The seawater rises up the cleft until it reaches sea level. That's why seawater is rising under the glaciers - because the grounding lines are moving, and the seawater is entering under the new grounding line and going up, trying to seek sea level.

>In twenty years all the ice in Antarctica will be gone. Right. Because glaciers
>now melt from the top down and slide, instead of a laying from the bottom up.
>The last remnants of glaciers in Antarctica will be on the coastlines.

Come on, you're smarter than this.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

No, it's not going to melt all the ice in the Antarctic. But it is going to melt a lot. Not by raising the temperature in the Antarctic above freezing, which you are claiming as necessary. Rather, a few things will happen:

1) Air temperatures will go up slightly. This will melt some of the ice on the surface of the glaciers. This will make them lighter.

2) Water temperatures will go up slightly. This will melt some of the ice beneath the glaciers.

3) Sea level will rise slightly. This will tend to provide more buoyancy to the glaciers.

Regarding point 1 - there is a crucial thing that it being missed in this discussion. Glacier life and stability is determined by two factors: (1) accretion; and (2) ablation.

-40 degrees is an important number. Not only is it where C and F intersect, but it is also the point at which water vapor has been almost entirely precipitated. The atmosphere at that temperature simply cannot hold water vapor.

This is the reason why Antarctica is a desert. Because it doesn't snow at -50. Or -40. All precipitation has been lost at the coast. You will agree with me on this. Hence the accretion of glaciers is an exceedingly slow process at their origin in Antarctica. The glacier accretes more and more as it goes downhill and toward the coast where there is a greater chance for precipitation. At some point, as it gets more temperate in climate the. It may a late more than it accretes.

This brings some sense to it. Fast flowing outlet glaciers like Totten and Philipi are losing mass at present. Slower flowing areas in East Africa, like Enderby land, are gaining ice mass. Which makes sense.

So that is where Part 1 is not entirely the case.

However, the rest of your explanation is fine. It makes sense. Nevertheless, the explanation does not accoun for the increased precipitation with rising water and air temperatures. Meaning that the result will likely be not nearly so dramatic.

The system that you described is understandable and sensible. But is also facile in light of its failure to discuss accretion. (Note: with those factors we would expect to see sea/shelf ice drop, since it forms by wholly different process than glaciers, which rely on precipitation).

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,384]

>The system that you described is understandable and sensible. But is also
>facile in light of its failure to discuss accretion. (Note: with those factors we
>would expect to see sea/shelf ice drop, since it forms by wholly different
>process than glaciers, which rely on precipitation).

It discusses neither accretion nor sublimation, just rapid mass loss due to changing grounding lines. Yes, both accretion and sublimation will change as temperatures change. Overall we are still losing mass from Antarctica at an accelerating rate primarily due to the acceleration of glaciers as their grounding lines change.

[lawrocket 3]

billvon

>The system that you described is understandable and sensible. But is also
>facile in light of its failure to discuss accretion. (Note: with those factors we
>would expect to see sea/shelf ice drop, since it forms by wholly different
>process than glaciers, which rely on precipitation).

It discusses neither accretion nor sublimation, just rapid mass loss due to changing grounding lines. Yes, both accretion and sublimation will change as temperatures change. Overall we are still losing mass from Antarctica at an accelerating rate primarily due to the acceleration of glaciers as their grounding lines change.

Overall there is stasis. Obviously, the trends on the Peninsula also affect the balance. But there are factors other than AGW at work.

Attached is an image showing satellite altimetry on top and gravitometry on the bottom. If it was a global climate thing, one would expect there to be more uniformity of results. There is not real pattern, though. It looks a bit jumbled.

But just the image is an indication of the subtlety. Mass gain and loss is all over the place. Antarctica is losing mass. This is not incorrect. Antarctica is gaining ice mass. Also not incorrect. It's like saying North America is experiencing a drought.

The evidence is all over the place. It's the nice part about it. There is evidence to support the theory that you artfully described. And evidence contrary. It's a lot of personal perception, which is great so long as there is some sound reasoning behind it.

But pigeonholing is the easiest way to miss something. I predicate your mind on this and the education you provide.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,384]

>Overall there is stasis.

There used to be. Now loss is accelerating overall.

>The evidence is all over the place. It's the nice part about it. There is
>evidence to support the theory that you artfully described. And evidence
>contrary.

I have not seen any evidence to support that the mass balance is now static. That's like saying "the evidence showing a link between lung cancer and smoking is all over the place." That may be true - but if that is used as an argument "therefore there's no realistic link" that would be deliberately misleading. (Of course, that's been tried.)

[Coreeece 2]

Amazon

***Scientists that disagree with the administration, hope they don't get disappeared

Woo Hoo - facts are good to have

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN_oynx1D8w&spfreload=1

Facts are a great thing.....

And here is a look at your grandchildrens America.... better buy land inland now....FACT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW5e61XSMHk&feature=iv&src_vid=VbiRNT_gWUQ&annotation_id=annotation_1859225607

Don't worry..... you will not be around.... but I have a feeling that your descendants will not remember their ancestors kindly. They will not be able to visit many of their ancestors gravesites.... There will be no rest in peace for so many. Burial vaults tend not to do well in floods... and beach erosion far inland to Columbia...

More doom and gloom, more of the time...

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Amazon 7]

Coreeece

******Scientists that disagree with the administration, hope they don't get disappeared

Woo Hoo - facts are good to have

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN_oynx1D8w&spfreload=1

Facts are a great thing.....

And here is a look at your grandchildrens America.... better buy land inland now....FACT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW5e61XSMHk&feature=iv&src_vid=VbiRNT_gWUQ&annotation_id=annotation_1859225607

Don't worry..... you will not be around.... but I have a feeling that your descendants will not remember their ancestors kindly. They will not be able to visit many of their ancestors gravesites.... There will be no rest in peace for so many. Burial vaults tend not to do well in floods... and beach erosion far inland to Columbia...

More doom and gloom, more of the time...

Welcome to geologic reality...

[Coreeece 2]

Amazon

*********Scientists that disagree with the administration, hope they don't get disappeared

Woo Hoo - facts are good to have

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN_oynx1D8w&spfreload=1

Facts are a great thing.....

And here is a look at your grandchildrens America.... better buy land inland now....FACT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW5e61XSMHk&feature=iv&src_vid=VbiRNT_gWUQ&annotation_id=annotation_1859225607

Don't worry..... you will not be around.... but I have a feeling that your descendants will not remember their ancestors kindly. They will not be able to visit many of their ancestors gravesites.... There will be no rest in peace for so many. Burial vaults tend not to do well in floods... and beach erosion far inland to Columbia...

More doom and gloom, more of the time...

Welcome to geologic reality...

right, right, but anybody that warns you about fiscal realities is fucking doom and gloom nutjob...

Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

[Amazon 7]

Coreeece

************Scientists that disagree with the administration, hope they don't get disappeared

Woo Hoo - facts are good to have

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN_oynx1D8w&spfreload=1

Facts are a great thing.....

And here is a look at your grandchildrens America.... better buy land inland now....FACT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW5e61XSMHk&feature=iv&src_vid=VbiRNT_gWUQ&annotation_id=annotation_1859225607

Don't worry..... you will not be around.... but I have a feeling that your descendants will not remember their ancestors kindly. They will not be able to visit many of their ancestors gravesites.... There will be no rest in peace for so many. Burial vaults tend not to do well in floods... and beach erosion far inland to Columbia...



More doom and gloom, more of the time...

Welcome to geologic reality...

right, right, but anybody that warns you about fiscal realities is fucking doom and gloom nutjob...

How do you think the fiscal realities will be when all the low lying cities in the coastal regions of the country are inundated...