Sea level rise is unstoppable.

[kenneal - lagger]

This Youtube video takes an awfully long time to justify the statement above but with 1.5 deg C temperature rise we are locked into 30 metres of sea level rise. Over what time period John Englander didn't say, though.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

This Youtube video takes an awfully long time to justify the statement above but with 1.5 deg C temperature rise we are locked into 30 metres of sea level rise. Over what time period John Englander didn't say, though.

If I understand paleoclimate history, sea level rise has been unstoppable since the last glacial maximum 22,000 years ago. It has slowed down quite a bit recently, but it hasn't stopped rising in 22,000 years so yes, it sure looks unstoppable.

Of course, we had also been told before that the Himalayan glaciers would be melting soon only to see that walked back.

But I can go with unstoppable sea rise if only because it is perfectly in line with 22 millennia of precedent.

[kenneal - lagger]

If you looked at his graphs, RGR you would have seen that we should be going into the next ice age by now and sea level rise should have stopped. Far from it slowing down recently, he also said that we are seeing an exponential rise in sea levels also some thing that is unusual but then, from your position as an apologist for the oil industry, that wouldn't be something that you would want to highlight.

[ReserveGrowthRulz]

If you looked at his graphs, RGR you would have seen that we should be going into the next ice age by now and sea level rise should have stopped. Far from it slowing down recently, he also said that we are seeing an exponential rise in sea levels also some thing that is unusual but then, from your position as an apologist for the oil industry, that wouldn't be something that you would want to highlight.

"Should be going into the next ice age by now"...yes...and peak oil should have stopped transoceanic shipping by now and Ehrlich claimed that a major population dieoff should have happened by now and the Big One should have wiped out San Francisco by now and Yellowstone is a couple hundred thousand years past exploding....you see where I am going with the certainty of deterministic claims in a probabilistic world, right?

First you state that something that exists within a range of time should have happened when you say it does, and because it hasn't, then what you say next must be true.

I do this one for a living, so no, there was no more requirement of us being in an Ice Age today than 500 years ago or 500 years from now. All of those times are within the range of uncertainty of the interglacial cycles, and then of course we have the day that the cycles themselves will change and become something else. Maybe when Yellowstone goes boom?

In the meantime, my statement was completely appropriate because I wasn't matching it up to any claim in the future, just noting that when people say these very definitive things inside of a world of possibilities, it is A) wildly entertaining to those who quantify uncertainty for a living and B) does nothing but creates self-reinforcing feedback on the entire doom mantra routine.

You know, like those ignorant of resource economics did with Peak Oil?