Let's Just Build a Moat

Yes, the Marshall Islands are in trouble. I expect many other Pacific island nations will be following them soon.

I saw a comment from Neil deGrasse Tyson that said if nothing is done the ocean will rise up to the Statue of Liberty's armpit!

I think that scenario is if all of the ice in Antarctica melts. A real worst case scenario but we really are not doing much to stop or even slow down global warming either. The deniers don't think it is happening at all.

The only solution per Neil, is JUST to stop CO2 emissions. At least that's what he was stating on Cosmos. I believe we also need to reforest the middle east and all of northern Africa. These places that are now desert lands, clearly could not have supported the large populations that once lived there, without being located in rain forest type environments. I do not see crops having the same impact to atmospheric carbon dioxide control as trees that grow year round. And they cool the locations near the equator.

That and no one will make any statements of world population control as another required change to excessive CO2 emissions, and the continuing deforestation of land for their living space.

It's amazing how quickly the dust bowl of the Oklahoma/northern plains has been forgotten, as to it's cause of drought.

who is denying that the climate changes?

Look there's one now.

Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine
24 House Republicans Just Voted To Deny The Reality Of ...
Marco Rubio Denies Climate Change While Miami Drowns ...
Nobody, I guess.

These Islands are unstable by nature...they could disappear overnight due to volcanic activity....or get higher....

Why is it called "Whack a mole" when they look more like prairie dogs?

"due to volcanic activity."

Volcanoes are unpredictable.

Sea level rise is undeniable.

What may be more unpredictable is what is going to happen to the Gulf Stream when the ice in the Artic melts. Remember the last Ice Age was caused by a diversion of the Gulf Stream by a sudden change in the waters around the North Atlantic. In all the studies I have not seen where anyone has tried to deduce what will happen to that. Most of Europe sits at a more northerly latitude than the USA. If Europe loses the Gulf Stream and cools to what one would expect for the Hudson Bay area of Canada, what does that do to the warming continually scenario? Remember we are only talking about a few degrees difference for the entire Earth, but Europe could change downward by 20 or so degrees on average without the Gulf Stream. Then what happens?

Looks like a nice plateau at a global historic high right now. It appears close to the same cycle 120,000 years ago.

I guess we can start to expect colder winters and a drop in sea level, right?

Most of the northwest coast, specifically in Washington, hasn't seen anything linked directly to a rise in the Pacific Ocean...point of fact, sorry.

There are "worst case scenarios" being discussed where "this could happen" if the seas rise: Sea Level Rise Map.

I have the local Flood Inundation Level chart posted in my office from the NAVFAC GeoReadiness Explorer. There has actually been a decrease in the mean water levels for my area.

Sorry, again...just don't see it here...yet.

Agreed. It is interesting when you look at climate in a longer time frame. Nothing that is happening today can come close to some of the past climate changes. I would point out that the little ice age was about 1550 to 1850 AD.

I'm not debating any of that. If you look back at my history, I have always said that the earth has thermal cycles, obviously not caused by humans.

What pisses me off is that there are still politicians who deny that we're getting warmer.

Just as there are those who deny that burning fossil fuels pollutes the atmosphere and those who deny that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer.

I've got a life. I also like for the truth to be acknowledged.

It's true that the global mean temperature has barely moved in the past 17 years, so there hasn't been much 'global warming' lately. I did read that recently it moved upward this past year a bit, but it's still nowhere near what the models were predicting 15 years ago. Some 'warmist' researchers have invoked the notion that the ocean has been absorbing the missing temperature rise. That's probably an issue for another discussion.

I didn't actually intend that 'get a life' comment at you; I was thinking of the media alarmist types.

Sensationalism sells more commercials than science. Can hardly say it sells more newspapers anymore.

This is the first time in human history that we've been able to examine the climate on a daily basis.

But, it's also the first time we've been burning dead plants by the giga-ton.

I won't live long enough to worry about treading water.

I'm more worried about Yellowstone erupting before I croak.

By definition, climate is not examinable on a day-to-day basis.

True but the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem applies here, too. Think about it.