Since these are the 12 hottest months on record, how does your country fair if/when the icecaps melt

Since these are the 12 hottest months on record, how does your country fair if/when the icecaps melt.

perfectly comfy in ontario but RIP montreal, texas, florida, east coast, the south.

ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=knVc9aBqnzg
theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/16/russia-significantly-under-reporting-wildfires-figures-show
scientificamerican.com/article/sinking-atlantic-coastline-meets-rapidly-rising-seas/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

bump, RIP sweden, northern germany, netherlands, belgium, denmark.

wonder how the EU will be in the future when south and eastern euros takeover

you'd think america would give more a fuck about it, but there are Americans who don't even believe it exists

How high are these rising? I live about 80m above sea level and my town would be just on the coast there.

If all the ice caps and glaciers melted; sea level would rise 300 feet

>12 hottest months on record

This is true, but misleading. We've only been keeping records for about a hundred years, which is a fraction of a fraction of an instant in geological time.

216 ft (65.84m).

In order for a sea level rise of that magnitude, all ice Earth would need to melt, which OP's source claims would take 5,000 years.

>that pic
It won't happen though, because this will slowly be built to prevent it

have you tried killing yourself

Betcha the dutchies will find a way to cope, they are very resourceful in this sort of situation

>Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal are destroyed

What's the downside?

true, we have a lot of chowderheads in this country. But far worse are the politicians who know better but spout denials to please their donors

The water will have to go somewhere tho. And if we all build such walls the water will rise even more

Rivers/extreme weather will be the main problem for us, not the rising sea.

There's no way we could build something that big it's impossible

The dutch king owns a VERY large amount of control in shell oil, and he apparently takes as a pet project the development of dyke technology and its sale.

these are if it totally melts so it won't be that bad as this. still coastal areas are pretty fucked.

its supposed to be concentrated in areas that get the gulf stream so the eastern seaboard is one of the most fucked places, alongside europe's coast.

pic related will happen within our lifetimes, but floodings can also be as bad as being entirely submerged.

we need to hang the republican party imo.

interestingly israel is one of the most below sea level places in the world. you might get a bigger dead sea, might be nice.

Muh Sand Motor

youtube.com/watch?v=knVc9aBqnzg

>republican party

If your view of politics comes down to blaming one party or another then you are caught up in the distraction.

More Chinese, Nigerians, and Poos will move to Chinada.

yeah this won't even happen ever. it will completely alter literally everything in europe and probably cause all of england to be submerged.

12 months straight out of a 150 year history, on record is quite a big change.

russia is experiencing one of its biggest forest fires ever, bigger than what canada has ever had, and it might be triggering methane release.

theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/16/russia-significantly-under-reporting-wildfires-figures-show

the dykes are useless if the water just pulls a germany and goes around the wall. it probably will do that unless they redirect all that water elsewhere.

What caused the global mean temperature to gradually decline from 1880 to 1910? Greenhouse gas emissions were spiking massively at that time. What about the stagnation from 1945 to 1975? The world population doubled over that period. Surely we were causing much more environmental damage?

It is almost as if there is no correlation between human activity and global mean temperature.

none of them accept climate change they are functionally retarded as a party.

i've never been more angry than seeing 18 republican candidates reject climate change and see lindsay graham have to explain why its real. they are the party of retards.

little ice age was just ending, and there was a huge volcanic explosion that altered weather patterns globally.

greenhouse gases were abysmally low at that time, they didn't even have mass car-production or ownership yet.

its way way way more intense now than ever. pic related

No study has ever found any correlation, much less any indication of causation, between global human activity and the global climate. Localized intense human activity can have a similarly localized environmental effect, e.g. smog clouds and acid rain over large cities, but there is no connection on a global scale.

To say that climate change does not exist is ludicrous—the climate is now and has always been in a constant state of flux—but it is equally ludicrous to claim that human activity is the primary determining factor of atmospheric phenomena.

Why does the west coast shoreline not recede? much?

Maybe Trump should be running for president of the Netherlands instead

Yes it absolutely can be built, because of how slowly the water rises.
Bear in mind that only the small part between Sweden and Denmark is water now and a large part of the black line is already littered with dikes.

Says the guy who elected justin fucking trudeau...

Greenhouse gas emissions grew, exponentially, from 1880 to 1910 and from 1945 to 1975. Over those same time periods, the global mean temperature decreased. What was the cause of those two periods of temperature decreases, coinciding with periods of GHG emission increases?

The Little Ice Age's period of severity ended in the 1600's, and the climate had reverted back to 12th century levels by the mid 1800's, decades before we had begun measuring global mean temperature.

>inb4 "Justin's actually not that bad"

yes they have, multiple. read the IPCC, its a very conservative since it was a consensus of everyone studying global warming.

i read somewhere that the east coast will be one of the hardest hit in the world due to ocean currents causing warmer water to rise. this is alongside the fact that the east coast is sinking gradually.

its really just emerging why, but some people think its going to be 2-3 times higher than anywhere else.

scientificamerican.com/article/sinking-atlantic-coastline-meets-rapidly-rising-seas/

if you create a dam, the water flows around. it will start flooding the surrounding regions unless you have natural mountains or something.

It would be silly to say there is no effect, as everything is interconnected.

It is silly to insist that it is a major contributor though. And its even stupider to believe people who have massive amounts of money invested in green technologies when they start preaching apocalyptic doomsday scenarios. They said there would be no more snow in england by 2010, their predictions have consistently been wrong.

Besides, peak oil will solve it, right? :^)

the little ice age ended in 1850, and volcanic dust has the effect of decreasing total sunlight on the surface.

you honestly should just read the IPCC, finding these facts without context is meaningless and nobody can explain the context like climate scientists who study this. its an overwhelming consensus on man-made global warming.

not to forget, its simple physics that dates back to the 1800s that can explain why GHG will cause temperature rises.

trudeau isn't a climate denier though, he's not done much except talk about it though but that's a start.

The west coast is an active margin with high cliffs and bluffs making up most of the coastline before dropping into undersea cliffs and canyons a few miles off the coast
The east coast is an inactive margin made up of shallow beaches recede slowly for miles into the ocean and increase slowly for miles inland

>unironically believing the global warming meme
Enjoy getting Jewed

the IPCC is the only actual body to listen to, and these are actual experts that head tens of millions of dollar projects to study this.

honestly, people here mistaken the opinions of scientists with random bloggers on the internet.

Who knows who to believe anymore? One the one hand the amount of money being made from fossil fuels is ludicrous, on the other hand a scientist who publishes a paper saying 'well, the data is too limited to make a solid conclusion, it mite b climate change or it mite not' is going to get much less attention than one whose paper is 'MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE 1000% CONFIRMED'.

honestly just believe in the science if you can understand it. its shit that most americans (re: 90%) cannot.

the IPCC is made up of dissenters and those who agree, and they have all reached a strong consensus. fucktons of climate scientists at harvard, MIT, etc. all think it will be worse than what the IPCC predict.

mandatory science classes should be a thing IMO, there's just too much ignorance.

>read the IPCC

The IPCC isn't a report, it's a panel, and a panel that doesn't produce any original research. None of the IPCC's assessments of other organizations' studies have ever found any degree of correlation between human activity and the climate, only evidence that the climate is indeed changing and conjecture that humans are involved.

>read the IPCC

That statement doesn't make sense. The IPCC isn't a paper.

>a panel that doesn't do research
>what are scientific reviews

half of science is analyzing other people's papers and data and drawing conclusions.

they are a panel that reviews the ENTIRE FIELD for whether the evidence is sufficient or not. if you aren't in the sciences you have no right to make claims on how scientific fields work.

>unless you have natural mountains or something.
look at the map again

they publish official reports every six years.

the problem is there is a difference between science and academia. I do not trust the current structure of academia, i question the integrity. There is too much money tied up in things. What we need is global guaranteed research grants as the soul source of funding, controlled by a body who is forbidden to own any personal wealth and live similar to monks with out any chance of external manipulation.

There have been plenty of statements that draw into question the entire current peer review climate. I just dont trust things that come out of anything that has a bunch of money behind it.

>its simple physics...that can explain why GHG will cause temperature rises

In a controlled environment. The atmosphere is not a controlled environment.

I'm not criticizing the IPCC for not conducting their own research, I'm criticizing you for telling me to "read the IPCC" as if it's a paper or a study to be read. It's an organization.

Which report explains the lack of correlation between GHG emissions and global mean temperature? I would love to read that report.

Definitely makes me think

we will build a wall and the ocean is gonna pay for it