Plenty dire right here in the US of A, especially if you are a farmer.
From here/
Some of that is from the trade war, I believe. But …
Things are so wet that farmers can’t get their equipment into the fields to plant.
Or rather, so wet they can get their equipment in, and in sunk in up to the axles, but then they can’t get it out…
I’ve read (sorry, no cite) that Suharto’s 1998 overthrow was the first modern regime change triggered by global warming. The post-2004 Syrian civil war also resulted from climatic crop failures. The Pentagon is preparing for massive inroads by climate refugees. But it’s only TV news, not DIRE, until it affects you personally. Sweat.
Right, the problem in Syria and the Mid East is due to drought.
Somehow oil rich countries next to the ocean can’t figure out how desalination plants work or plant rice made to grow in saltwater.
The oceans are only predicted to rise about a meter over the next century, or something. There just isn’t that much water on the planet, even if you melt all the ice. And that’s pretty basic math, so I doubt that that’s a thing that anyone didn’t already know 50 years ago. You might want to review where you’re getting your science news from, if you were thinking that anyone was ever predicting something like that. Most likely you were being lied to by your news sources.
Well, yes he is wrong, but only as matter of timing. Still, telling oneself that a meter of an increase is something that we should not worry about is reckless too.
BTW the acceleration of the melting of cap ice tells many researchers that the ocean rise is likely to be an underestimation, and that the higher numbers that are in the range of possibilities are more likely. As researchers I read pointed, the usual numbers are between .8 to 2 meters of an increase by the end of the century, meaning that well before that we can be encountering this:
As may have been mentioned, sea-level rise isn’t constant globally. Some coasts will see greater impact than others. And storm surges can drive slightly higher waters to dangerous depths. Won’t take much to flood NYC’s or SF-bay’s subways, the California, Bengali, and Mississippi-Louisiana deltas. How long can y’all tread water?
Honestly, it already is. There’s only one escape now: manual carbon removal.
Given that nearly all man-made structures are more than a meter above sea level, at peak tide, I’d say that it’s not Godzilla-bad. Venice has been dealing with water damage for a few centuries now and, while it’s a PITA, they seem to be avoiding mass death and injury.
Now, if you live in Holland, the story is different. But I did say “nearly all” not “all”.
It will be costly to deal with. But I would generally take “dire” to mean something a bit more spectacular than an issue that can be solved with a giant pump.
I think you did not check the links, loss of potable water (and the loss of cropland in particular) and an increase with the damages from hurricanes are things that trying to minimize and hand wave away is a reckless thing to do.
I am relatively skeptical that rising seawater is going to affect the majority of farming or general water usage in Nebraska, Iowa, or Saskatchewan. I would be surprised if it even affected the San Juan valley, or really very much at all given that nearly all of mankind lives more than 1 mile away from the ocean and dirt is pretty effective at filtration. But if that is projected to project far deeper into the inland than I was expecting to be the case, I’ll certainly read a link about it.
Can you do better than a one-sentence statement by NASA that reads as a statement for school kids? I’m not saying that you’re wrong, just that I’d want to see something better. (I can’t access the NatGeo link.)
If you had looked at past postings, ignoring the rest of the world (or Florida and many places in the American east for that matter) is reckless too as it will affect the USA too, as the link about refugees showed already. You are also there ignoring the loss of water as glaciers are retreating in the places that should not worry about ocean rise, but need to worry about other effects of treating the atmosphere like a sewer.
That narrator for the short animation that was linked was Richard Alley, American geologist and a Professor of Geosciences at Pennsylvania State University. (And still a Republican, nobody is perfect 
) And BTW, that Animation and text comes from NASA.
I’m ignoring the threat that I cited and discussed in my own post, which is to say, changing climate and how that relates to plant growth and the effects of climate change on hurricane strength?
Well, maybe. But, my counter-hypothesis would be that those two topics are ones that I am onboard with, as reasonable to call “dire”, while the topic of the sea level rising - while, yes, related through the fact that this is all climate change - was clearly intended to ignore those other aspects of climate change and genuinely talk about nothing more than the physical level of the sea. Which, while costly to a very specific set of mankind, is probably not ever going to be dire if, again, we extract out the other impacts of climate change.
Salt would be massively harmful to farming (unless we start eating a lot more seaweed on our diets). If salt can penetrate to the major areas of farming, I would agree that that’s a dire concern. But if we’re talking about Syria drying out then, clearly, I am treating that as a separate discussion from the physical height of the ocean.
The problem here is to try to separate the effects like if one could pick and choose, the results do not care about an arbitrary separation of the effects, still, the point stands, regions of the USA like Florida will not have an easy time.
That is Miami under just about 2 meters of ocean rise (close to 7 feet, and BTW, ocean rise does not magically stop by the end of the century, it will become worse in less than a generation then).
Again, you like that, but unfortunately it does not make much sense, unless one is following the strange points from lukewarmers out there. In a case like nations like Syria, a factor that increases emigration and unrest already (with increased warming and drought) will have more people emigrating elsewhere added to the mix thanks to ocean rise.
As for the salt being an issue and the loss of land due to ocean rise:
… or Mar-a-Lago.
Has anyone noticed that California and Australia are kind of “on fire”? Like, they always had wildfires, but these have gotten so much worse, and are killing and displacing more people that in the past, and all estimation is that things are going to get worse. Hurricanes are getting stronger. Cities around the world are seeing hundred-year-floods every few years. On a more personal level, I spent an entire week this summer at home due to severe heatstroke from spending a bit too long outside during the kind of summer heat wave that central europe can expect far more of in the near future, and which we are not well-prepared for. Hundreds of people died. Japan had hundreds hospitalized and 11 dead. And things are similarly dire in India, apparently, with heat waves leading to hundreds dead and water shortages, causing further unrest.
Anyone trying to tell you that things are not already dire is doing you no favors. We are already seeing, on a yearly basis, the effects of a warming climate, and it only gets worse from here. We can only limit the damage by acting soon and decisively.
I appreciate all of the replies talking about the seriousness and immediacy of the emergency. I hate the fact that climate change is being characterized as “belief in climate change” or “does not believe”. This isn’t about belief. Climate change and the immediate and dire nature of the crisis is a fact. It isn’t being caused by the sun. It isn’t be caused by the Earth’s natural cycle. It is primarily being caused by human activity. Our addiction to cheap energy. And yes, this is going to mean economic changes. Migrating to a different way of doing things over a long period of time would mitigate the economic impact. The longer we wait, the more severe the necessary actions are going to be. It won’t impact most on the people on this board who are probably in their 30-50s. We’ll be nice and dead in the next 30 years or so. But if the world continues to do nothing, the impact on children being born today is going to be extreme. I find it amusing that it is often the right-wing that are saying “Debt will require our children and grandchildren to pay for it!” but so conveniently ignore that this is true for climate change. We are making things definitively awful for anybody under 25 today. Somebody 25 today, if going to be 55ish (i.e. at the end of their career when they have limited career flexibility) to undergo massive economic change. And honestly, to some degree, I fear that this is why nothing serious will ever be done. There will always be a group of people sufficiently hurt by taking action, that no action will be taken. See Sam Stone’s reply earlier. We cannot do anything serious right now because of economics. Maybe later. Ridiculous. The time to act is right now. Actually, sorry the time to act was 10-20 years ago. I do agree with Sam Stone’s point on nuclear power though. We need to be building nuclear power plants starting immediately. And it bugs me endlessly that the people most in favor of taking action on climate change have a high tendency of being opposed to nuclear power. It is enough to make one scream in frustration. Which I think I will do right now.
**Fresh **water is doing the damage now. This is one of many, many articles. It’s dated June 9.
‘The Fields Are Washing Away:’ Midwest Flooding Is Wreaking Havoc on Farmers
Did conditions get better? No. From Oct. 1.
Rains worsens already slow pace of 2019 harvest
And this week, Nov. 23.
Weather woes keep producers from fall finish
It’s already bad. Really bad. I’d like to say it’s going to stay bad, only because that would be better than the reality - which is that it will get worse year by year. The sky is already falling. Literally.
We are on track to have sea levels rise by ~20" by 2100 according to the UN IPCC. The UN IPCC is the consensus of almost a hundred authors citing thousands of studies.
Elimination of all air travel would reduce global temperatures by 0.03 degrees Celsius.
We are looking for technological breakthrough not draconian re-engineering of society.
Extinction Rebellion are a bunch of twats
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vOxgzIeSt4Actually, if one bothers to check the science and not the misinformers the report says:
https://miamibeachtimes.com/politics/uns-ipcc-releases-gloomier-forecast-for-sea-level-rise-by-2100/
As mentioned before the IPCC is conservative in their reports, as others noted there is evidence for the report missing a lot of the cap ice loss acceleration; still, they do point at the high range possible to be about 1.5 meters by the end of the century and then even more after.
[quote=“Damuri_Ajashi, post:59, topic:843739”]
Elimination of all air travel would reduce global temperatures by 0.03 degrees Celsius.
We are looking for technological breakthrough not draconian re-engineering of society.
Extinction Rebellion are a bunch of twats
[/QUOTE]Of course worse than a straw man is to see misinformers like Nigel Farage taking down extremists, implying then that the extremists represent all the proponents of change, anything to ignore the science and the change that is needed.