The three myths of climate change | Linda Mortsch | TEDxToronto
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 ноя 2017
- Even if you believe climate change is real, you probably still hold a few myths in your head about the impact a changing climate will have on your life. A leading climate scientist helps sort fact from fiction and stresses the importance of adapting to an uncertain future. Linda Mortsch has devoted her career to addressing climate change issues. Since 1989, she has played a role in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and is a co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. In 1992, her research project “Adapting to climate variability and change in the Great Lakes Basin” was one of the first to explore adaptation to climate change in Canada. Today, Linda has an adjunct appointment in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo, and has been recognized by a number of associations, including the International Joint Commission, American Geophysical Union, Environment Canada, and more. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx
There has never been any time in human history when people didn't have to adapt to climate change. This is what we do no matter what the cause so let's get over ourselves and stop politicizing it.
umm...duh. The entirety of human history and civilization has taken place in a stable climate that has never varied more than +/- .5 deg C. From the 1750's baseline, the planet is now at 2.2 deg C above the original baseline. This is catastrophic warming that we are experiencing right now and it is a portent of what is coming. That is, heat death from wet bulb conditions, starvation, and dehydration...for every human being. NO human being can survive what is quickly unraveling now. We are lucky if there is another human being standing on Earth by 2026. Abrupt exponential climate change does not care whether you understand it or believe in it. Climate change will kill you anyway...within 5 years.
Models, projections.......etc.i'm with the guy in the audience. Why is it that we are asked to accept computer modelling, while at the same time, legitimate scientists with a conflicting set of data are prevented from having an equal footing on this "so-called" debate. As far as I'm concerned, the jury is still out.
I agree.
This lady is not a scientist and does not even know what SCIENCE is. More and more ordinary people are fed up with these utterly boring sermons of believers in this artificial IPCC religion.
We did not even reach the optimal global mean temperature of 15 degree C inspite of increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Hopefully it will warm up soon. We are coming from the little ice age and had 1850 the coldest temperatures and the biggest glaciers since 12 000 years!
Sea levels are rising with the same 2-3 mm as for centuries - not even noticeable and there will be no big change.
The IPCC uses housewives to present their Scientific fraud.
You are sooo right leeholmes. She is only planting seeds for climate hype...fear of a catastrophe.
taxing the poorest in societies wont fix anything but it will help the wealthier become even wealthier
Are you aware that the Paris Climate accord has carefully taken that into account?
TOP TEN HOTTEST YEARS
(1880-2018)
Rank Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
1 2016 0.94 1.69
2 2015 0.90 1.62
3 2017 0.84 1.51
4 2018 0.77 1.39
5 2014 0.74 1.33
6 2010 0.70 1.26
7 2013 0.66 1.19
8 2005 0.65 1.17
9 2009 0.64 1.15
10 1998 0.63 1.13
@IamtheFleecer The hottest ten years all happened in the last 20 years.
The top five years all happened in the last FIVE years.
You don't think that's significant? REALLY?
Hot years will happen, Of course.
Unusual weather will happen. Of course.
But this is outrageously obviously, pant-wettingly significant.
But stick your head in the compost if it makes you happier.
Marty Celestialteapot That’s fine you’re intimidated by that data.
1) I’m curious how the ACTUAL data range from 1928 to 1936, the Great Depression Optimum, compares. I have many other date ranges to compare during the Holocene, Roman, and Medieval Optimums.
2) How does your date ranges ultimately connect CO2 as causation?
Marty Celestialteapot absolutely not true. Check out the 1890's, 1900's and the 1930's. Those were the hottest years on record.
3 questions:
1. How was life able to flourish so much in the jurassic era when carbon dioxide levels were 5 times greater in the atmosphere?
2. Why are NASA scientists and others theorizing that exoplanets with the most abundant life will most likely be a few degrees WARMER than our planet?
3. If global warming really was a solid theory why did they have to re-name it climate change?
Also, how is a temperature fluctuation consistantly less than 1 degree Celsius serious cause for concern? Especially since none of "the inconvenient truth" future climate predictions came true? Weren't some major cities supposed to be flooded by now?
I'm just glad we can throw money at it, and it will be all better!
Just like our inner city ghettos!
LMFAO !! One of the funnier comments I've EVER read on YT!! And, SO TRUE! Just give AL GORE 100 billion dollars and THE PLANET IS SAVED!
@@incidentalist And he can expand on houses, pools and jets.
This lady is not a scientist and does not even know what SCIENCE is. More and more ordinary people are fed up with these utterly boring sermons of believers in this artificial IPCC religion.
We did not even reach the optimal global mean temperature of 15 degree C inspite of increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Hopefully it will warm up soon. We are coming from the little ice age and had 1850 the coldest temperatures and the biggest glaciers since 12 000 years!
Sea levels are rising with the same 2-3 mm as for centuries - not even noticeable and there will be no big change.
The IPCC uses housewives to present their Scientific fraud.
3 questions:
1. How was life able to flourish so much in the jurassic era when carbon dioxide levels were 5 times greater in the atmosphere?
2. Why are NASA scientists and others theorizing that exoplanets with the most abundant life will most likely be a few degrees WARMER than our planet?
3. If global warming really was a solid theory why did they have to re-name it climate change?
Also, how is a temperature fluctuation consistantly less than 1 degree Celsius serious cause for concern? Especially since none of "the inconvenient truth" future climate predictions came true? Weren't some major cities supposed to be flooded by now?
I agree. I'm also curious to know the answer to your insightful questions.
Be safe and in good health.
Spot on son!
And: Mars'atmosphere is 95%+ CO2. Mars is a cold planet...
This is not not to compare - Mars is much further from Sun than Earth and the atmosphere is also muuuch thinner than that on the Earth. But other than that I agree with Jacob Meyerson and I believe, that there are many holes in the "human caused boiling" theory and the we as humanity have to persist in seeking truth and do it in scientific way and not in political way. Politicians and alarmists are not here to talk about climate change at all. Most of them do not have any education in science at all.
Someone should have answered your questions by now. I can see why someone would have them and there are what I think are straightforward answers I hope you are OK with a little reading.. This is a really long post. SO long it has to be broken in two. My reasons for being willing to spend the time may become more clear by the end .
Question #1. The climate in the Jurassic WAS much warmer than it is today. While solar output was lower, the much higher levels of greenhouse gasses kept things warmer. Greenhouse gas levels are not the only factor in how warm the climate is, but they are one of the most important. Even at the poles conditions were temperate and there were no polar ice caps. Where temperate climates are today, conditions were tropical if wet, hot deserts if dry. Sea levels were higher. And life thrived, just like life also thrives (if less lush) under colder conditions during the post-ice age Holocene. But the very warm conditions in the Jurassic did not get that way in hundreds or even thousands of years, but millions. If we went from Jurassic climate to Holocine climate or vice versa in a few hundred years, life would be devastated. Most forms of life would die out due to not being adapted to the environment they found themselves in. Like a mammoth in the tropics. There would be drastic changes in sea level, large changes in ocean currents, drastic decreases in food availability as conditions settled into their new state. That first hundred thousand or so years would be brutal, especially as climate underwent the most rapid changes initially but before life started adapting and evolving.
But in 10-15 million years, you'd need a paleontologist or molecular biologist (which is my scientific training) to know it ever even happened. Life would look just fine as though it had always been that way. The forms of life that survived the initial crash will radiate and speciate to fill the empty niches as they did after past mass extinctions. Which is why when people say we need to save the earth, they are wrong. The earth doesn't need saving, 10 to 15 million years is nothing on a geologic time scale. The point is that life can thrive under much higher CO2 levels, conditions under which plant life may be much more lush that today. We are actually in a relatively cold period. But a sudden (sudden meaning less than over hundreds of thousands of years) change from current conditions to Jurassic conditions will cause many if not most species of plants and animals to die out, and would devastate human populations,, produce a 100+ meters of sea level rise that would put our mostly coastal cities under water, and cause drastic reductions in our ability to produce food destroying moist cropland. The faster it happens and the larger the difference from start to end state the more damaging it will likely be. The issue isn't that there is a problem with life at a higher CO2 level but that the change to that state in a short time will be extremely difficult for animals that evolved in the past few hundred thousand years to adapt to and will devastating to us at worst, and be outrageously expensive at best in its effects a civilization used to the relative stability of the past 10,000 years. And when we burn fossil fuels we are releasing CO2 into the air that was there when CO2 levels were much higher and climate was much warmer and it pushing our climate in that direction . And we are doing it at a rate that is pretty much unprecedented as far as we can tell. It's less the end point that is the problem, but rather the difference between start and end climate and rate of change. And that's why life flourished when steady state CO2 levels were 5 times higher, but much more modest CO2 increases over decades to a few centuries are so concerning.
Question #2 I haven't seen that claim, but if we are talking about a few degrees warmer than our planet TODAY, I would suspect that is a reasonable hypothesis. The reason is that we are actually in a cool period for the earth compared to its conditions over geologic history, and certainly plant life has been more abundant under somewhat warmer conditions. But we're back to BEING warmer vs GETTNG warmer. Being warmer isn't a problem, getting substantially warmer over human time scales is a big f#*!ing problem,
Question #3. Global warming was the usual term used initially. Some skeptics mostly in the fossil fuel industry wanted to call it climate change because they thought it sounded less alarming and would be less effective in promoting change (turns out it doesn't have much if any effect on anything). It was a technically accurate term, although of the more general process of changing climate parameters. Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) being the specific driver of current rapid climate change. Some climatologists and many environmental activists objected to the change in terminology, mostly because people in the fossil fuel industry were advocating it and they certainly couldn't consider agreeing with them. But ultimately most climate scientists didn't have a big problem as it was still accurate language and doesn't really change anything. There is even the potential advantage that it might make it easier to reduce a public impression that global warming is just about hotter summers. But there is no connection between the strength (or weakness for that matter) of the evidence base regarding AGW and what terms were used. It's mostly about refusing to get drawn into a pointless battle over terminology.
Question #4 +1°C to average temp doesn't seem like all that much. Average temperature is now about 1°C over preindustrial baseline (this was partially hidden by the effects of sulfate aerosol pollution unit recently). But would you also say 3.5°C isn't much? I mean it's the difference between 70°F and 76.3°F, and that's nothing. But it IS a lot for average temperature. It's the difference in average temps between the preindustrial baseline and when there was over a kilometer of glacial ice on top of what is now Boston. Just 3.5°C. Even +1°C to average means a lot of extra energy, about 5.95x10^21 joules (1.3 million megatons TNT equivalent) in the air and 5.3x10^24 Joules (1.3 billion megatons TNT equivalent) in the oceans. The heat makes seawater expand, has the capacity to drive greater jet stream oscillations driving extreme cold isn winter as the polar jet dips south, larger el nino/la nina events, and generally drive things to 11 on a previously 10 point scale. 1°C seems like it should barely matter, but it represents a huge increase in available energy to drive planetary cycles.
end part 1
Honestly, I'm a scientist and I can't understand what it is that she's trying, but failing to say. Maybe it's that her delivery seems aimed at a toddler, but either way...
Sub Scriber bruh look at the stats
@Sub Scriber Do you actually believe scientists don't know about solar cycles or they've ignored it? Do you believe you have greater knowledge than people who's spent 20-40 years RESEARCHING (in depth, the kind that makes their brain hurt)... ???
You're showing plain HUBRIS. You think (assume) you understand more.
"Climate catastrophe is upon us because of predictions from our models even though they've been grossly wrong for the last 50 years."
I'm just summing up the video.
This lady is not a scientist and does not even know what SCIENCE is. More and more ordinary people are fed up with these utterly boring sermons of believers in this artificial IPCC religion.
We did not even reach the optimal global mean temperature of 15 degree C inspite of increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Hopefully it will warm up soon. We are coming from the little ice age and had 1850 the coldest temperatures and the biggest glaciers since 12 000 years!
Sea levels are rising with the same 2-3 mm as for centuries - not even noticeable and there will be no big change.
The IPCC uses housewives to present their Scientific fraud.
The scientists predictive models were deeply flawed. They did not consider the exponential effects of multiple tipping points. They underestimated the timing of severe change. The math and the science now shows clearly and unambiguously that abrupt exponential climate change is unraveling much faster and much sooner and with much more severity than predicted. We are lucky if we have 3-4 years left. In 3-5 years, there won't be a single human being on Earth. Mark my words. Do the research for yourself. This is a time to get your affairs in order.
Sadly, scientists have become purveyors of emotional arguments for questionable science, while stating, " I am a scientist and I believe in facts and data." Well, show mw the science and favts that back up your position and explain why the skeptics' science is wrong.
Ethistical arguments, Stop putting down or slandering the word emotion.
This emotion is fuel for action. You can go outside use your senses and your emotions and you'll know exactly your place on the planet
I agree. This woman is more of an activist than a scientist. Be safe and in good health.
@@vacaspen5038 Wrong. Emotions can defeat intelligence, rational thinking. Emotions can make you lose your intelligence.
Don't let emotions destroy your intelligence. Be safe and in good health.
We call adaptation “evolving” (or we used to). The Melkovitch cycles are pretty hard to stop. But we’ll cope. We always have.
She isn't a scientist - she's a modeler. Real science would never make claims based on models that are not supported by the real data.
A Scientific theory must meet the test of the Scientific Method. The IPCC models predict the wrong temperature on the high side almost every year for decades. Fail.
Do you think you could listen to the video next time
I can't stand how she's talking to us like we're children.
Maybe it will be effective with anthropogenic climate change deniers then
You need to remember though, that she's not talking but preaching!
If the ocean reaches my city I would relocate to higher ground,maybe 75 miles north,not 2,500 miles north to Canada. Why would some in Bangladesh travel around the world to find higher ground?She’s using irrationally and fear,which makes many not want to listen to her perspective
Its so foolish as if we are going to just watch water flooding into our homes and then year after year and do nothing.
Jon Valentine yeah,it’s not going to happen in the blink of an eye. The warnings are out and it’s enough for one to start monitoring the waters edge
Since billions of gigatons of sand is being extracted along the coasts of Australia, Africa, South Asia, etc., as massive dredging along the coast and rivers, sea level rise from rapid glacial melt is minimized - but a time will come when the sand extraction and dredging will be unable to keep pace with the glacial melt.
Good information, but delivery is so measured and cadence so regular, I had to fight sleep to get through it. A science relaxation tape! This why scientists aren't the best communicators. Zzzzzz. We non-scientists try to help communicate their findings, but often get challenged with "...but YOU aren't a climate scientist!"
Hmmm. That's quite a catch 22 you've pointed out, but there are some scientists who are good at presenting data. Neil deGrass Tyson comes to mind. He was a good astronomer, did legit PhD work, before he became a talk show host and public speaker. He does more good as a public speaker, so I'm not saying this as a critisism, but that's what climate change needs - a Neil deGrass Tyson to deliver their message. Michael Mann is boring. This lady, even though I agree with what she said, yes, she's not a compelling speaker, though I did enjoy her "would you give up your child story".
But it shouldn't be too hard to find compelling speakers in the scientific community. When asked "are you an astrophysicist", Neil d'g Tyson can say "Yes I am", then he can continue his story. We need more guys like him. It's noble work, but most scientists seem to prefer research to public speaking.
One of the greatest conterdictions about many scientists, especially the so-called new atheists, like Grasse, Dawkins & Krauss, is that they make an ideology out of science. A *dogma of materialism* that is precisely defined to deny the existence of anything that can't be measured in meters, seconds and kilogramms. So first they deny the realiy of ethics, and then they demand that we apply ethics to climate change. Good luck with that!
Which is absurd. What material are numbers made of? What about the concept of state borders? Do they grow on trees? Are roads just geological rock formations? The empirical worldview is a big pile of BS when you come close.
.
Singingway. We aren't climate scientists, but the difference is that our sources are solid. So we read up on the science and present them, along with, reputable, citations to back them up.
She openly said she depends on models and predictions. How may have been even close to accurate?
“We scientists we like the facts.”. Doesn’t offer any facts to audience.
She thinks she has "facts" - all she has is idiotic theories, data sets and computer models based on idiotic theories.
@@WhirledPublishing that's exactly what the IPCC does. I don't see why you're so offended.
Well I used to like this tedx they're getting some fruit cakes on here now
Peer review? Sounds like all that is completely broken.
@@kayakMike1000 Since science majors are required to take classes in Chemistry, Geology, Physics, Calculus, etc., since most students don't earn A's in those classes, since most earn C's, we know that most scientists graduate with a C average - since the A students tend to go into medicine where they can easily earn half a million while the B students tend to go into biotech, pharmacy, engineering, etc., this financial competition relegates the C students to the lower paying jobs in the Earth Sciences which includes geologists, volcanologists, glaciologists, etc., and since we know most science majors don't graduate from highly-selective universities, since most graduate from low level institutions with minimal entrance requirements across Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Iowa, Missouri, Georgia, Alabama, etc., as well as the thousands of other low level institutions in Latin America, Africa, Asia, Australia, etc., the truth of the plight known as geologists ... becomes conspicuous ... we then add the fact that most of what science majors are taught are theories about when and how the tectonic plates were broken and subducted, theories about when and how the stratified layers of the Grand Canyon were formed, theories about when and how the Siberian and Deccan Traps were formed, theories about when and how the cataclysms known as Nuuanu and Eltanin decimated our Earth, the theories of our chemical elements, the theories of the ice ages and so on.
To all that insanity, we add the fact that the IQ's of geologists and dozens of other fake professionals are uploaded - online - by Psychologists for all the world to see which means we are prompted to realize the 85 to 115 IQ's of geologists are the intellectual equivalent of the smart kids in fifth and sixth grades which then prompts us to realize the public is getting their history of Earth from those with the mind of a child - very few realize this and very few realize the true timeline for our Earth's continents, oceans, mountains, cataclysms, Earth's expansion and Earth's climate is documented by our ancestors in hundreds of historic documents who tell us the "scientific community" is a pack of insane imbeciles - so much for "peer review".
Thank you
Our influance on co2 has as much effect as pushing on a house fire
She claims to be a scientist - fascinating
If she’s a scientist why does she keep making emotional arguments
Because scientists are humans too.
Because this whole climate "catastrophe" is all emotion. Not one single real, verifiable fact supports their "argument". The only way to convince people is to frighten the life out of them. They are doing exceptionally well with children, shame on them.
@@viktorijakarakulko949 some are computer models and bots.
drew hageman She’s yet just another of a series of people who are focused on “changes” or “impacts” to the environment they see has been caused by climate change. Some of their work may be quite relevant, the bottom line is her work doesn’t link CO2 as causation. They only imply that it does. Have some of these changes been influenced by climate? Probably, but that doesn’t mean it’s been driven by CO2. We all know the climate is changing. She’s up there on the podium parading for the wealth redistributionists.
That guy twenty years ago..
As a geologist, I'd like to hear from the climate change believers why in the last three million years why about 30 glacial advances and retreats occurred and why conditions now are different.
Thomas Cranmer - Man made climate change is real and the data shows this to be a FACT!
We are suppost to be in an Ice Age right now but we are warming?
@@bobmathieson987 Yep in the 70s we were warned by these same yahoo's that we would be under a sheet of ice by now. Is it warming? Okay who says that where we were at is the desirable norm? So many assumptions yet no real thought involved in "global warming" Which they realized was a myth so they changed the name to Climate change.
BrigidC123 -that convinced me as much as saying pigs can fly and that’s FACTS!
@@BrigidC123
Whaahaha! Al Gore (politician) shouts: "BOO!!" and half of the USA gets heart attack....
transcript were i can read it?
Fun facts for ya; Phanagoria, Russia has been under water for centuries, because of sea level rise, LONG before "human global warming". Based on climate models, the Maldives should have long been swallowed by the ocean. Germany is in the top ten for it's usage of "renewable energy", but still is the 6th highest emitter of CO2, in the world. Deforestation makes up to 25-29% of CO2 emissions, almost doubling that of transportation, but is never talked about as a cause for CO2 emissions. The geological devastation of land and animals would be 10 fold that of CO2 emissions, if we got rid of nuclear power and replaced with wind and solar, because of the land mass needed to produce the level of energy consumed. But hey, keep telling yourself global warming and current solutions aren't political.
Yes. It seems that people, politicians in particular, but even some scientists, have some short circuits or malfunctions in their brains when it comes to "global warming/climate change" issues and their causes and solutions, e.g.:
- they forgot about the little ice age and they call the return of temperatures to normal as "global warming"
- increase of temperatures after the little ice age was observed even in times when no increase of CO2 production by man took place (ok, very little increase due to burning wood in harsh winters by those few who could afford it...).
- by covering land with solar/photovoltaic panels you drastically decrease the amount of CO2 CONSUMED by photosynthesizing plants that could grow on that land if it would not be shaded by solar panels....
etc. etc...
@@viktorr1301
The worse is no one is doing any math. Atmosphere is made from gases so... *Ideal Gas Law*
PV=nRT show there is no GHG effect...
Oh Gawd! 2 minutes into your talk and I was beginning to lose the will to live!
Een paar opmerkingen van haar collega’s :
"We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination... So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy." - Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony...
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations
on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.” - Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.” - Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University
This lady is not a scientist and does not even know what SCIENCE is. More and more ordinary people are fed up with these utterly boring sermons of believers in this artificial IPCC religion.
We did not even reach the optimal global mean temperature of 15 degree C inspite of increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Hopefully it will warm up soon. We are coming from the little ice age and had 1850 the coldest temperatures and the biggest glaciers since 12 000 years!
Sea levels are rising with the same 2-3 mm as for centuries - not even noticeable and there will be no big change.
The IPCC uses housewives to present their Scientific fraud.
Exactly. They chose dishonesty. Why? Because their runaway global warming scare failed when there was no runaway global warming...
Jet Stream / Gulf Stream alteration is real important as well
I'm glad I've listened to Piers Corbyn and Christopher Monkton who debunk these prophets of doom.
During a talk on Climate Science at a festival recently, when confronted with the solar cycle data, I saw a dyed in the wool 'scary climate alarm' supporter quietly slip away before questions. He had earlier promised to destroy Piers's argument when I spoke to him earlier that day.
I'd like to see people like this lady debate Christopher Monkton!
If we do nothing there will be climate change. If we do everything suggested by the most extreme climate alarmist, there will be climate change. Geological forces will carry on having effects like the last few billion years what ever we do!
Surrey is a flooding hot spot. While it isn't on the ocean side, it is not far above sea level.
Great video Ted! As always factual and interesting. Please keep making them.
There are no facts here. It has been proven that Co2 has little or nothing to do with climate. Show me where the sea has risen. You can't. End of story.
This lady is not a scientist and does not even know what SCIENCE is. More and more ordinary people are fed up with these utterly boring sermons of believers in this artificial IPCC religion.
We did not even reach the optimal global mean temperature of 15 degree C inspite of increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Hopefully it will warm up soon. We are coming from the little ice age and had 1850 the coldest temperatures and the biggest glaciers since 12 000 years!
Sea levels are rising with the same 2-3 mm as for centuries - not even noticeable and there will be no big change.
The IPCC uses housewives to present their Scientific fraud.
Management summary 'Lets adapt to 60 feet sealevel rise'
Suitable for children, of any age.
Why is Antarctica growing in ice?
It is Growing in Sea Ice around it but not in Actual Ice Upon the Land Mass. There fore it is actually in decline of Ice.
Actually, since 2014 and 2018 Antartica has lost alarming amounts of ice. You really should check your facts.
It's not. Turn off Fox News .
Yes, Ronnyboy, your information is out of date. Read. Learn, my boy. You can do it!
I find it interesting how, except for a few holdouts, we have switched the discussion from "We must do something to stop climate change vs what climate change?" to "We must face climate change vs OK, I get it, climate change is happening, but we'll be fine if we just sit and do nothing".
Agnes Kim to late...sorry to say...positive feedback loops already in motion
Said that people in the comments don't understand that Human induced climate change is different from what was happening in the past.
Nice car add at the beginning of your video...lol
Ads (1 d) reflect the watcher, not the hoster of the video. RUclips is watching you. :-)
Still funny though. :-)
blablabla IPCC blabla
What about food security? Crazy weather kills crops, and if you tell people they'll have to pay more for food, or they may not have some types of food, they might care more.
We are able to grow more crops with warmer weather and higher C02 levels--and we have been. Plus, the weather is not more extreme. Use facts.
We are at 400ppm c02. The Cambrian Era has 4000ppm and guess what? It harkened in the most life this planet has ever experienced.
Do you know what didn’t happen? We burned up.
I dumber after trudging through this.
Affect is the critical word. Everyone underestimates the effect. Sea level rise is the worst example to give. The example to use is widespread starvation. The grain crops in central asia have already started to falter (cause of the Arab spring was food prices due to insufficient supply in asia). North America will feel it soon and see catastrophic crop failures every 3 years and a worsening of wildfires. Global economy will drop significantly instantly raising the temperature by at least 1 degree C (previous 1 degree rise took 20 years) due to reduced global dimming. At that point there will be no turning back. Feedback loops will take over. For those thinking we'll just do industrial farming in more northern latitudes. The topsoil isn't there and it takes thousands of years to build it up.
Read koonin's book. they're lying about almost everything fires, hurricanes
The Earth has ALWAYS recovered from disaters like meteorites impact, super vulcano etc. The problem here is that we don't have thousand of year to wait for the planet to recovers... So we are doing this only to save our bottoms...
The planet will recover. Humanity may not recover.
no permanent arctic ice -> ocean currents change -> weather/temperature changes -> food production changes -> shortages -> climate migration and war
Where are your talks about geoengineering?
Oh NASA is going to "teraform" Mars (95% CO2) and make it the next Disneyland. All they need is buckets of trillions of dollars of our hard cash and a lot more of our patience.
Heat energy travels through the air as infrared light. It does not interact with oxygen or nitrogen, but does with the heavier atmospheric molecules of carbon dioxide, methane and other such greenhouse gases that absorb and re-emit the infrared heat at the quantum level. This occurs innumerable times, thus delaying heat’s escape into space. This act of heat retention keeps our planet from freezing solid; however, increasing greenhouse gas density thickens the thermal blanket already insulating the planet.
The frustration of talking to people who will not look at the future...…. Increased insurance policies, land and houses that cannot be insured at all, look at where that leads !!
Eric they all but shutting EPA down...sad...
So I hear James, Trump made promises to those who are climate change deniers, he (trump) is on the edge of impeachment, his only hope is to keep his dwindling base on side. Insurance companies are factoring climate change into their system, if they are convinced what is wrong with trump (I refuse to call him President).
Then you get Pence for 2 years....oooooooo.. I guess better than red headed baffoon...
I wouldn't build my home in Bangladesh, or any flood plain, or in tornado zone in the USA..
I dont believe the data she is focusing on is broad enough. In the winter time the earth's atmosphere shows s warming trend in a 24hour period but if you zone out for the month the daily temp changes won't show the seasonal temp as getting colder ocerall.. so when they focus on data collected since the industrial revolution of course you will see it as a cause.. but if you zoom out to the era changes.. you can clearly see us getting colder over all. But with a small temporary rise.. this is the stuff they either leave out on purpose or they are trying to see the whole truth..
Life flourishes on Earth when there is no ice here.
I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about.
I think it's English. It has nouns and verbs and prepositions, but it doesn't really make any logical sense.
@@MrMartibobs It is hard to start a conversation with a drawn out and complex statement and I seldom attract a willing participant in a discussion if I write more than a sentence. My point draws from the fossil evidence of a couple of billion years of life on planet Earth that indeed in most of that time there was no ice present. And in those time periods of no ice, and obviously much warmer temperatures, life flourished. The principles of photosynthesis behaved exactly as they do now and with higher levels of co2 biology is enhanced. Perhaps you agree.
@@johannesswillery5146 So you are applying the conditions that favored plant growth a billion or two years ago conditions now.
You think that all the ice on the planet melting with the consequent rise in sea-level would be absolutely fine.
Fine if you're a dolphin.
Or a fish.
Not fine if you live in Bangladesh or the Bahamas.
And if temperatures rise a few degrees in Norway, that's possibly nice for Norwegians.
On the other hand, a temperature rise in North Africa, or Greece, or Italy, or Brazil might just be a little inconvenient.
@@MrMartibobs Thank you for your kind response. I am so fascinated with the discussion and the emotion of this topic. Through dozens of interactions and conversations here on RUclips I have learned that everyone has been influenced by propaganda, much of which is quite misleading. Yes I am confident that basic principles of biology will continue in the event of warmer temperatures as they have for a billion years. Sunlight+co2+organisms=plant growth. Also fundamental aspects of adaptation will continue. The prediction of complete absence of ice is a Hollywood one and not common in the scientific community. Will seas continue to rise as they have for ten thousand years? Yes they will. Climatologists and Alarmists predict that most of the warming will happen closer to the poles as this follows the historical cycle. And indeed that is what appears to be happening. Growth zones expanding northward and southward are positive in food and habitat production and diversity will certainly expand in those areas. If sea rise forces migration it will likely be a very gradual occurrence and the human animal will continue to move to higher ground as it has since the last glacial event.
@@johannesswillery5146 "the human animal will continue to move to higher ground "
But what if the human animal doesn't WANT to leave their home and property in, say, Bangladesh, where the average elevation is only about 10 metres above sea level?
And even if he does, what will be the reaction of the countries to whom the homeless populations will now move?
Is it just possible that a human tide of refugees fleeing flood and famine might just perhaps create some kind of problem?
What will the non-flooded, non-famine stricken countries do to discourage them? Shoot them? Lock them in cages? Separate them from their children?
Great job let's all work on it
TO LATE... TRY TO ENJOY WHAT IS LEFT...
really to late im afraid
damage done ... results locked in...
Al Gore said there would be no snow by now...what happened ? Why is there more ice on earth now ? how many ppm co2 were there during the ice age..2000 ( in case you didn't know)...now ? 400 ppm
yes we need thinkers. something is killing creativity.
POLLOTROM school
We will adapt like we always do no matter how terrible it is. Expecting the world to change radically in case something might happen is ridiculous. This is a problem that can't be solved if you think differently then good luck and tell me how you are going to sort this in 12 years. Drastic times will bring drastic solutions like a massive population cull.
Como ya dijo un comentarista... después de 3 minutos vi, como otros, que no vale la pena seguir escuchándola!
tltl;
myth n°1: it will happen in long term future
myth n°2: it will happen to someone else
myth n°3: it will be easy to adapt to cc
Sea level rise... The Maldives just built a new $800 million airport with financing. Who gives loans to countries that will be underwater in 10 years?
a friend said to me "there are dinosoaur bones in Minnesota so the world was a lot warmer in the past" of course they did not consider that Minnesota was not at it current latitude during 65 million years ago.
Funny how people think. or don't think.
Correct about the dinosaur comment but it is a widely accepted fact that for much of Earth's history there was no ice here. And life flourished.
Myths start at 5:18
Very good presentation intended to make climate change relatable to the many people who are confused and put off by the idea. Imo it succeeded quite well. It"s sad that so many commenters seem to be so profoundly uncomfortable with the fact that emotions were included in the talk. Because the emotional level is exactly where people are having trouble grasping the reality of this phenomenon. Which, I'm sure is why Dr Mortsch presented it this way.
This lady is not a scientist and does not even know what SCIENCE is. More and more ordinary people are fed up with these utterly boring sermons of believers in this artificial IPCC religion.
We did not even reach the optimal global mean temperature of 15 degree C inspite of increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Hopefully it will warm up soon. We are coming from the little ice age and had 1850 the coldest temperatures and the biggest glaciers since 12 000 years!
Sea levels are rising with the same 2-3 mm as for centuries - not even noticeable and there will be no big change.
The IPCC uses housewives to present their Scientific fraud.
"People have a hard time grasping the reality" of the climate change scare because of all the *lies* told by people like Ms. Mortsch.
She even claims she's a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize! As if.
The _T.E.D. Talks_ format has degraded into farce by promoting self-serving "climate change" liars like Mortsch.
[I'll post a written apology if she can produce her putative "Nobel Peace Prize."]
Retreating from the flooding and abandoning your homes….hmm. New Orleans could use some amphibious housing.
Warming does not cause extreme events, the mixing of heat and cold produces results proportionate to the temperature difference between them
Isn't it the difference between the heat and cool that causes winds - in a vertical scale . Otherwise, where do winds come from....?
And your Phd is in? Of course warming does and has caused extreme events. In fact the evidence so far, in accordance with the models is that warming increases the chances of extreme events 5 fold, that is 500%. And so France has recorded 45.9 Celsius in 2019, and Anchorage has also smashed the record in 2019. Polar vortex's are now more frequently moving down to Europe and north America as the North Pole bathes in heat.
@@denisdaly1708 But for how long have we measured the temperature? There is really nothing saying that this is the first time extreme temperatures occurred. And the polar caps are in fact growing and shrinking, not the first time it has happened either. And for how long have we measured the volume of the polar caps in a reliable way? Human kind have been around for a very short time relative to the planet. I'm not saying you are wrong (I wouldn't know), just suggesting other possibilities. Food for thoughts, you know!
It is reassuring to know that all we need to do is pay higher taxes and it will all be fixed.....oh and have those frigging windmills on every street corner and across ALL the landscape of the world. These people are nuts. In fact they are nuttier than nuts.
wow if you are a scientist there is hope for anyone
I'm putting Abigail, my wife's cat, up for a PhD, she has the same qualifications: she also has a uterus and has an unnatural fear of water too.
Where was the science?
All. These people walk to stop climate change
Wow we use people like this as scientists
Listen carefully to the words because they are words to invoke emotional response. That is a fact. I think they hire psychologists to push this hypothesis.
Yes be SURE about it.
And they still don't know how to trigger it in thoughty people.
But sheeps always fall for it...
The communist utopia will never work as it was designed for a world that now it's 200 years old.
Yes be SURE about it.
And they still don't know how to trigger it in thoughty people.
But sheeps always fall for it...
The communist utopia will never work as it was designed for a world that now it's 200 years old.
The colors are like a nursery school
"Let me use Sea Level Rise as an Example" = The Oceans ARE NOT RISING.
Sea levels haven't been rising while massive glacial melt has going on for 100 years and rapidly escalating over the past several years - when you can explain that - you'll begin to realize what comes next.
She's "a leading climate scientist..." (then): "...with an _adjunct_ appointment...". So, no hard science degree. This is even better: Linda Mortsch... is a co-recipient of the *2007 Nobel Peace Prize.* She has "played a role" in the UN/IPCC...
This woman is a real _poseur._ Hasn't she heard that Michael Mann's "Nobel Peace Prize" was officially repudiated by the Nobel Committee itself?
If all the lies told by the climate alarmist crowd were taken out, there'd be complete silence...
The Cooling of the Earth Planet towards the Ice Age, would also be Costly.
Plant more trees, farm more and live sustainably, that would be a start. Trees are great absorbers and stores of carbon.
Greenhouses buy bottled CO2 to grow trees to sell.
CO2 good not bad
Trees increases greenhouse effect.
Bram De Witte Your statement is factually incorrect. Not by just a little bit. It's actually very close to the exact opposite of the truth. I mean this kindly and respectfully and in no way to attack you. I was only prompted to reply to your statement to protect unsuspecting readers from possibly believing incorrect information.
@Pagan Moon Planting trees and living sustainably won't help because the Antarctic glaciers are rapidly melting due to heat rising up from the volcanoes there - maybe you should stop planting trees and instead work on figuring out a way to secure your safety and survival.
@@WhirledPublishing that's not how volcanoes work 🤦🏽♂️
CLIMATE IS ALWAYS CHANGING = The climate is always changing.
For the love of god. Heating doesn’t create hurricanes. The temperature difference does. Since the poles Temperature increases faster than the tropics you will have less temperature difference to create the hurricanes. That is why we do not have an increase in severity or frequency of hurricanes
President Obama just bought a 15 billion $ Beach front property, Martha's Vineyards, an Island.... Think about that.
🕵🇺🇸
@@burtonhollabaugh3767 Good one, I needed a laugh after realizing that his woman was referred to with the same title we use to describe Newton, Kepler, Copernicus etc.
Cimate activists should study persuasion techniques. This whole talk could be taken down by one shout of Trump saying "fake news". We need to combine facts and rationality with effective persuasion tactics. Likely not easy but very important, and not just for the climate issue.
It's very hard to out shout "fake news". The people who believe it's fake will cheer and agree with the shout, no matter what. The educated will see the difference and the divide will continue. Even the best speaker would have a hard time debating that kind of shouting. That's why Trump remains popular among his constituency. It doesn't matter how much he lies. To them, it sounds true.
It's a very hard battle to win and I'm not sure that a better speaker would sway any Trumptards anyway.
are you a scientist? @Greg Hamilton
@Greg Hamilton I love the language you guys use. Suddenly 97% of climatologists are "hysterical." The fact is that if any one is less likely to be hysterical, it's a scientist.
Can't be very persuasive when the base for your claims (at least the CO2 one) is all kind of wobbly, can you? How did it even get to this? Especially now that we have the internet and can check data for ourselves? For 600 MILLION years global temperature was never over 25c, and CO2 in the atmosphere was as high as 18 TIMES as it is now...
@@mkzhero What 'data' do you check? I presume it's not any established science.
Adapt!
You better. Because in the cycles of climate and temperature it looks like it is getting colder.
"Because in the cycles of climate and temperature it looks like it is getting colder."
Yes, for the past 5,400 years Earth was getting colder and would still be getting colder if not for human-caused warming.
Desertphile Sure how about the Roman warm period the Middle Ages when Greenland was farmed the heat of the 1920s and 30s which has been fraudulently erased?
Yes. We are creating the next ice age.
Forgive Georgelet4. He can't see beyond his bubble. Facts don't penetrate him.
GEORGELET4 both...its really climate change...with overall global warming as one of the symptoms
Scientist have for many years belonged to an elite group of yes men and women who until recently taken good care of their grants and corporate allotments and funding for their projects etc... Now we have scientist jumping on the band wagon with Al Gore proclaiming what us lower intellectual group people have known for many years now.
Yes the climate is changing. We have eyes and we can see it changing. This lady scientist mentioned towards the end of her speech that we now need people who think outside the box. We have been thinking outside of the box already. What we have learned thru the years is that the earth has done this climate change thing many times and some of us are going to make it thru.
The rest will not. Collectively as we progress may help, but earth is a living breathing life form, far advanced beyond our capacity to comprehend what it does during these challenging times. There is a lot of change coming, lets just leave it at that. Give the results of these changes to prime time TV and the scientist and politicians who have our best interest at heart.
We the uninformed and less affluent will survive. We always have. To the grants and the funding go the spoils.
Imagine a society where we think we can control the weather by giving politicians billons of dollars.
The climate IS changing. The climate HAS changed for 4.5 billion years. So what.
And as a result 99.9% of a of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct. Do you want to join them?
Very emotional and preachy.
It is religion. Evolutionary convergence of religion.
And very irritating. Lying is always irritating.
Omg emotion Nd nothing else
I'm still in my garage with a handgun and camping stove waiting for the Y2K disaster.
She's didn't say anything about natural feedbacks like the loss of arctic sea ice and methane from the seabed & permafrost that could take over and accelerate the warming! 2 metres by 2200 sounds a bit low to me. More like 20 metres or more by then and at least 2-5 metres in 10-30 years. It is estimated that sea level rise of 10 metres occurred over a 20 year period in the PETM and we are warm the climate system MUCH faster. PETM carbon release was, according to a recent study, suggest a modest 0.2 gigatonnes per year (at peaks 0.58 gigatonnes); humans today add about 10 gigatonnes per year!
I think your estimates are high. Glaciers are very difficult to predict and we'd need a very rapid increase in glacial movement to get 2-5 meters in 10-30 years. It's possible, but it's unlikely. 2 meters by 2200 sounds wrong to me too, but it's pretty much impossible to predict glacial shifting. The IPCC tends to be conservative on sea level rise with a footnote that it could be quite a bit higher. 2 meters by 2200 would affect a lot of people, but you're right, it should come with an asterisk that it could be considerably more than that. 2 meters in 10-30 years, however . . . that's higher than any scientific estimate Ive seen, though Michael Mann says that 5-10 meter rises in 50 year periods are possible, but he doesn't say the next 50 years, he just says that rapid rise can happen.
YEP GAME OVER...
@Gerg Hamilton
Google "What Al Gore got right" - you'll see a long list. Deniers love to quote what he got wrong, and he got several things wrong, but if you need just one, lets start with this one.
Gore said it would keep getting warmer, and guess what. It's kept getting warmer. Gore 1, Greg 0. Want more? You should show the man some respect, he's got a much better record for being correct than Fox News or Donald Trump.
@Greg Hamilton Are you joking? Australian summers keep getting hotter, Pacific Islands are shrinking in size, melting ice caps are affecting the hunting habits of several species. It's all good and well to be critical of "the movement" but to actively choose ignorance at the detriment of your own planet is just foolish. It shows you only really care about yourself.
Myth number 1. You will learn something from this lady.
LOL
I agree that the climate is changing but that unfortunately it is not changing by global warming, but now we are reaching an era of global cooling due to the Grand solar minimum, increase cosmic rays triggering increased rainfall and snowfall, Etc. Unfortunately the temperatures over the last hundred years have actually decreased with relatively little correlation what's CO2 emissions. And unfortunately anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are not going to be able to forestall the next 20 2 200 years of temperatures probably five or six degrees Centigrade below normal which will have a catastrophic impact on our production of food. I personally am taking matters into my own hand and moving to 1.2 Acres where we will raise goats for goat milk and chickens four eggs so that we can survive becoming cooling of the Earth in Northern Florida. I pray that those of you that see my post we'll also begin planning for climate change that unfortunately will not be global warming but global cooling
Could’ve used a little more enthusiasm and science! It’s happening, it will effect you and we will need to transformationally adapt... got it. Now convince politicians they have no right asserting skepticism into the data!
The people and the critters who can adapt to climate change and all of the problems, thereof , will survive, all else will not. The end.
science is great at saying what has happened, its good at saying what is happening, but its really bad saying what will happen. And if you reply on models rather than real actual data, then be prepared to make your excuses
@@blablabla7380 I know from monitoring weather as an observation, over 12 years. You just get an inkling of how things work, then nature throws you something unexpected. I could never produce a model of how stuff will be in 12 years, having measured the last 12 years. Further more most of the predictions have had outcomes that did not happen, or did happen but with an entirely different outcome. This is basic environmental science, and I don't deny that. I have two newspaper articles from 2005, one says environmental catastrophe in 10 years, another the antarctic sea ice melting would raise sea levels by 16 feet. I was at the seaside last week, and levels were the same as for the last 40 years. These predictions didn't happen, so why would these models. Most simply want to scare people, which you are achieving. But I'm doing talks to put that right. Okidoki
@@blablabla7380 As far as I understand things, it is the sulphurous and nitrous gasses and particulates that can cause constrictions in air way passages, in people who are susceptible to such conditions. These gasses and particulates have been known about for at least 25 years, and are caused by vehicle fumes. There is a good argument for electric cars in city centres, and trams. The "news" that bio-diesel that was meant to make everything green, was not entirely honest. The point being CO2 is not a cause of death from AGW. Converting to renewables has astronomical numbers, 25 to 30 times the UK's annual military budget. Have a look at the USA and Trump's speech on environmental progress during his tenure. Yes there's lots of political creeping, but the numbers are interesting. They have had economic growth, which affords them the funds to make serious improvements in environmental health of humans and the environment. But you won't see much of that here.
Personally I'm still living in Woodstock
@@blablabla7380 The UK has 28 million cars on the roads. Converting each one at a cost of £27000 each would cost £756 billion. The additional electricity needed is said to be 60 GWatts. Drax Power station and the new power stations being built are 4 Gwatts. Therefore we need another 15 power stations to provide for peak time power requirement. This adds a further £300 bill. Wind generators cost £1.4 million each. We have somewhere near 9400 turbines and would need a further 65000 to be self sufficient. Costs would be a further £90 billion. The biomass burned in Drax power station, produces 750 mill tons of CO2. But the process of transportation from the USA and processing into dry pellets, produces more CO2 than burning coal dug from pits 10 to 15 miles away. All these costs for stuff, when the UK annual military budget is £44 bill, just goes to show my point perfectly. The costs are astronomical, in being 25 to 30 times our annual military budget. If we only have 14 years left, and the costs of saving the world is 25 to 30 times military budget, then what we are being asked is impossible. When new developments are proposed, the totalitarian environmentalists campaign against them. When progress is made, the same environmentalists say its too little and too late. Yes there are roles for renewables to play, particularly with inner city air pollution. But 100% ..... in your dreams
@@blablabla7380 What i do understand is numbers, and I have provided plenty with you offering none in return. So how do the bananas get to your shops, other than by road transport. And often buying them requires road transport. Busses are responsible for air pollution and yes electric ones would really lower pollution levels in inner cities. And yet here you are accepting busses, that are responsible for air pollution. If I need to travel from Yorkshire to Surrey to do work, I need my van. If I want to travel into my city, then of course I will take the bus. But in the case of hospital journeys, the car is the most direct, in those needy situations. So this idea of cars being a greed, when cars can supply a need, seems at odds with the numbers. But by all means go without a car. Just don't tell me how to live, with out offering me a vote on the numbers. Numbers you have not supplied to my arguments. I can go to Ghent now and witness normal use of car ownership. And while you are at it I presume you have solar panels on your roof, despite the return on investment never actually being met. And you will of course have your own wind generator, which will also supply significant power during windy periods. Of course the ground source heat exchange will also be something you have invested in. It would be interesting to see what you have done to meet the standards of your words
Man contributes around 2% to overall global CO2 levels, approximately half of what termites do.
Linda Helped and did research for Fracking COMPANIES in Canada. Environmental research What a sham!
codyjones109 these companies have a vested interest in climate science because it lets them deny it easily
Interested viewers might want to also take a look at the "Global Warming Petition Project"
...a petition "signed by over 30,000 scientists"
So you say. But among scientists the debate is not over. Here is another one: Climate Depot Special Report
Mr. DeWitte: Okay,you win! Interested viewers, please do not take a look at the Global Warming Petition Project (especially the peer reviewed research section) or the Climate Depot Special Report, or Piers Corbyn, Ben Davidson or F. William
Engdahl.
The climate is changing - always has, always will.
There is nothing unusual or human-driven about any climate change we've observed over the past 1,000 years, with the exception of LOCAL and REGIONAL changes based on land use changes.
Global and long term trends are still driven primarily by the sun, modulated by the oceans.
We should see the climate change in gas or electric bills, mine are pretty even.
As Al Gore told us "An Inconvenient Truth".
The consenus now is we are heading into a long term solar minimum....our concern should be this - will the heat energy enertia of the earth combined with our added greenhouse effect be enough to carry us through this period and prevent a much worse scenario of global cooling.
Did she ever tell what her expertise is in climate science?
Bilking gullible students, what else.
David, there is no such thing as "expertise" in climate science - they're all idiots.
Just rhetoric. It's not that I have anything against solar or wind it's just you will always need that central electric base station powered by natural gas, coal, nuclear, or hydroelectric. The folks don't know that solar & wind don't store.
I hope the very rich will pay more: they've committed the most damage. Alas, those that are the poorest in the world who contributed the least damage, whether in the richer countries or the poorer ones, will end up paying the most.
I don't think there's a single comment in support, c'mon folks, that's a stylish necklace
She's hypnotized by her own stories AND She can tell us what will happen in two hundred years. What a boring human being
If we stop all carbon emissions and start massively NETs today : the sea level rise locked in is : +1m by 2100 +6m by 2100-2200 +1m 2200-2300 that is 8m total. I don't see the point in adapting to 1 meter if more meters are in the pipe. If you put billions into a sea wall you expect to serve at least one century, that is just non sense to adapt for 1 meter. Moving uphill is a way better solution. All those beautiful properties are future sea rectangles.
Alexandre Lollini, would you prefer to see a beach disappear or a whole continent.
The tide gauge data shows current sea level rise is 1 - 2mm per year and it has been averaging that ... with periods of rise and fall ... for the past 8000 years. The satellite record shows 3 mm per year ... and there are controversy about calibration. Even if you accept the 3 mm per year ... you get 24 cm by 2100 ... far short of 1 m by 2100.
Where is the sea level rise going to come from? Antarctic is currently -60C and Greenland is -20C. Ice doesn't melt at those temperatures.
I'd like to know where you get your numbers. There can't be a high level of certainty to what you propose. 2100 is maybe close, but even that, hard to say for sure. 2200 - too hard to say.
Spray the atmosphere near the poles with sulfates at the layers that wont destory the ozone layer to refreeze the arctic and antarctic. Then we will be o.k, (but only if we cut emissions too).
Sulfates would spread, would cause acid rain, would hurt the Ozone. The sulfate method would also be temporary and need to be repeated, and thousands of tons of sulfates would probably be needed. That's a lot of cost and work.
I don't want to call it impossible, but it's an extreme approach and a kind of last resort. In addition to expensive, it would be messy. Never say never, but nobody is seriously considering that approach today.