The myth of melting ice and rising seas

[ExpatOilWorker]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

"Why would it melt?"  Well, when water gets above 0 degrees C, it melts.

 

The polar caps have grown and receded many times.  The Arctic caps have receded to a degree unseen in history.  Ships are sailing where they couldn't before.  Do you deny this?

The argument is about the land based ice, since we are talking about sea level rising. The floating sea ice is irrelevant. 

But again, the propaganda machine that you all believe in must go on, so you change the subject. 

[pkspeaker]

23 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

excerpt from nsidc.org/greenland-today/ (National Snow and Ice Data Center)

 

Late season melt in southern Greenland / September 28, 2017
"Surface melt spiked in mid-September in southern Greenland. A surge of warm air from the central Atlantic fueled the late melt event, which was confined to the southwestern and southeastern coasts and peaked on 15 September 2017. The late season spike is one of the largest to occur in September on satellite record (since 1978). 

Beginning 13 September 2017, the southern peripheral regions of the Greenland ice sheet began to show significant surface melt, an unusual event for this late in the season. The total melt area rapidly increased before culminating on September 15, when more than 15 percent of the ice sheet surface (263,000 square kilometers; 101,500 square miles) had satellite evidence of snowmelt. By September 18, surface temperatures fell back below freezing across the island."   - source -

- - - - - 

From TheVerge.com

Warm waters tripled the amount of ice lost in these Antarctic glaciers — and that's bad for sea level rise. Between 2008 and 2012, warmer than usual waters caused four glaciers in Western Antarctica to flow toward the sea faster than any other glacier on the continent. The glaciers also lost more than three times the amount of ice than usual, according to new research. All these changes are bad news for Antarctica — and us. As grounded glaciers melt, sea levels around the world rise.
 Researchers at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) found that 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than usual waters in the area doubled the glaciers’ speed toward the sea, and more than tripled the amount of ice they lost — up to 33 feet a year, from 7 to 10 feet a year.   - source -

 

Been here before on this thread. these agencies love to push the 'warming' agenda.. but taken as a whole, not along the edges or here and there.. both Greenland and Antarctica have an increasing surface mass, that simply means they are getting bigger..  overall 'mass' looses can only be claimed by using something non-definitive like a GRACE satellite, Gravity Recovery Climate Experiment .. something that measures gravity anomalies - this type of scientific study is vague and non-precise, unlike using a satellite to measure the actual physical size of these ice sheets-which can be done precisely.  Also consider in places like the Larson ice shelf there are active volcano's that are constantly melting ice.. I love the mainstream media reports about melting ice there that fail to mention the volcanoes are there..

 

and antarctic penn. cooled 1* in only 15 years:

https://principia-scientific.org/antarctic-peninsula-cooled-one-degree-celsius-1999-2014/

 

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/30/new-paper-indicates-antarctica-has-been-gaining-ice-mass-since-1800/

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

The argument is about the land based ice, since we are talking about sea level rising. The floating sea ice is irrelevant. 

But again, the propaganda machine that you all believe in must go on, so you change the subject. 

Ice is melting on land also.  Average global sea levels are rising.  Average global temperatures are rising.  CO2 concentrations are the highest they've been in hundreds of thousands of years. 

 

These are facts, not propaganda.  But the denial machine you believe in refuses to recognize them, so you introduce the obvious diversion that the ice hasn't completely disappeared for hundred of thousands of years.  It doesn't have to completely disappear, a partial melt is enough to put coastal areas under water.

[Dumbastheycome]

The  ridiculous  denial  of   climate   change  and  the  fact  that  oceanic  water  temperatures  have    been  steadily  rising  atrributing  to  the   equally  steady  death  of  coral  reefs which  in  turn  impacts  a   vast  amount  of   fisheries let  alone  the  effect  on   arctic  or   glacial ice need  be ended.

There  need  be  an  end  so  that  the  two  real questions  of 1 whether or  not  human  activity  is  accelerating  that or  not ( 2 ) what  can we  do   to  meaningfully   compensate  for  the inevitable  impact regardless  of  the  answer  to   question 1.

Or should  we  perpetuate   a  concept  such as  that  the  world  is  flat and   Atlas  continues  to  hold  a   blue  sky above  us  to  enjoy  as  we   cavort  in  ignorance ?

[boomerangutang]

3 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

 both Greenland and Antarctica have an increasing surface mass, that simply means they are getting bigger...

There's not much snow falling in Antarctica.  Technically, it's a desert.   So, the ice it's losing, is likely ice that's been there for hundreds or thousands of years. 

 

Greenland is different.  It gets rain and snow.  Yet, even there, much ice is melting which is not getting replaced.  Both Greenland and Antarctica have been losing much more ice in recent years (est. 50 cubic miles/year just for Greenland) - than is getting replaced by precipitation. That trend will increase - particularly in Greenland, where soot (partly from man-made sources, forest fires, power plants, etc) is rendering swaths of snow/ice surfaces with black speckles.  The blacker the surface, the more it absorbs heat from the sun, ....which increases melting. 

[pkspeaker]

 

The most accurate measure of water temps (ARGO) shows colder water.  They don't have accurate data for most of the worlds water so they use garbage techniques to measure it like thermometers near boat engines:

 

https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/

 

• The extend of the largest SST adjustment made over the hiatus period, supposedly to reflect a continuing change in ship observations (from buckets to engine intake thermometers)

[boomerangutang]

2 hours ago, pkspeaker said:

 

The most accurate measure of water temps (ARGO) shows colder water.  They don't have accurate data for most of the worlds water so they use garbage techniques to measure it like thermometers near boat engines:

 

https://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/

 

• The extend of the largest SST adjustment made over the hiatus period, supposedly to reflect a continuing change in ship observations (from buckets to engine intake thermometers)

I don't see on your chart - the location.  

 

All reliable scientific stats in recent years point to warming seas.   Larger than normal hurricanes/typhoons are further testament to that.   ....besides the obvious recession of glaciars ww, and loss of ice around the Arctic and Antarctic.   

 

At this point, the only way a person can believe the earth's surface is not warming, is if they seriously don't want to believe it.  I've got friends who don't believe the Pentagon was hit by a plane on 9-11.   Another friend seriously believes in that the earth is flat.  He proves it by saying;  "a person cannot take a plane directly from Australia to South Africa or Argentina.  Any flight between those places has to go through Europe."

 

There you go.  There are people with fully developed brains who sincerely believe stupid ideas.   That's what got anti-science Trump elected.   What can the rest of us do about it, except try to show them what's true.   Beyond that, it's like beating a thorn bush with a 2x4 and hoping it will no longer produce thorns

[pkspeaker]

Oh OK.. it's like umm your friends that think the pentagon.. 

 

I'm saying this reliable scientific whatever warming is mostly filled in, or from garbage source like a thermometer near a boat engine.. see if you ask your friends-they'll tell you that the Pentagon wasn't really hit on 9/11 and that boat engines warm the water that's close to them.. 

 

There's only 100's billions going into the fighting global warming business every year, their not gonna put the cooling stuff in your face..  the mainstream everything goes out of their way to find something warming somewhere and by any means possible..  Raise your hand if you want Trump to cut your budget when your trying pay back your student loans or put your kids thru college.

 

It's the ARGO data set's.The first picture came from the north Atlantic which is the only place they really have a sizable concentration of them..you can see that north Atlantic colder blob below.. and it's always possible that some of the warmer area's, especially the very warm spots might be in the vicinity of volcanic activity, like the Larsen ice shelf I talked about earlier..

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 7:12 PM, heybruce said:

You failed to mention Greenland, which is the greatest concern over the next few decades.  Antarctica is more of a long term concern.

OK, Greenland. Happy now?

No one knows if the Greenland ice cap will melt or not, and who's to say that a lot of Antarctic ice cap won't fall into the sea if the barrier breaks off?

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎11‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 7:32 PM, Andaman Al said:

 

The North Sea as we know it has been there for 6500 years or so. Prior to that Glacial deposits and the last ice age had a land bridge for at least the previous 20 000 years before that.

 

The Earth may well be about to enter another huge cooling cycle I agree, but it will last 10 000 years or more, with more ice ages etc etc. BUT before that can really kick off seriously there MUST be a warming cycle. There is no denying that all indications show an overall warming in the Earth's climate.

 

I am not going to get into an argument about who is causing that, as personally I am doubtful that anthropogenic global warming was/is enough to start such a planetary effect as overall warming, HOWEVER, we know it (warming) is happening and therefore the inactions taken by humans are certainly exacerbating the situation. We cannot stop it, but we can delay it, and even a 100 year delay will see us with the technology for humans to survive the inevitable coming of the next ice age. Remember Ice ages and the dynamics involved with starting them are all caused by warming of the Earths climate.

 

I agree that certain people have become multi multi millionaires in the scandal of the carbon credit  trading system and Governments in positions of power are now using the carbon credit system to actually prevent other nations from developing as we in the west did. Africa is in dire need of many many power stations and nobody will allow them to burn fossil fuels, and even if they did, they can't because corrupt politicians have sold off their 'carbon credit allocations', to the US and UK etc.

 

The planet is in dire straits, humans can DELAY the process but not stop it, and then the planet will take over and it WILL cleanse itself.

it WILL cleanse itself.

You seem to be agreeing with me that Gaia will kick humanity's butt into touch for being such terrible tenants.

If a catastrophe befalls humans we have only ourselves to blame.

We have all the money and technology to fix a slight case of excess CO2, but would rather use it for better means of destroying things.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 12:59 AM, heybruce said:

So needy, so desperate to turn the argument to ground you can relate to, so obviously out of your comfort zone.

 

You edit my post to one sentence that you think you can reply to if you offer enough words, and ignore all else.

 

"The science is largely irrelevant; it's what political actors of various stripes make of it that counts."

 

Yeah, let's ignore  reality and focus on words.

 

If the end of the world is clearly imminent, do you want to debate political differences, or take corrective action?

If the end of the world was actually imminent and humans could change it do you think the politicians would do something, if something were possible, to change it?

I believe that the governments of the world do know the truth, and the fact that they are doing ZERO that would actually change anything is significant. After all, most of them have children.

If something could be done, it would likely involve mandatory sterilisation of a large % of the world's population, and banning of all oil propelled private vehicles and all tourism involving flight, just for starters.

The fact that all being done is a large amount of talking, and very little action leads me to conclude that either there is no threat and it is just another way for the politicians to control the masses, or the threat is real and unsolvable.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 8:02 AM, Airbagwill said:

There aren't 2 sides to this debate any more than debating if the world is flat or not.

There is an established scientifically theory (please no stupid comments- look it up) and then there is a small group of a few cranks and ill informed loons like the OP

Soooooo, what is your solution to this "established scientific fact"? So far I haven't heard a single solution from your side of my computer.

I on the other hand have put forth several, not because I think anything will change climate one way or another, but a healthier planet is a good idea.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 5:23 AM, JimmyJ said:

 

Unsurprisingly, no scientific credentials cited thus far for the climate change science deniers in this thread and I predict there will not be any cited.

 

So a few individuals with no expertise in this area disagree with experts using the scientific method who are in ~97% agreement.

OK...
 

One denier here stated that the North Sea has not risen an inch, citing nothing.

I assume that was based on his driving past once and glancing at it. Or perhaps he saw a picture of it and made his decision.

Another seems to be on a crusade vs. the Greens, and Liberals, and Marxists, and 97% of climate scientists.

 

 

Nobody would be able to convince Wendy Wright of the truth of evolution in the Dawkins video.

She is guided by Christian Fundamentalism and is close minded to facts.

No idea what motivates the deniers in this thread to be likewise closed to facts (although one made it clear he believes in the Noachian Flood which is as anti science as it gets).

 

 

You have presented your opinion that 97% of climate scientists are in agreement, and presumably they have informed their paymasters of their conclusions. When can we expect some actual activity to change the situation? The technology exists, but there is no activity on that front by governments.

 

the climate change science deniers in this thread

I assume you can quote from posters contributions to prove that they deny climate change?

I know of no one on here that denies climate change because that would be a nonsense. Climate is always changing.

 

If attempting to claim science for one's own viewpoint, it would seem to me a good idea to be factual in one's claims.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 11:58 AM, Airbagwill said:

"Science is nothing without action." - nonsense - science is study knowledge and skepticism.

Action to change climate change is nothing without action.

To date nothing done to actually change anything.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 9:37 AM, lannarebirth said:

 

He's right and belittling him doesn't make him not right.

 

I'm not a global warming/climate change denier.  I'm prepared to believe makind's activities may be a contributing factor to that. 

 

I grew up revering scientists. I have two Bachelor of Sciences degrees and at least one of my children will be a scientist. Anyhow, I hope I've convinced you I'm not anti science or a denier of the scientific method.  

 

That said, I'm left to wonder why the purveyors of the GW/CC apocalypse that's coming don't seem to believe it themselves?  

IMO it's because they already know that either it's a/ not actually true but they can't give it up because it's an excellent political tool, or b/ it is true but they know nothing can be done about it.

There is a third option, which is that it is true but is going to take so long to happen that they will all be dead before it happens. That would be dreadfully cynical but..........

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, heybruce said:

Ice is melting on land also.  Average global sea levels are rising.  Average global temperatures are rising.  CO2 concentrations are the highest they've been in hundreds of thousands of years. 

 

These are facts, not propaganda.  But the denial machine you believe in refuses to recognize them, so you introduce the obvious diversion that the ice hasn't completely disappeared for hundred of thousands of years.  It doesn't have to completely disappear, a partial melt is enough to put coastal areas under water.

If sea levels were in fact rising significantly, Pattaya beach would have disappeared by now as there has always been little of it at high tide, and none of it has been reclaimed since at least the late 1980s.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 5:56 PM, pkspeaker said:

Your not linking to any 'data'.  I have repeatedly linked to real data from the DMI that shows more ice in Greenland and Antarctica as well as rebounding Arctic Ice, I also demonstrated 2 days ago how the Univ. of Ill. simply deleted an entire section of the website when N. Canadian ice charts started showing sharp increases in ice.

 

As far as temp data, the world is in the middle of a ElNino/LaNina (warm/cold) cycle; as soon as this cycle completes in a couple of years-not only is it a warming pause, it will be an actual cooling trend.

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/12/satellite-data-post-el-nino-global-surface-cooling-continues-pause-extends-to-20-years/#sthash.2XPmxaYl.Ie9f7u9L.dpbs

the Univ. of Ill. simply deleted an entire section of the website when N. Canadian ice charts started showing sharp increases in ice.

Classic. 5555555555555555555

[thaibeachlovers]

Personally, if my home country warms about 15 Celcius I'll be happy. It's just too cold at the moment.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

OK, Greenland. Happy now?

No one knows if the Greenland ice cap will melt or not, and who's to say that a lot of Antarctic ice cap won't fall into the sea if the barrier breaks off?

Greenland is melting.  Areas of the Antarctic are a concern.  Sea levels are rising. 

55 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If the end of the world was actually imminent and humans could change it do you think the politicians would do something, if something were possible, to change it?

I believe that the governments of the world do know the truth, and the fact that they are doing ZERO that would actually change anything is significant. After all, most of them have children.

If something could be done, it would likely involve mandatory sterilisation of a large % of the world's population, and banning of all oil propelled private vehicles and all tourism involving flight, just for starters.

The fact that all being done is a large amount of talking, and very little action leads me to conclude that either there is no threat and it is just another way for the politicians to control the masses, or the threat is real and unsolvable.

Politicians in democratic countries rarely think past the next election and rarely have a science background.  Politicians in autocratic countries sometimes take the problem seriously, as China is (sort-of) doing, and sometimes only worry about their survival and looting.  The rich and the powerful probably assume they can take care of themselves and their own and aren't concerned about the rest of humanity.

 

It's interesting that you assume governments, led by people with a variety of motives and variety of backgrounds (but very rarely led by scientists), are capable of recognizing a global problem and taking a cooperative global approach to solving it.  It's interesting because that very rarely happens.

[heybruce]

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If sea levels were in fact rising significantly, Pattaya beach would have disappeared by now as there has always been little of it at high tide, and none of it has been reclaimed since at least the late 1980s.

It has been explained, repeatedly, that average global sea levels rising doesn't mean sea levels are rising uniformly all over the globe.  But people with no grasp of science always try to use anecdotal examples to discredit real empirical evidence.

[heybruce]

On 11/20/2017 at 5:56 AM, pkspeaker said:

Your not linking to any 'data'.  I have repeatedly linked to real data from the DMI that shows more ice in Greenland and Antarctica as well as rebounding Arctic Ice, I also demonstrated 2 days ago how the Univ. of Ill. simply deleted an entire section of the website when N. Canadian ice charts started showing sharp increases in ice.

 

As far as temp data, the world is in the middle of a ElNino/LaNina (warm/cold) cycle; as soon as this cycle completes in a couple of years-not only is it a warming pause, it will be an actual cooling trend.

 

http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/12/satellite-data-post-el-nino-global-surface-cooling-continues-pause-extends-to-20-years/#sthash.2XPmxaYl.Ie9f7u9L.dpbs

Has anyone, other than climate change deniers, heard of notrickszone?  It doesn't seem to be referenced by any credible news or science sources.

[pkspeaker]

said this already, doesn't matter what the website is 'no trickszone' whatsupwhiththat..  it links to peer reviewed scientific research..  the co2 global warming people often say their theories are supported by such research but the reality is the more reliable and definitive research indicates inconvenient truths; like for example that it was warmer, with higher sea levels only 1000 years ago and even much warmer with even higher sea levels than that-5000-7000 years ago..

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Action to change climate change is nothing without action.

To date nothing done to actually change anything.

That's not true. A lot has been done and continues to be done. Sadly, it's not enough and due to the population of the world, we may never be able to get ahead.

 

I just flew from Bangkok to Krabi. Mile after mile of deforestation. As far as the eye can see. That's got to cause problems. And it's the same all over the world.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

That's not true. A lot has been done and continues to be done. Sadly, it's not enough and due to the population of the world, we may never be able to get ahead.

 

I just flew from Bangkok to Krabi. Mile after mile of deforestation. As far as the eye can see. That's got to cause problems. And it's the same all over the world.

I guess we have to agree to disagree.

What has been done to date might have reduced the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere by some insignificant amount, but has done nothing to remove the CO2 actually there.

We apparently agree about population increase rendering any action pointless, though reducing pollution is always a good thing.

I have seen documentaries on Al Jazeera about the deforestation in Indonesia, which is widespread and appalling. All done to grow palm oil trees so humans can have cheaper soap and makeup, not forgetting about making a few very rich.

In the end, humans will have been killed off by the greed of the 1%.

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

It has been explained, repeatedly, that average global sea levels rising doesn't mean sea levels are rising uniformly all over the globe.  But people with no grasp of science always try to use anecdotal examples to discredit real empirical evidence.

A certain politician claimed that too, and was ridiculed for it.

 

Levels haven't risen to the point of being noticeable in Pattaya, nor thousands of miles away in my home country.

Can you give us an example of actual sea level rise anywhere, but please don't use the famous disappearing islands of the Pacific, which may be vanishing for reasons unrelated to sea level. On a few famous beaches around the world would be good.

[boomerangutang]

12 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

OK, Greenland. Happy now?

No one knows if the Greenland ice cap will melt or not, and who's to say that a lot of Antarctic ice cap won't fall into the sea if the barrier breaks off?

Greenland is melting each year, ....losing approx 50 to 60 cubic miles of ice - a small portion of gets replaced.  In other words; it's losing a lot more ice than is getting replaced.

 

As for Antarctica's glaciers.  I don't think scientists there would explain it like you did.  But they're of a similar consensus as the Greenland issue:  Antarctica appears to be losing a whole lot more ice, each recent year, than it's getting replaced.  We hear/see stories, about one each year or two, of Manhattan-sized chunks of ice breaking off - and going out to sea to melt.  And that's just what scientists can see on the surface.  There are interesting (and large scale) melting phenomena going on out-of-sight.  I won't try to detail it here, but the data is there for those interested.  

[thaibeachlovers]

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

Greenland is melting.  Areas of the Antarctic are a concern.  Sea levels are rising. 

Politicians in democratic countries rarely think past the next election and rarely have a science background.  Politicians in autocratic countries sometimes take the problem seriously, as China is (sort-of) doing, and sometimes only worry about their survival and looting.  The rich and the powerful probably assume they can take care of themselves and their own and aren't concerned about the rest of humanity.

 

It's interesting that you assume governments, led by people with a variety of motives and variety of backgrounds (but very rarely led by scientists), are capable of recognizing a global problem and taking a cooperative global approach to solving it.  It's interesting because that very rarely happens.

LOL. Greenland is and has always been melting. It is the rate of melt that is significant.

If you believe in your last paragraph, then you agree nothing realistic is being done to reverse the CO2 levels as governments are the only entities capable of doing so.

BTW, I DON'T believe governments, led by people with a variety of motives and variety of backgrounds (but very rarely led by scientists), are capable of recognizing a global problem and taking a cooperative global approach to solving it, which is the basis of everything I have been saying. I guess you haven't actually read any of my posts.

[boomerangutang]

Again, it's education of youngsters that's paramount. They're taking over.  We elders are on our way out.  Let's give them a helping hand, so they have a relatively decent planet to reside upon, or at least some ways/means to get on the path to improvements.  

 

The industrial revolution, and then internal combustion engines were, when first brought forth in the 18 century, mostly hailed as great.  It was later, that humans realized the filth associated with all that machinery.  

 

Despite anti-science, anti-environment Trumpsters in DC, Californians are at the vanguard of doing what's right.  they're phasing out internal combustion engines - and seguing to cleaner technology.  

 

Tesla just came out with an all-electric battery-powered long haul truck (for big loads) which is mind-blowing.  It out-performs standard diesel trucks in every way.  It's capable of traveling up to 300 miles with a typical heavy payload, before recharging.   That's just one of thousands of positive developments.   Will it end smog and GW?  No.  The electric truck, by itself won't, but it's one of many steps toward a cleaner, less phucked-up world.

 

Those are they types of concepts we should be sharing with children. 
Not ideas that deniers espouse: 

 

>>>> there may be a tiny bit of warming, but there's nothing anyone can do about it.

>>>>  there's smog, but tough it out.  Again, nothing anyone can do about cleaning the environment.  Shit happens.

>>>  We all need internal combustion engines forever.  All the alternatives are silly tree-hugger ideas.

>>>  We need nuclear.  Don't worry about a future Chernobyl of Fukushima.  Those were anomalies and were in the past.  The Nuke tech we have now is infallible. 

>>>  People are too small to affect out big planet.  

>>>  the earth was warmed and cooled thousands of times over the past 3 billion years.  Why worry about some temperature fluctuations now.

>>>  We'll be able to grow bananas and pineapples in Scotland, won't that be cool?

 

...and the worst thing that elders can impress upon youngsters.....

 

SHIT'S GONNA HAPPEN. THERE'S NOTHING PEOPLE CAN DO TO TRY TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE FUTURE.

[craigt3365]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

A certain politician claimed that too, and was ridiculed for it.

 

Levels haven't risen to the point of being noticeable in Pattaya, nor thousands of miles away in my home country.

Can you give us an example of actual sea level rise anywhere, but please don't use the famous disappearing islands of the Pacific, which may be vanishing for reasons unrelated to sea level. On a few famous beaches around the world would be good.

Can you please provide a credible link that shows why these Pacific islands are now gone? Thanks.

[boomerangutang]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Levels haven't risen to the point of being noticeable in Pattaya, nor thousands of miles away in my home country.

Can you give us an example of actual sea level rise anywhere, but please don't use the famous disappearing islands of the Pacific, which may be vanishing for reasons unrelated to sea level. On a few famous beaches around the world would be good.

Yes, islanders in many parts of the world are seriously concerned.  Not just the Pacific.

I've been to Cay Caulker, a small tourist island off the coast of Belize.  The last time I went there, they had tried building a steel wall around the island.  They had constructed a wall of roof panels, out in the surf - to try and keep increasing levels of sea water from lapping up on their beaches.  I knew at first glance it wouldn't work, and it didn't.   Caulker is one of who knows  how many islands which are facing dire situations.   Also, their community generator was initially built at grade level, but has been put up on blocks (at least once).  Now it's a meter above grade.