First 30 minutes

Because the water level is higher, therefore the tsunami is higher.

...

Look brainlet, I'm only going to do this once because I shouldn't have educate people about basic science.

CO2 is HEAVIER than the air, so it puts more pressure on the surface of the earth. This causes a friction-like force between them (known as Carbonic rubbing) that causes vibrations in the tectonic plates.

>I kind of couldn't pay attention to the cheerfulness of the rest of the film after it just told me I'm going to die in 20 years.
It's just fiction mate... do you let Star Wars make you sad too?

>implying america doesn't rely on poor nations to sustain it, or that issues wouldn't just arrive anyway

>2 degrees warming by then
wouldn't this basically kill much of the biosphere

>this is what alarmists actually believe

question.

Why can't we just adapt to the coastal cities being flooded? So they will migrate inland, what's the big deal? Yeah it will be a bit of a clusterfuck for a while in the transition, but eventually people on the coasts can just move to non-flooded regions can't they? What's all this about "dwindling resources"?

Or are they predicting that literally the entire continent is going to be flooded?

>you will just become really poor
Not if you are smart and own land thats more than 30 feet above sea level. My 12 acres stand to significantly appreciate in value if climate change floods the planet. In fact, i welcome climate change with an open wallet.

Because coastal cities are where live.

>Yeah it will be a bit of a clusterfuck
It'll be a huge clusterfuck. You're talking about relocating the contents of basically every supermetropolis on the planet, because they all happen to be right near the sea.

>the cities will be flooded all at once
>we can't build waterworks like the Low Countries
alarmists every time

can the alarmists fuck off? no one wants to join your doomsday cult

Actually, India and China are doing much better than the USA when it comes to dealing with climate change.

Just look at emissions per capita as well.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita

data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC

Things don't have to happen immediately for the situation to be fucked. Think about trying to relocate a subway system.

It's the storms you gotta worry about because those DO happen all at once. Arctic leakage might keep Manhattan from flooding but it won't help southern California.

Everything having to do with global warming will happen so slowly no one will notice except pencil pushers taking the measurements.

Obviously you don't work in agriculture.

... so they're redoing Inconvenient Truth with a guy who has less charm and authority than Al Gore?

>per capita
but they emit more overall.

yeah, they conveniently use the 'per capita' figure since 95% of the population is in 1% of the geographic area

Holy fuck. For a so called science board I can't believe how stupid you all are.

Firstly, sea level rise is a slow process. It doesn't all just rise up in a few seconds and drown people like a tsunami. It takes literally years. It rises maybe a mm a day, do you think this will drown or harm anyone in ANY way whatsoever. If you do I'd love to hear the mental gymnastics you have to put yourself through to believe it.

Secondly, it won't lead to any major "fighting for resources" than already currently occurs. It will just create new coastline or alternatively, man made barriers will be put in place to stop the impact altogether.

The hysteria (and that's the correct word) surrounding this issue is no doubt one of the biggest dupes in world history. You're all fucking stupid.

Not really. The cities don't have to be rebuilt, people just need to relocate. Putting up new buildings only takes a year or two. If they did opt to rebuild the city at a higher elevation, it might actually make some things easier. For instance, if you had a decent idea of how many people would live there, you could put in the subway system and utilities before you build a single building and design the city in such a way that it would actually be able to deal with issues that plague existing cities like a lack of decent housing, ridiculous traffic due to shitty roads, and a complete lack of parking.

That's because the vast majority of their population is destitute and can't afford to, not because of how well they're handling thing. Chinkbots are more than happy to live in industrial smog. What makes you think they've even contemplated reducing CO2 emissions?

way to take it literally you fuck
it's still gonna fuck shit up

You guys have no idea what per capita is and why it's important for objective measurements, do you?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita
>The phrase thus means "by heads" or "for each head", i.e., per individual/person. The term is used in a wide variety of social sciences and statistical research contexts, including government statistics, economic indicators, and built environment studies.

It normalises the data so it can be reviewed on a level playing field.

Yes the populations of USA, India and China are different, and that's why it would be unwise to use emissions per country as the sole measurement / indicator of GHG trends.

When you normalise it to per person, you get a better understanding of how much emissions are generated per person, which you can compare to per capita emissions of other countries.

Therefore, as per this link:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita
Metric Tons of CO2-e Per capita is an important piece of information as it shows that in 2013, per capita:
USA released 19.9 Tons of CO2-e
China released 8.49 Tons of CO2-e
India released 2.28 Tons of CO2-e

Again I repeat myself, while the populations are different, the per person value is far higher in the USA than in China or India.

yes. 1/4 of all mammals are endangered

we're already struggling with megacities and overpopulation. what do you think will happen when the available habitable land will shrink in size dramatically?

You fucking idiot, the United States greatest strenght is it is A. Massive, B. Filled with resources, and C. Can feed itself. Look at “arable soil by country” on wikipedia and tell me what you see.

>but user, global warming will cause crop growth to shift north as the southern half of the continent will become dry and inhospitable!

Yeah, so all our food gets grown by Canadians, we’re fucking set.

While the whole world burns, we’ll be cradled between our two oceans, eating McDonalds rations and waiting for the famine to die out and sea levels to stabilize.

The United States hardly relies on smaller nations to sustain it, and when shit hits the fan, will persevere and survive.

On the surface this is a completely retarded post but the more I think about it the more insightful it is. Can't tell if you're retarded or genius, probs retarded desu

pretty sure only the US pushes for the global warming bullshit because once the ice caps in the arctic melt then direct trade between china and europe will be a breeze.

>The United States hardly relies on smaller nations to sustain it
It figures someone using reddit spacing would post something so utterly retarded, a nation cant be both self sufficient and have a crisis of job exportation at the same time you absolute mongoloid. The US, like every other developed country, is completely supported via the exploitation of the third and second world. Additionally what is your solution in this scenario to the massive influx of refugees, some of whom share cultural heritage with major demographics within the US eg latin americans, jews, and africans.

>This would mean rises in water levels of up to 5 to 9 meters, flooding virtually every coastal city, killing millions directly
>killing millions directly
Wut. Even if we assume that this ridiculous scenario of 5 to 9 meter raise will happen, how would it kill millions "directly"? Are they going to stand on the shore for several years and eventually drown, powerless to take 10 steps away? This is worse than that swimming polar bear picture.

>jews
>major demographics
I don't know what you think user but Jews make up less than 2% of the US population. They just control our nation because all are in extremely powerful positions of the government, corporations, banks and media.
I have never seen a jew construction worker in my life.

You dont think many of the Jews living in the states, whom you correctly stated occupy positions of wealth, political power, or influence would have a problem with mass influx of muslims, or the treatment foreign jews might receive?

>cities don't have to be rebuilt
so everyone near a city will just move away to make room for the people moving inward from the cities and so will the buildings. and all of the current problems that plague cities would be solved by just being designed better and it would happen quickly enough to compensate for the change. i guess the sea level should rise sooner because it'll fix everything by making more debt!

If it looks like their coastal cities were seriously threatened by rising sea levels, the Chinese and/or Indians would have no qualms about dumping sulfur aerosols into the upper atmosphere; this fixes the global warming issue entirely for $10-$20 billion a year, vastly cheaper than trying to move all those people inland, and the side effects are minor enough that the chinks & poos won't care.

Higher water lelever means tha the wave would impact further inland then what we have preperations for, ot would also hit those places a bit harder, overall effect i dont think is super relevant, but i can see how higher water levels could lead to more devistating tsunamis

Considering they are the ones responsible for massive influx of immigrants, apparently no.

>AAPI Women
Huh?

Would that not cause acid rain?

>man made barriers will be put in place to stop the impact altogether.

>dam up Mediterranean at Gibraltar
>create huge new living space for Europe, North Africa and Middle Eastern refugees
>incredibly fertile soil on sea bed for crops to feed refugees

Nazi science to the rescue.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantropa

>a nation cant be both self sufficient and have a crisis of job exportation at the same time
The crisis of job exportation never came from America not being able to make what it needed itself, but from free trade policies combined with domestic overregulation and overtaxation, which enabled cost savings and therefore increased profits by moving jobs out of the USA.

If USA closed its borders suddenly to all foreign trade and travel, there would be no starvation, no people freezing in their homes or cars rusting for lack of fuel. The short-term consequences for its own citizens would be things like not getting a new iPhone for another year, while the long-term consequences for its own citizens would likely be an *improvement* in standard of living.

>what is your solution in this scenario to the massive influx of refugees
Build wall. Guard borders. Execute illegal aliens.

There are billions of horribly poor horrible people in the world, killing each other and living in the filth and chaos they make. We're already going through the political realignment necessary to not let them in, and to push out the ones who have slipped in so far.

>AAPI
Asian American / Pacific Islander

You see, they're interchangeable because they look similar. The left is good at not being racist.

>al gore says we'll be dead in 10 years
>15 years ago
>somebody says we'll be dead in 20 years
>oh god what are we going to do?

plz stop, we're going to be fine. we're not dinosaurs, we can adapt to a changing climate.

Where the fuck do you think carbon was before it was pushing down on the earth? Somewhere else pushing down on the earth. The only way this could conceivably be a problem is if we were getting extra CO2 from another planet.

>LGBT women
>L women
>also G women
Why do American political parties have down syndrome?

Keksimus maximus, the economy would collapse overnight and it would likely result in another great depression. The sub prime loan recession very nearly caused one and it is nothing compared to what you are suggesting. Additionally if you start executing illegals all over the place you are going to incite a civil war because of how racially divisive America is. Neither of these points are even debatable, economically because that is the mathematical outcome and politically because Americans kill each other right now over nothing all the time.

>Neither of these points are even debatable
In other words, you have no argument.

>the economy would collapse overnight
In some ways, this is true. The existing economic order would be disrupted. Short-term emergency measures would need to be taken. However, there would be an economic boom as Americans had to hire Americans to make everything Americans needs.

>it would likely result in another great depression
The really brutal feature of the Great Depression was food shortage, which couldn't happen now in America. Other than that, it was a few rough years and at the end of it, America was in shape to take all comers in a world war.

>if you start executing illegals all over the place
It wouldn't be "all over the place". It would just be at the borders: when they try to swarm over, just treat it like an invasion and shoot. Attempted border crossing would stop fast.

As for the current population of illegals, they are in manageable numbers and can be deported in an orderly fashion, and largely made to self-deport by denying them government services and welfare benefits, ruinously fining businesses who employ them and prosecuting the managers directly responsible as felons, and punishing them when they're caught by confiscating all of their property and holding them in prison camps for a year before deporting them, so they get dumped in a third-world country penniless and a year out of touch (much better to leave on their own with what property they have). You'll watch these things happen over the next few years.

>you are going to incite a civil war because of how racially divisive America is
One side of that division is too weak to start a civil war. They'd just throw some riots and damage their own neighborhoods. The federal government would apply Lincoln's precedent and take away the voting rights of rebellious states until they were suitably reorganized to their enemies' preference.

>We are completely and irrevocably fucked

No, we just let the brown people starve instead of subsidizing them and the dwindling resources problem will be solved

Lolololol
This is why nobody takes poltards seriously.

>upper atmosphere
>acid rain

Ok Mr rich guy. Good luck trying to defend yourself against 5 billlion niggers and billion asians.

SO2 is a heavy gas, it will eventually settle down.

>Al Gore is every climatologist.
You're an idiot.

>All coastal cities will be flooded by 2036

In 2036 when all the coastal cities are no flooded, will this be another prediction climatists will claim they never made?

>will this be another prediction climatists will claim they never made?
Given that Josh Fox isn't a climatologist, yes.

Question, aren't "temperature readings" false due to urbanization? Also, doesn't the sun go through cycles of its own that could explain natural phenomenon? Such as Hurricanes, and stop me if I'm being retarded but, isn't CO2 plant food?

>incredibly fertile soil
Uhhhhh not really though

Still, it's cool in concept

>to 5 to 9 meters, flooding virtually every coastal city, killing millions directly, and creating massive swarms of refugees inland fighting and competing for dwindling resources.
that's not what the science says. why do you hipster faggots feel the need to screw us over with your misinformation?

>you'll just become really poor.
Are you retarded? Life might get slightly more expensive, the economy will probably outpace climate change. At the worst we may get stuck with stagnant standards of living (wow such a unbearable disaster)

>Question, aren't "temperature readings" false due to urbanization?
No. Individual station readings are affected due to it, but part of the processing used to turn them into a dataset is homogenisation, which removes the urban heat island effect. This is part of the "adjustments" you hear people shouting about.

>Also, doesn't the sun go through cycles of its own that could explain natural phenomenon?
The sun goes through several different cycles, but none of them can explain the current warming trend. See the graph.

>isn't CO2 plant food?
That's an oversimplification. If all of a plants other needs are being met, adding more CO2 will increase plant growth. But outside of greenhouses that's rarely the case. On the other hand, AGW will add heat and water stresses to crops, which will harm yields far more than CO2 fertilisation.