Because he does not actually know or understand the past at all. To be honest, I had a big old laugh when he talked about "much of the US being underwater". Yes, that is indeed very much true, but it had damned near nothing to do with the actual level of the ocean at the time. One can look at the Eocene map I placed above, and even that is not really accurate. It is using primarily contemporary landmarks like mountain ranges to help give a scale and reference for what is located where. That claim that "much of North America was underwater" is true, if you go all the way the hell back to the Cretaceous. But it has nothing to do with sea level, a huge percent of the country was underwater because it resided below sea level. And even if Antarctica completely melts it will still be above sea level. Because there was this little event about 80 mya during the Cretaceous called the "Laramide Orogeny", where the Farallon Plate (which is now almost entirely gone) dove under the North American Plate. Which caused the birth of the early Rocky Mountains, causing huge areas of North America to rise to their current levels. That is why El Paso, Denver, and a great many cities are now at altitudes of over a half mile to a mile, yet sitting on top of limestone. Those areas are not out of the ocean because of the oceans dropping, they are that high because of continental uplift. Just like the Himalayas are sea floor that now makes up the highest mountain range on the surface of the planet. That is the kind of "junk science" that I laugh at all the damned time. They try to sound so damned authoritative, and in reality they do not have a clue what they are talking about. And as a final note, one does not even need to go to the "time of the dinosaurs" to know Alaska and Antarctica was semi-tropical. I have actually discussed many times in here the "Palm Tree Line", that covered the entire globe just 50 mya (over 15 my after the dinosaurs went extinct). And things largely remained that way for about 20 my with Antarctica and the Arctic being largely temperate (think contemporary Northern Europe) when things started to cool sharply. Then about 2.5 mya things went almost completely "tits-up" and we started our current cycle of glaciation after glaciation. But permanent ice caps are very much an aberration on our planet, and the planet itself tends to hate and fight against them. The last time they were really a "thing" prior to our current condition was all the hell the way back during the Cryogenian over 630 mya. And that was a period of around 85-100 million years that damned near wiped out all life on the planet.
If they do not ignore me they will resort to insults and name calling. It is tiresome to try to push facts into their closed and narrow minds.
If the Western Interior Seaway - whatever that is - vanished, I suspect that it because of other reasons.
As I said, you are trying to sound authoritative and make claims about past geography of the planet, and you do not even know what it was called or why? Here, let me remind you of exactly what you said: You pretty much stated right there that it was underwater because sea levels were higher. Which is not true at all, but you seem to believe it for some reason. It was underwater, yes. But it being above water today has not a damned thing to do with sea levels. Every particle of ice on the entire planet can melt and it will still be out of the water, because the elevation has gone from below sea level to well above sea level. Sea level did not change, the altitude of the land changed. Oh, and it rose above and dove below sea level multiple times, starting during the Albian around 110 mya until the current era of uplift starting in the late Cretaceous. Because during the Laramide Orogeny, the region went though a lot of alternating periods of both orogenic uplift and downwarping from the subduction of the Farallon Plate. Sometimes rising and returning to dry land, then a few million years later the warping causing it to plunge below sea level again. Until the later stages of Orogeny where it rose above sea level and continued rising. And is still rising today.
NASA Global Climate Change Global sea levels are rising as a result of human-caused global warming, with recent rates being unprecedented over the past 2,500-plus years. Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers, and the expansion of seawater as it warms. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-sign...sea levels are rising,of seawater as it warms.
And one also can not discount crustal subsidence. That is where sea levels are not causing the problem, but the earth is actually sinking. Much of Japan subsided as much as 15cm during the 2011 earthquake. Indonesia is subsiding also, along with much of East Asia (specifically Vietnam). Still other areas like New Orleans are subsiding not because of the crust itself, but because it is built on silt, and with the Mississippi River no longer being allowed to "roam freely" no new silt is being deposited. Everywhere on the above map not in dark green is sinking. In many areas it is actually sinking faster than the oceans are rising. And most of the areas from around 40 degrees north and above are actually experiencing rising elevations. But the areas that are from yellow to red, even if somehow the oceans stopped rising those all will eventually sink below the oceans. Because the water is not rising, the land is lowering. One of the worst is Ho Chi Minh City, which is sinking on average 80mm per year. New Orleans is sinking at around 50mm per year. And Mexico City is another, with some areas seeing up to 50cm (not mm, cm) of subsidence per year. https://eos.org/research-spotlights/the-looming-crisis-of-sinking-ground-in-mexico-city
Information new to whom? Certainly not new to me and others here. Nothing Mann said about PETM in the video is newer than 6 year old information.
Thanks. These nutters have never heard of subsidence and aren’t aware the places that make the news all the time that are “threatened” by sea level rise often have higher rates of subsidence than absolute sea level rise. The relative sea level rise rates get reported but conveniently the subsidence component gets left out and the total relative rise gets attributed wholly to the absolute component. A lot of subsidence in these “threatened” areas is anthropogenic but it isn’t a result of warming or CO2 emissions. More smoke and mirrors to keep emotions high and knowledge of facts low. Pretty cool map.
Disagree based on what? Do you have education and experience that allows you to make an informed conclusion as to the severity and timing of future warming?
Anyone can be a science denier. The members who wrote the OP denies climate science. The podcast host denies climate science. The podcast guest denies climate science. Denial takes multiple forms. The podcast guest denied climate science multiple times by excluding evidence produced through application of the scientific method from his analysis that conflicts with his agenda and the agenda of the host. Anyone can accept or deny evidence. Scientists, plumbers, engineers, hod carriers, dish washers, etc.
Like much of California and Mexico City. Not due to "global warming" at all, but excessive draining of the aquifers. Human caused, but due to overpopulation and nothing else.
A lot of sheer incompetence as well as overpopulation. Places like New Orleans are clown shoes crazy. You can’t fill in swampland and not expect it to settle from decomposition of organic matter and compression of soil layers. Especially when you are pumping liquids out of those layers as well. Kind of like Maui I referenced earlier. Humans make stupid decisions about resource management and land use and then blame CO2 for the direct result of their incompetence.
I have enough education in math and science to tell the difference between facts and politically motivated distorts and lies. I have enough education realize over two decades of climate disaster warnings have failed to materialize and to recognize when politics takes control of science nothing good can happen. I have enough education to know when skepticism is taken out of science in favor of "all the scientists agree" nonsense, no actual science has occurred.
Try over five decades. Many of us are old enough to remember the "Global Cooling" and "New Ice Age" scare of the 1970s. That was Kenneth Watt, who for over a decade was preaching over and over for more than a decade that the planet was entering a new ice age because of humans. That is before he became a screamer for Global Warming. And the funny thing is, even at that time that was known to be wrong, as the 1950s were a period of above average temperatures, but there was a dip again to below average temperatures from the middle 1960s to the late 1970s. That prediction was what he was preaching however in 1970, still very early in a cool phase that we all know now did not last. To me, it all is little more than looking out the window and seeing what things are like that day, then basing the predictions on that moment. If it is cold, things are getting colder. If it is warm, things are getting warmer. That is not science, that is nothing more than reading tea leaves.
OK Mister 1/7 ton, care to discuss the changes in the sea level along the US coast? And why the sea levels are rising in some areas, and falling in others?
