Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?
Quote: 24BingoA real argument, one that addresses those scientists and explains why they're wrong, not one that hopes to push our emotional buttons and maybe make reference to a fact or two.
Sorry, Bingo, but the burden of proof is on you to prove that global warming will destroy the earth any time soon. (FYI, I've already agreed that global warming exists. I also agree that the sun will burn out someday. I just don't believe that either one is worth worrying about.)
Seriously? You're really going to deny that most warmers are liberal?? *facepalm*Quote: boymimboMost climate change scientists who believe in AGW are left-leading. Waiting for proof on that claim besides "it's obvious".
I find it ironic that you're so quick to believe that global warming is a threat to human civilization, yet you want proof that warmers are liberal. lol
At least I posted a link to a graph that showed that 60% of PhDs voted for Obama. This makes it LIKELY that your statement is true, but is not proof.
So you agree with me, but you still need proof?? Is this some sort of political parlor game?Quote: boymimboI'm still waiting for an valid fact based argument from you that's not based on an opinion. I'm not denying that most AGWs are liberal.
Does somebody need to go around and do an actual headcount for you? *headshake*Quote: boymimboAt least I posted a link to a graph that showed that 60% of PhDs voted for Obama. This makes it LIKELY that your statement is true, but is not proof.
Quote: 24Bingo97% of papers that express an opinion on whether global warming is man-made express that it is. There also are a number of papers in relevant fields that don't express an opinion. There are quite a lot of physics papers that don't express an opinion on luminiferous aether - are you going to use that to manufacture false dissent?
Look how great we're doing on a geologic scale. If we lived on a geologic scale, we'd have nothing to worry about.
The papers were all relevant to climate change. Here is the search criteria the researchers used.
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'."
Of these 11,944 papers on the topic only 1/3 came out expressing an opinion. WE DO NOT KNOW WHY THE REMAINING PAPERS DID NOT EXPRESS AN OPINION. They might have not addressed cause as it was not part of their research or they might have not addressed cause because it was not clear enough to express an opinion.
Regardless your comments about the 2/3 of the papers not being relevant since they were off topic just implies you didn't even bother to read their design and methodology.
Yes the geological scale graphs are amazing in their consistancy. We are not quite up to the top temperature yet according to them so from these graphs we can certainly predict that global warming will continue just as we poor humans caused the last ice ages.
And no, we are not up to where we were over geologic time. However, the RATE of change upwards and the sudden increase of atmospheric CO2 in the last 150 years is probably very alarming.
Conspiracy theorists presume that almost all of climatolists are left-leaning liberals. So prove it.
So yeah, take a headcount. Don't assume. It makes an ass out of you and me. You might be right.
Quote: boymimboConspiracy theorists presume that almost all of climatolists are left-leaning liberals. So prove it.
So yeah, take a headcount. Don't assume.
Conspiracy theorists also presume that almost all of Fox News workers are right-leaning conservatives. So prove it.
So yeah, take a headcount of every single person who works for Fox. Don't assume.
Quote: kenarmanThe papers were all relevant to climate change. Here is the search criteria the researchers used.
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'."
Of these 11,944 papers on the topic only 1/3 came out expressing an opinion. WE DO NOT KNOW WHY THE REMAINING PAPERS DID NOT EXPRESS AN OPINION. They might have not addressed cause as it was not part of their research or they might have not addressed cause because it was not clear enough to express an opinion.
Regardless your comments about the 2/3 of the papers not being relevant since they were off topic just implies you didn't even bother to read their design and methodology.
I don't think I said they weren't relevant. In fact, I'm fairly sure I said they were all relevant. "They might not have addressed cause as it was not part of their research or they might not have addressed cause because it was not clear enough to express an opinion." You implicitly suggest the latter is predominant, when it's more than likely the majority are the former. After all, "why" is far from the only question to ask regarding climate change.
In 20,000 years, we'll be in an ice age, whatever we do, the climate we evolved in. Just got to get through that little rough patch in between.
Quote: boymimboTrue, Beethoven, but this isn't a thread on FoxNews. The thread is "Climate Change - conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?"
I understand that, but the overall point is still very relevant.
Quote: EvenBobNope, the hurricanes in Galveston and the Keys in Florida were
far worse than anything we saw the rest of the century.
And they happened in 1900 and 1935. And the worst
tornado was the Tri-State in 1925. Them's the facts.
Hurricane tracking centers are also facts of today. (that funky science & technology) Not that all people move out of the way when they often have many days advanced notice.
I wish we would stop wasting so much money on climate change and spend more money curing already curable diseases like malaria, famine, etc.
Quote: boymimboWhat, you're telling me that concrete and asphault creates an urban heat island effect, and that it makes temperatures warmer? Man is affecting their local climate? No way! It can't be possible.
Reporting stations around the world normalize for the Urban Heat Island effect. It's been considered.
No, and egghead can up with the idea. Made sense to me.
Quote: KeyserThese days, it's much easier for young grad students to get grant money to study "climate change". Consequently, everyone is on the "global warming" cough cough, I meant to say "climate change" bandwagon.
The term "climate change" is older than the term "global warming." The reason "global warming" is less often used in the popular media than it was 10-15 years ago isn't because of some kind of "malquote," but because of imbeciles who persistently refused to recognize what I'm sure you realize, that turning up the heat on this big ball might have some effect on weather patterns beyond a geographically uniform increase in average temperatures; the root problem is still that arrow pointing up.
Quote: KeyserThese days, it's much easier for young grad students to get grant money to study "climate change". Consequently, everyone is on the "global warming" cough cough, I meant to say "climate change" bandwagon.
I wish we would stop wasting so much money on climate change and spend more money curing already curable diseases like malaria, famine, etc.
And you're one of these grad students? I was. I never applied for funding. Grad students don't get grant money. Professors and university departments do and they receive their funding from governments, corporations and the universities themselves.
Keyser makes a valid point, however... the funding goes to the various flavour of the day. But certainly there must be a great deal of money available from big oil and industry to fund "favorable" climate change studies. Somehow these "favorable" studies don't get published.
Quote: 24BingoThe term "climate change" is older than the term "global warming." The reason "global warming" is less often used in the popular media than it was 10-15 years ago isn't because of some kind of "malquote," but because of imbeciles who persistently refused to recognize what I'm sure you realize, that turning up the heat on this big ball might have some effect on weather patterns beyond a geographically uniform increase in average temperatures; the root problem is still that arrow pointing up.
It's not really turning up the heat -- the atmosphere is absorbing more energy and it must go somewhere. What seems to be happening is that the oceans are getting far more affected than anyone had thought.
In politics, they've had to change from using "global warming" to "climate change" in order to help keep everyone interested. They even distributed memos about it.
We've gone from "The coming ice age" to "global cooling" to "climate change" to "global warming" and then back to "climate change" again.
Back in college, we were discussing alternative agricultural methods and indoor farming (hydroponics) to compensate for a cooling planet!
Quote: Keyser
We've gone from "The coming ice age" to "global cooling" to "climate change" to "global warming" and then back to "climate change" again.
Just follow the money, its always at the bottom of everything.
If there was no money to be made here, nobody would even
be interested in it.
Quote: 98ClubsWell lets see.... we have a warming crisis aided by deforestation and asphalt/concrete area increase. Artic drilling melting permafrost and reducing the polar ice-cap. Theres a cloud-cover increase, and 100-year floods every two years, and record rainfall in certain micro-climate areas. Sounds like polar ice melt-water cycle aided by increased asphalt/concrete surface area, and polar deep drilling. Is that the approximate arguement?
What localities are having 100 year floods every two years? That is five times in a decade. Sounds a little hard to believe.
The IPCC report was written by a group of about 700 climate scientists with 625 reviewers who are also climate scientists world wide. At an average salary say about $70K, we're looking at a $100,000,000 'conspiracy' a year if they are all lying.
Of course, if you add up the two biggest salaries of the CEOs of Kinder Morgan and Marathon oil, you exceed what you pay all of these climate scientists each and every year. Large corporations I guess are very powerful for lobbying government to get their agenda, not so powerful at bending the truth (unless you are a bank).
Climate science <> big money. These are middle to upper middle class folks just trying to keep their job.
Quote: boymimbo
Climate science <> big money. These are middle to upper middle class folks just trying to keep their job.
There is plenty of money lobbying to show global warming. From the obvious of Al Gore to Solyndra, to the exchanges that would host "carbon trading" to Saudi Arabia there is no shortage of institutions out there trying to get Mr and Mrs America to believe they need to pay more taxes and give up more freedom for imagined AGW.
Quote: AZDuffmanThere is plenty of money lobbying to show global warming. From the obvious of Al Gore to Solyndra, to the exchanges that would host "carbon trading" to Saudi Arabia there is no shortage of institutions out there trying to get Mr and Mrs America to believe they need to pay more taxes and give up more freedom for imagined AGW.
Wherein lies the problem. There doesn't need to be a tax increase to combat Climate Change (assumption here, please bear with me a second, that the effect exists). All you need to do is transfer the current tax burden from one source onto a hydrocarbon consumption tax. Which, as memory serves, is what the republican Bob Inglis suggests (ex-Senator). The key item is of course transferring the tax burden, not increasing it.
Quote: thecesspitWherein lies the problem. There doesn't need to be a tax increase to combat Climate Change (assumption here, please bear with me a second, that the effect exists). All you need to do is transfer the current tax burden from one source onto a hydrocarbon consumption tax. Which, as memory serves, is what the republican Bob Inglis suggests (ex-Senator). The key item is of course transferring the tax burden, not increasing it.
Ah, but that shows the problem. No pol, person, or group that believes in AGW has suggested a shift, only an increase, a pure money-grab. And even if it was a shift you would be taxing the blood of the economy. While I would prefer we get out of income taxation and into taxing consumption, I would prefer we tax consumption across the board, and yes that includes food. But to tax one thing that is "bad" is not the way to go.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo pol, person, or group that believes in AGW has suggested a shift, only an increase, a pure money-grab.
...well, if you don't count Bob Inglis, I guess.
Quote: KeyserThe data collection methods aren't very scientific and the sample sizes being tested are rather small.
So say a few fringe nuts and laypersons. Granted, a number of studies have shown problems (yes, the most famous version of the "hockey stick" - Mann et al. 98/99 - being among them), but that's true in any field. "Ah," I hear you saying, "how convenient that the 'few' studies of questionable methodology happen to include the most dramatic illustrations!" Well, no - pop science is notorious for cherrypicking, cherrypicking is always going to leave you with outliers, and outliers are often questionable or erroneous. It's no surprise at all a pop science illustration should manage to pick a questionable study, and it certainly doesn't mean the conclusion backed by any number of meta-analyses is wrong.
Quote: KeyserThroughout the earth's history, we've had some very wild fluctuations in termperature. The fact that the global temperature is currently as stable as it is, I believe, is far more interesting and statistically relevant.
You may want to Google the phrase "geologic time." And, actually, probably also the phrase "statistically relevant." And "termperature."
Quote: KeyserIn politics, they've had to change from using "global warming" to "climate change" in order to help keep everyone interested. They even distributed memos about it.
Yes. So? It doesn't mean the story has changed, only that people didn't realize the obvious fact, no more or less true twenty years ago, that the Earth warming might have more frightening consequences than your own weather getting warmer.
Quote: KeyserWe've gone from "The coming ice age" to "global cooling" to "climate change" to "global warming" and then back to "climate change" again.
Back in college, we were discussing alternative agricultural methods and indoor farming (hydroponics) to compensate for a cooling planet!
Global cooling = media panic. There was never nearly as broad an agreement on it as there is today.
Coming ice age = silly media panic. I challenge you to give me one paper in a major journal suggesting an ice age was likely on human timescales, or due to humans.
Incidentally, the idea that They went from "cooling" to "warming" because the latter is more dramatic is the brainchild of one paying no attention. Even now, people talk about the "next ice age" being our fault, and it's much easier to picture a populated area freezing over than losing its aquifers (cf. that movie [not Al's] - I shall not speak its name).
I'd love to know who the "we" in college were. I have a number of suspicions, most of which are, shall we say, not overwhelmingly numerate...
Quote: AZDuffmanAh, but that shows the problem. No pol, person, or group that believes in AGW has suggested a shift, only an increase, a pure money-grab.
The RTCC recently had an article on folks who have suggested as a revenue neutral concept:
http://www.rtcc.org/2013/07/05/what-does-a-republican-friendly-carbon-tax-look-like/
Though it is tied in that article with some discussion on using it to reduce the deficit (which obviously can't happen with a revenue neutral tax if there is no spending decreases). But there are people talking about it. But the discussion is quiet.
Quote:And even if it was a shift you would be taxing the blood of the economy. While I would prefer we get out of income taxation and into taxing consumption, I would prefer we tax consumption across the board, and yes that includes food. But to tax one thing that is "bad" is not the way to go.
Okay, -assume- CO2 increases are creating a change in the climate, and that change is harmful to the economic and personal health of the USA (sea rises, droughts, floods in major urban areas, pick something if you feel like it). Just pretend the perfect science is there, and it's clear as you like. What steps would the good republican take to reduce it?
Thought experiment and all that.
A left wing think tank has now come out with a study that says the tax is very successfull since our energy consumption per capita has dropped 19% compared to the rest of the country. Of course our economy has also slowed down as business has moved elsewhere in the country. We can now debate whether or not the two items are related. The price of gasoline has also increased cosiderably in the last few years on top of the increase from the carbon tax.
Back in the 70s many of us bought into the hype too. I'm sorry if we're slower to jump on board this time. You go right ahead, and we'll catch up with you later.
In the meantime, tell us more about the "tipping point"!
Also, don't worry. Dennis Quaid will save us! LOL
Quote: thecesspit
Okay, -assume- CO2 increases are creating a change in the climate, and that change is harmful to the economic and personal health of the USA (sea rises, droughts, floods in major urban areas, pick something if you feel like it). Just pretend the perfect science is there, and it's clear as you like. What steps would the good republican take to reduce it?
Thought experiment and all that.
Well here is the big problem. Why do we assume an increase in temps is a bad thing? Given that we know the sun has made average temps change over time, why do we assume what we have now to be the "perfect" setting of the environmental thermostat? We know that there were deadly consequences during "the year without a summer" and the Little Ice Age. Warmer has been better before, why not again? Longer growing seasons alone could be helpful.
The North Pole is just an ice cube in a huge glass of water, as it melts sea levels should remain unchanged, even fall as the displacement of ice is more than the displacement of water. Receding glaciers make more land habitable. The planet has always been changing, why be so arrogant as to say it will only get worse?
Quote: Keyser@24Bingo,
Back in the 70s many of us bought into the hype too. I'm sorry if we're slower to jump on board this time. You go right ahead, and we'll catch up with you later.
Again, who is "us"? Because that time it wasn't the scientific community at large, and this time it is. Ignoring that fact makes you sound like a system bettor.
Quote: AZDuffmanWell here is the big problem. Why do we assume an increase in temps is a bad thing? Given that we know the sun has made average temps change over time, why do we assume what we have now to be the "perfect" setting of the environmental thermostat? We know that there were deadly consequences during "the year without a summer" and the Little Ice Age. Warmer has been better before, why not again? Longer growing seasons alone could be helpful.
I didn't say 'higher' temperatures. I said 'change in climate' such that it effects the USA. Has warmer been better before? Maybe the mid-west turns into a dustbowl. It's a thought experiment. Choose an effect, I'm interested more in how you'd enact a change given the effect, not whether the effect happens.
Quote:The North Pole is just an ice cube in a huge glass of water, as it melts sea levels should remain unchanged, even fall as the displacement of ice is more than the displacement of water. Receding glaciers make more land habitable. The planet has always been changing, why be so arrogant as to say it will only get worse?
It's not about the North Pole (iced sea water), but the ice on land that melts, due to receding glaciers, that will effect sea levels (see : http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm)
Sudden (relatively speaking sudden) change in the environment tends to be worse for the species living in that location. Especially if there's been a long process of adaption before hand.
But happy to see you embrace change. There's hope ;)
Quote: thecesspitI didn't say 'higher' temperatures. I said 'change in climate' such that it effects the USA. Has warmer been better before? Maybe the mid-west turns into a dustbowl. It's a thought experiment. Choose an effect, I'm interested more in how you'd enact a change given the effect, not whether the effect happens.
You are not getting what I am saying, I am saying we cannot control the climate of the planet and to assume we can is the height of arrogance. But yes, warmer has been better before. Ice sheets used to cover much of the USA, what we have now is clearly better.
I do not accept the premise that "climate change" is a negative with universal negative effects.
Quote:It's not about the North Pole (iced sea water), but the ice on land that melts, due to receding glaciers, that will effect sea levels
This has been going on for thousands of years. It has not caused calamity so far.
Quote:Sudden (relatively speaking sudden) change in the environment tends to be worse for the species living in that location. Especially if there's been a long process of adaption before hand.
Dozens of species go extinct every day, and there is nothing that can be done to stop it. Rivers change course. Mountains erode away. Magma seeps up and makes islands bigger.
"Climate Change" is just a religion for those who do not like the social constraints of the established ones.
Quote: AZDuffmanYou are not getting what I am saying, I am saying we cannot control the climate of the planet and to assume we can is the height of arrogance. But yes, warmer has been better before. Ice sheets used to cover much of the USA, what we have now is clearly better.
I think you get what I am saying by sudden change. I'm not going to get an interesting answer if you won't play with the thought experiment I proposed. That's okay, no reason you have to.
Quote:"Climate Change" is just a religion for those who do not like the social constraints of the established ones.
I think you are very wrong on that count, but once we get to this point, we are arguing axioms, and there's no real point in further discussion. I'm not going to change your axioms.
And why not embrace social change? It's been going on for thousands of years. Maybe it will be better in the future.
Quote: AZThe North Pole is just an ice cube in a huge glass of water, as it melts sea levels should remain unchanged, even fall as the displacement of ice is more than the displacement of water.
Greenland's ice is above sea level, as is most of Antarctica. Sea level is increasing, and has been for a while.
Quote: AZDuffman"Climate Change" is just a religion for those who do not like the social constraints of the established ones.
I love how "religion" means "something I think is stupid to believe in" no matter how religious the speaker is.
Everyone hold hands and hope the sky-wizard doesn't kill us and make it look like our own fault!
Quote: boymimboGreenland's ice is above sea level, as is most of Antarctica. Sea level is increasing, and has been for a while.
Rising water can sound mild or something that you could adjust to. Of course if you add another Japan size tsunami, hurricanes, tides & storm surge, etc, it could be hella lot of damage in places that people never thought would be heavy flooding. We've seen the Mississippi back up and flood. You could have large swathes of land underwater.
That's just with increased water and storms that have already occurred, with no special increase, just add more water.
"Us" referring to those of us that bought into the "mankind is destroying the planet" back during the 70s and early 80s. "In college we were indoctrinated. We were told that it was carbon dioxide pushing us into the next ice age.
The younger generation today is more apt to believe in the "global warming" and "climate change" cult than those of "us" that have already been down this road back during the 70s and 80s.
It has been much warmer, and it has been much cooler.
Quote: Keyser
The younger generation today is more apt to believe in the "global warming" and "climate change" than those of "us" that have already been down this road back during the 70s and 80s.
People who weren't adults in the 70's don't know
how we had global cooling shoved down our throats.
Then almost overnight they switched to GW. Somebody
decided there was way more money in the oceans
rising than the slow movement of glaciers over the
next 500 years.
Some people even began stock piling canned food to prepare for famines.
Quote: EvenBobPeople who weren't adults in the 70's don't know
how we had global cooling shoved down our throats.
.
I remember the cold war, air pollution, strip mining, logging, mercury in fish, gas shortage, but not much of the global cooling debate. But OTOH, I don't really remember what crossed over into different decades without looking it all up.
Quote: Keyser"Us" referring to those of us that bought into the "mankind is destroying the planet" back during the 70s and early 80s. "In college we were indoctrinated. We were told that it was carbon dioxide pushing us into the next ice age.
The peer reviewed literature of the time didn't support such doomsaying. Today's supports today's. It's that simple. The media being irresponsible only shows that the media are irresponsible. There are plenty of absurd scares thrown about even today, environmental and otherwise, but the simple truth of anthropogenic global warming is certainly not among them.
Quote: KeyserIt has been much warmer, and it has been much cooler.
It probably hasn't been warmer in recorded history. By most reconstructions, we've passed the peak of the medieval warm period, by a considerably faster climb, with solar activity relatively stable.
There were much warmer periods with no modern humans, if that's your ideal world.
Quote: EvenBobPeople who weren't adults in the 70's don't know
how we had global cooling shoved down our throats.
Don't know, don't care. Hype doesn't matter at all. If anything, the media's giving too much of a voice to the proverbial "Barry who believes the sky is a carpet painted by God." Unlike the seventies, now you can go straight to the horse's mouth, and you don't want to, because you'd rather cash in the toxic "'twas ever thus" an irresponsible press clumsily gave you forty years ago.
Quote: 24bingoIt probably hasn't been warmer in recorded history. By most reconstructions, we've passed the peak of the medieval warm period, by a considerably faster climb, with solar activity relatively stable.
There were much warmer periods with no modern humans, if that's your ideal world.
The data says otherwise. It was warmer back in the 1930s.
Back in the 1970s, the science supported global cooling. Now it supports warming. What's funny is that some of the same players back then have flipped and are now pitching "global warming" and "climate change".
Of course, back then, we also believed that the universe would end in a big crunch. Now we expect it to be torn apart by expansion. (That is, unless you believe the newest theory that says that the universe is gaining mass and that we may not be expanding, but may actually be contracting... again. ) For now, I'm in the expanding camp.
Currently, "global warming" isn't selling as well as it did 10 to 15 years ago. Over time, science sometimes makes revisions. I suspect we may find a cosmic origin to the mild warming that was occuring.
Politics is largely to blame for the global warming scare. However, you can only cry wolf so many times before people stop believing what you're trying to sell. This is what has happened to some of the kooks, like Al Gore.
In short, don't be upset with your parents and other adults if they seem a little bit cynical and slow to jump on the "climate change" bandwagon.
Quote: KeyserThe data says otherwise. It was warmer back in the 1930s.
What, in the States? They don't call it "American warming."
Quote: KeyserBack in the 1970s, the science supported global cooling.
No matter how many times you say this, it will not be true. Continuing global cooling was a hypothesis that became a media scare. It was never even predominant, let alone the consensus. Congratulations on buying their line then, and the same mindset's false controversy now.
Quote: KeyserOf course, back then we also believed that the universe would end in a big crunch. Now we expect it to be torn apart by expansion.
Neither of these hypotheses had then or has now anywhere near the overwhelming support of AGW. I smell kippers.
Quote: KeyserCurrently, "global warming" isn't selling as well as it did ten and 15 years ago. Science makes revisions. I suspect we may find cosmic origins to the mild warming that was occuring.
Science does nothing but make revisions, respecting the work that has gone into what precedes it. You'd rather throw it out because you're embarrassed you were taken in by the fourth estate forty years ago, and with that attitude, that cute little block of transistors you're looking at wouldn't exist. "Global warming" and "climate change" have the same meanings there they always do, and both apply, this "rebranding" being only for magpies who can't be bothered to check how exactly they're being lied to this time.
Where many people get into trouble is when they blindly accept theories as being hard facts. Right now, "global warming" and more recently "climate change" are being sold as a hard fact. Unfortunately this is affecting the world in some profound ways. Money is being diverted from research and medicine to investigate and research climate change instead.
For example: A £1.5bn pledge by Gordon Brown to help poor countries cope with the ravages of climate change will drain funds from existing overseas aid programmes to improve health, education and water supplies. I believe that we should focus more on health, and treating already curable disease and famine, potentially saving millions of lives, rather than diverting money towards something as absurd as "climate change". Al Gore should be held accountable for some of this nonsense!
If papers suggesting a human cause are thirty-two times more numerous than those suggesting the opposite - that's about as good as it gets. Granted, it's not a popularity contest, but there's no compelling reason to believe those few voices in the crowd. Which is more likely - this vast conspiracy you postulate with its tendrils in every research program from here to Mumbai for reasons best summarized as "it's just the sort of thing generally governments do," or a smattering of methodological errors and statistical noise?
Quote: rxwineRising water can sound mild or something that you could adjust to. Of course if you add another Japan size tsunami, hurricanes, tides & storm surge, etc, it could be hella lot of damage in places that people never thought would be heavy flooding. We've seen the Mississippi back up and flood. You could have large swathes of land underwater.
That's just with increased water and storms that have already occurred, with no special increase, just add more water.
The only reason we do not have more flooding that we do is that we have great systems of dams and other flood control. If we did not have this then major floods would be an annual event near most rivers. Floods happened way before someone decided to invent the AGW scare.
