4 ms·
If the occurrence of the conditions required for flooding are happening at increased probability driven by climate change, then one could reasonably attribute i
by dv_dt 10y ago
If the occurrence of the conditions required for flooding are happening at increased probability driven by climate change, then one could reasonably attribute increased flooding to climate change.
If only way to be sure is to wait for the data to show up 50-100 year baseline data for flooding, then by the time you act - all the costly infrastructure commitments have been made... it's another form of socializing the costs while privatizing the profits.
- pixl97 10y agoClimate change isn't the only thing that increases the probability. Over the long term they may eventually be the largest cause, but currently I would cite many, many other issues. Sea walls, land use changes, water pumping, loss of wetlands all affect the severity of tides. All these things could be changed to avoid issues while completely ignoring climate change for now.... Yet they do nothing. Ocean bathymetry is extremely complex, messing with one thing on a shoreline effects everything around it. Just yelling "It's all climate change" is both stupid and dangerous. Trying to stop the shoreline from moving is stupid, expensive, and in the long term, dangerous.
- dv_dt 10y agoSure thing, all the other states you mention speak to the capacity of the shoreline to absorb some amount of water increase (from any source). Independently, if the frequency and intensity of flooding events is predicted to increase in the future, one would think that long term zoning regulations to preserve or increase the capacity of the shore to absorb flooding would be cheaper than, fix-it-quick with big infrastructure projects after catastrophic damage has already occured. That's why it's cheaper to address it now, rather than wait until the building policy completely breaks down.
- mistermann 10y ago...assuming something WILL have to be done. If we can continue to muddle through for 100-200 years, it isn't cheaper to fix it now.
- hackuser 10y ago> If we can continue to muddle through for 100-200 years That is wishful thinking. The clear consensus is that we can't, and that it's not a close call.
- ak4g 10y agoSources please. The clear consensus is that AGW is real. That is a far cry from saying that there is a clear consensus that it must be dealt with ever, let alone that it must be dealt with in the near-term.
- hackuser 10y agoAs a start: The U.S. military and the U.S. intelligence community; and I'm almost certain: The IPCC and the insurance industry. I encourage you to read the IPCC summary report; it will clear up a lot of mysteries.
- PeterisP 10y agoThere's no consensus that it "must" be dealt with, however, there is a clear consensus that if we don't deal with it (which is a quite possible scenario) then places like Florida Keys will cease to be inhabitable within the next 50-100 years.
- hackuser 10y ago> There's no consensus that it "must" be dealt with If you mean that there is no political consensus in the United States, yes, that's true beyond a doubt. If you mean that there is no consensus among scientists and experts in the field, then that's wrong. There is and has been a clear consensus that we "must" act urgently.