11 ms·
> The report’s authors estimated the initial cost of protecting the study area to be $78 million, based on the premise that water levels around Wilmington would
by jonas21 8y ago
> The report’s authors estimated the initial cost of protecting the study area to be $78 million, based on the premise that water levels around Wilmington would rise 2 feet by 2050.
That's a drop in the bucket compared to Amtrak's $38 billion maintenance backlog or the $13 billion Hudson tunnel project.
Out of all the potential effects of climate change, this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how to fix it already!
- koops 8y agoThe $78 million is for ten miles of the 457-mile corridor for the sea-level rise estimated for 2050. And the rise will only accelerate after 2050. But yes, that does seem like a low figure.
- cabaalis 8y ago> based on the premise that water levels around Wilmington would rise 2 feet by 2050. I'm curious. I've been hearing about the expected effects of climate change for many years. At least since ~2005 or 2006. Are there any predictions of conditions in 2000, or 2020, which have panned out as predicted?
- koops 8y agoI don't know about sea level rise prediction accuracy, but temperature "hindcasts" hold up pretty well: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-m...
- cagenut 8y agoIt is astounding how spot on it has all been. The data is so crystal clear.
- rfinney 8y agoI keep seeing charts that say otherwise: https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Figure%201.JPG https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Figure%201.JPG . This suggests the models are not accurate. Who is right?
- makerofspoons 8y agoCertainly not the CEI's (Competitive Enterprise Institute) who distributed your figure. They have a long history of spreading disinformation, going back to the fight over tobacco policy: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Competitive_Enterprise_Institute https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Competitive_Enterprise...
- lifeformed 8y agoI never understood why "climate skeptics" don't see past this glaringly obvious fact: almost every time there is some "rebuttal" against climate change, the source comes back to a conservative think tank or oil company. Hello??? It's so frustrating.
- rfinney 8y agoIsn't "attacking the motive" a logical fallacy? https://study.com/academy/lesson/attacking-the-motive-fallacy-explanation-examples.html https://study.com/academy/lesson/attacking-the-motive-fallac...
- lifeformed 8y agoSaying something is biased might be a fallacy in a debate, but not in statistics. In a complex topic, where the data is fuzzy and misrepresentation is easy to do and harder to detect, you must consider biases in your sources. An alien can look at this "debate" and make a rational decision without even knowing what the debate is about. The world's scientists study X and overwhelmingly agree: X is going to wreak havoc on the world within a few decades. In response, the humans who make extraordinary amounts of money off of X (and won't be alive in a few decades), pay large sums of money to a few people who say: X isn't that bad. So an alien examines this situation and thinks: "Hmm... should I believe the overwhelming majority of rationalists, or the few people with financial incentives to be contrarians?" The alien concludes: "Since there are two sides to the debate, that means each side is exactly 50% likely to be right. The answer must be unknowable, and therefore they shouldn't make any decision on it and just maintain the status quo (making the contrarians the victors)." Just kidding. The alien says, "Wow, if this species is stumped on this one, I'll just come back later and harvest their newly melted water and filter all their corpses out."
- pdonis 8y ago> I don't know about sea level rise prediction accuracy We have no way of knowing because no predictions were made for periods of time prior to now, so we have nothing to compare with the data. The dire predictions of rapid rise in the future are based on the future predictions of climate models being correct, but the models are already known to over-predict future warming. https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-level-rise/ https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/27/special-report-on-sea-lev... > temperature "hindcasts" hold up pretty well But temperature forecasts don't. Hindcasts aren't predictions. https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/ https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-cli...
- neuronexmachina 8y agohttps://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry > Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused spiel for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts' denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit, another denier site. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place.[1] Curry has agreed with Trump's description of climate change as a "hoax", writing in 2016 that the UN's definition of manmade climate change "qualifies as a hoax".
- kevinskii 8y agoI'm not sure if you're aware, but "denier" is a loaded term that is used to equate the questioning of climate science with Holocaust denial. It has no place in a civilized discussion. As for Climate Audit, the Wegman Report, and Judith Curry: Maybe try reading one of them sometime. I think you'll find that they are nothing like their detractors try to portray them to be.
- EPress1970 8y agoWhat's noteworthy is that the IPCC forecast for sea level rise is not accepted anymore by many, for some reason. The IPCC used to be gold standard, now it's not alarmist enough. From the report: > Subsequent to the 2013 IPCC AR5, there has been a focus on the possible worst-case scenario for global sea level rise. Estimates of the maximum possible global sea level rise by the end of the 21st century range from 1.6 to 3 meters [5-10 feet], and even higher. These extreme values of possible sea level rise are regarded as extremely unlikely or so unlikely that we cannot even assign a probability. Nevertheless, these extreme, barely possible values of sea level rise are now becoming anchored as outcomes that are driving local adaptation plans
- Retric 8y agoSea level rises is currently only 8cm in the last 20 years, but it has happened. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File%3AEvolution-of-GMSL-time-series-from-six-different-groups’.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#/media/File%3... PS: It’s all’s up 18 cm from 1897 but recent rise has been much more obvious.
- 300bps 8y agoMy favorite article on this topic was from The Independent in 2000 that stated snowfalls in England were a thing of the past and children would not know what snow is within a few years. The Independent finally deleted the article but here’s a summary of it: http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/12/27/headline-2000-snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past/ http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/12/27/headline-2000-snowfa...
- freehunter 8y ago>this seems like one of the least worrisome -- we even know how to fix it already! The biggest struggle with climate change (in the US at least) is trying to convince businesses that they're going to be impacted financially. If anything we need more industry-specific reporting to try to show companies how ignoring climate change will impact their bottom line.
- mortivore 8y agoI don't think it matters if you show businesses that climate will impact them financially. The people running the show may not be running it when the financial burden actually comes around. If there is no impact or very little for the person/people currently running the business, then there is no reason to make a move to prevent/mitigate the problem.
- Joeri 8y agoNot only that but I’m pretty sure that when the climate change bill comes due businesses will demand government help pay it, with the argument that the whole thing is the government’s fault anyway. And they’ll get what they want, because they always do.
- 8ytecoder 8y agoWhen there's water under the bridge, it would literally be a decision between putting the past behind and fixing the issue vs trying to point fingers and pin the blame on who was wrong. We'll bite the bullet and pay for all the necessary upgrades necessary. Businesses know it. Govt knows it. People will forget and move on as well. Human memory is short.
- Udik 8y ago> when the climate change bill comes due businesses will demand government help pay it What is the difference between having the government- the totality of citizens- pay for climate change mitigation; and adopting extremely expensive global measures that will make everyone poorer for a number of decades? I'm asking seriously. It seems very similar to me: in both cases the whole collectivity will pay (which is fair, since it's the whole collectivity that is enjoying the benefits of freely polluting the environment now).