3 ms·

You're the only one talking about not giving a crap. Don't strawman my argument. 50-100cm of sea-level rise over a period of 100 years is a non-issue really. M

by eloff 7y ago

You're the only one talking about not giving a crap. Don't strawman my argument. 50-100cm of sea-level rise over a period of 100 years is a non-issue really. Most places won't be affected and those that will be have time to employ one of the three strategies mentioned. Everyone alive will be dead before it starts to really bite - that does not equate to permission "not to give a crap" to be perfectly clear. It's also not climate denialism to talk about the facts, which I shouldn't need to say.

Robotbeat 7y ago
1 meter is on top of about that much subsidence and storm surge increase. Most of Langley Air Force Base and much of adjacent NASA Langley will be below high tide level, not counting storm surge. My neighbor's house (who are trying to sell) will be under nearly a meter of water. This is not "non-issue." We're talking only about 80 years from now. Within living memory. And we're already seeing impact. https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/6/-8502032.768614948/4451538.491525828/15/satellite/none/0.8/2050/interHigh/midAccretion https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/6/-8502032.768614948/... EDIT: I understood your point was about how the REAL threat is the existential threat of nonlinear feedback loops, HOWEVER, I thought your post under-played the real consequences on people alive today of even the most likely outcome. We're going to have to rebuild much of cities that have been around for 100s of years. There's an enormous amount of capital involved here. Imagine Katrina-like scenarios but for dozens of cities in the US and at regular intervals. A vast system of dikes will be needed, probably at the cost of a trillion dollars, all along the US sea coasts. In addition to on the order of trillions in real estate that will have to be abandoned (in places like Miami, Norfolk, New York City, San Fran and surrounding cities, much of the Mississippi river delta in Louisiana including New Orleans, and even Washington DC) or maybe rebuilt on stilts or vastly upgraded dike systems. This is stuff in living memory of today, and it's the result of a stay-the-course growth in fossil fuel usage.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- eloff 7y ago
  Yes, it will be extremely expensive and it's a crime that we don't tax fossil fuels to account for those negative externalities. I don't want to downplay it too much here. It's serious business, but is not the end of civilization - unless those feedback loops kick in in a big way. I think the change in sea level will be somewhat gradual, giving time to migrate or fortify infrastructure. Keep in mind few of the roads, bridges, and skyscrapers in our current cities will still be there when the water reaches them. If we write them off and build further inland instead of trying to maintain or rebuild them in place, it will naturally shift part of our infrastructure. It will still be costly though.

by eloff 7y ago

Robotbeat 7y ago

1 meter is on top of about that much subsidence and storm surge increase. Most of Langley Air Force Base and much of adjacent NASA Langley will be below high tide level, not counting storm surge. My neighbor's house (who are trying to sell) will be under nearly a meter of water. This is not "non-issue." We're talking only about 80 years from now. Within living memory. And we're already seeing impact. https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/6/-8502032.768614948/4451538.491525828/15/satellite/none/0.8/2050/interHigh/midAccretion https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/layer/slr/6/-8502032.768614948/... EDIT: I understood your point was about how the REAL threat is the existential threat of nonlinear feedback loops, HOWEVER, I thought your post under-played the real consequences on people alive today of even the most likely outcome. We're going to have to rebuild much of cities that have been around for 100s of years. There's an enormous amount of capital involved here. Imagine Katrina-like scenarios but for dozens of cities in the US and at regular intervals. A vast system of dikes will be needed, probably at the cost of a trillion dollars, all along the US sea coasts. In addition to on the order of trillions in real estate that will have to be abandoned (in places like Miami, Norfolk, New York City, San Fran and surrounding cities, much of the Mississippi river delta in Louisiana including New Orleans, and even Washington DC) or maybe rebuilt on stilts or vastly upgraded dike systems. This is stuff in living memory of today, and it's the result of a stay-the-course growth in fossil fuel usage.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
eloff 7y ago
Yes, it will be extremely expensive and it's a crime that we don't tax fossil fuels to account for those negative externalities. I don't want to downplay it too much here. It's serious business, but is not the end of civilization - unless those feedback loops kick in in a big way. I think the change in sea level will be somewhat gradual, giving time to migrate or fortify infrastructure. Keep in mind few of the roads, bridges, and skyscrapers in our current cities will still be there when the water reaches them. If we write them off and build further inland instead of trying to maintain or rebuild them in place, it will naturally shift part of our infrastructure. It will still be costly though.