3 ms·
This worldview implies abandoning all coastal cities and several entire countries, correct? Sea level rise alone requires that, to say nothing of other effects.
by graeme 7y ago
This worldview implies abandoning all coastal cities and several entire countries, correct? Sea level rise alone requires that, to say nothing of other effects.
And then there's higher wet bulb temperatures in heat waves. With enough warming, that should render a large chunk of the planet effectively uninhabitable without AC.
Do you accept these consequences when you make such claims?
- julienb_sea 7y agoYes, my expectation is that we will build habitats which withstand sea level rise and temperature fluctuations, and abandon habitats which cannot be retrofitted to withstand present conditions.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 7y agoWhich is the way humanity has always responded to crisis. They move and adapt.
- dredmorbius 7y agoOr fail to do so.
- graeme 7y agoMeaning, we abandon all coastal cities, and countries where a few billion people currently live? No one has yet retrofitted a local climate. Air conditioning works on the level of buildings.
- rhino369 7y ago>This worldview implies abandoning all coastal cities and several entire countries, correct? Over hundreds of years, yes. Some of the biggest cities in the world didn't exist 200 years ago or were small villages. I lived on land that was under Lake Michigan 100 years ago. It'll change the world for sure, but that won't kill us off. The change is too slow.
- graeme 7y agoHundreds of years? Faster than that. If we just keep burning carbon we'll warm faster than IPCC predictions. Most forecasts assume we decrease. We'd probably lose Boston, New York, San Francisco and Miami this century, or at least chunks of them. It's not just where the waterline is either: what matters is where the water goes in storm surges. Most current coastal cities would be unliveable within a 100 years I think, if we keep on burning carbon and do "mitigation" only, as OP suggested.