8 ms·

10-12 inches of US coastal sea level rise in the next 30 years is a pretty startling predicted acceleration if true.

mathieubordere 5y ago
"Failing to curb future emissions could cause an additional 1.5 - 5 feet (0.5 - 1.5 meters) of rise for a total of 3.5 - 7 feet (1.1 - 2.1 meters) by the end of this century" is also pretty disturbing.
- pstuart 5y ago
  It should be. I'm worried that these predictions are actually too conservative.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    In my experience with government publications, yes, any publication of this sort will tend to be on the conservative side.
    - mhh__ 5y ago
      Yeah, people think these types of things are blown up and manipulated as if the scientists actually make a buck out of it versus their usually very meagre salary and huge workload, Someone I know who used to work for a non-specific policy related group of scientists investigating something pretty important (pollution, the kind that gives your kids fucked up lungs not something relatively abstract like global warming) and that he was explicitly told (in response to a warning their data looked bad for the government) "That's awful, we must do something about it, in the meantime please lower the figure"
      - dylan604 5y ago
        From a different viewpoint, these scientists are just trying to shut down companies and have employees lose their jobs by making things too expensive because the happen to pollute "a little". So intead of polluter pays, consumer pays after the prices get raised to compensate the expense of the polluter fines/taxes, the equipment upgrade to reduce emissions, etc. If the damn scientists would just shut up already, everything would be fine! /s
        mhh__ 5y ago
        If you tax the carbon then the market will adjust by favouring more efficient products. If poor people can't afford them then that's a different societal issue which is not being caused by a relatively small tax.
        bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        the /s at the end of the post is meant to indicate sarcasm, so I don't think they actually meant what was said.
  - dbingham 5y ago
    They almost certainly are. Retroactive studies of climate predictions made by the IPCC found that they were consistently much too conservative. And there have been multiple climate related events in the last few years that were worse than the worst case models. (The heat wave in the US's pascific northwest last summer.) Others that are occurring way ahead of schedule - for instance, models predict the equatorial region having days of deadly heat by 2080, it happened in 2020. So, any time you see a climate prediction put forth by a major institution, I would assume it's going to be too conservative. That has been our pattern so far.
kahrl 5y ago
You can scream and scream and scream these facts at people for half a century, and they'll still be "startled."
- gameswithgo 5y ago
  Well we have only tried for about 40 years so far, maybe in 10 people will take it seriously?
  - willis936 5y ago
    We've only really tried for 0 years. Exxon knew about climate change in 1957 [0]. People beat the drum hard from 1977 to 1990. What's happened? Regulatory capture has only gotten worse. There is nothing to be optimistic about here. 0. https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1029/tr038i005p00643.pdf?download=true https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1029/tr038i005p00643.pdf?downloa...
    - jimbob45 5y ago
      Nothing? We’re well on the way to making gas-powered vehicles obsolete and nuclear power widespread. I think some level of saying “the sky is falling” is okay but you’re only going to be able to inspire voters with progress - negativity doesn’t win elections.
      - willis936 5y ago
        The negativity is needed because too many people think the sky is not falling. The can has been sufficiently kicked and the problem has become a fact of life. There hasn't been mass mobilizations for climate policy in 30 years. The oil barons won. People need to be fucking angry.
        hunterb123 5y ago
        Yet people still rail against an EV company because "tweets" and continue to suck on big auto that held us back on purpose because their factories were built for ICE engines, and ya'know, cheated on emission tests. But no, getting angry and emotional is not the answer. We're reducing our emissions, mostly thanks to natural gas (fracking) displacing coal, but part due to alternatives like wind and solar. Some states like Texas run on wind for the full day at times, only tapping into non-renewables during peak loads. We've made great progress and some people need to calm down or they look crazy (some are), diminishing their cause. Some people seem to treat "green" as a religion. The sin you're born with is your carbon footprint. You can do everything and it's still not enough. You have to flagellate yourself, you need to convert everyone else to live your lifestyle, you need to give this and that up. You need to live without electricity, without transportation, without meat, etc. Some positions are counter productive to the cause or are simply useless (banning straws instead of sanctioning foreign countries/companies for dumping plastic waste that they buy from us) Be a conservationist, not an environmentalist. Clean the Earth, make it better, but stop with the doomsday speeches and flagellation.
jandrese 5y ago
At some point in our lifetime we are going to have to effectively abandon cities like Miami, and our politicians will still be in denial about climate change.
- _3u10 5y ago
  Yeah, I don't know of any technology capable of holding back nearly a foot of water. Hopefully they figure it out before it's too late for Miami.
  - ortusdux 5y ago
    The technology exists, but it wouldn't help Miami. The city is built on porous limestone, so even encircling it with a 50' wall wouldn't do anything.
    - zie 5y ago
      Maybe Miami will be the new Venice :)
  - Day1 5y ago
    You can find a below sea-level hole inland then redirect the water to it. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-scientist-explains-the-mystery-of-recent-sea-level-drop/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-scientist-expla...
- distrill 5y ago
  FWIW, I'm not sure if any main stream politicians are arguing today that there is no climate change. I could be wrong, but most of what I hear is a question of how much is human caused/accelerated, rather than whether it's happening at all. There are some obvious exceptions like people pandering with "record low today, how about that global warming libs", but as far as I can tell this isn't the official position of any political office.
  - jandrese 5y ago
missedthecue 5y ago
If this is true why will any bank give me a 40 year mortgage on beachfront property today?
- jamiek88 5y ago
  Because the people issuing those mortgages will be long retired by the time it comes home to roost and also they are probably banking on a federal govt bailout.
  - mhh__ 5y ago
    Who cares about tomorrow when the bonus pays out today
  - dylan604 5y ago
    If you mortgage a property and the property is destroyed, you are still on the hook to repay the loan. If you have insurance that will cover it, then great. If not, you still owe the note. Sound like sound logic for the banker types.
    - cobookman 5y ago
      That's not the case in NON recourse states, such-as California. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-a-recourse-state.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-a-rec...
    - missedthecue 5y ago
      Except that you don't buy insurance in 40 year contracts. Once the water gets too close, it will become uninsurable. It would be like selling insurance on a house that is burning.
      - dylan604 5y ago
        Nah, some insurance company will continue to take people's money, but when it comes time to make a claim, they will come back with this was not an act of god event, but a malicious man made event. Claim denied!
throwawaymanbot 5y ago

"Failing to curb future emissions could cause an additional 1.5 - 5 feet (0.5 - 1.5 meters) of rise for a total of 3.5 - 7 feet (1.1 - 2.1 meters) by the end of this century" is also pretty disturbing.

pstuart 5y ago
It should be. I'm worried that these predictions are actually too conservative.
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
  In my experience with government publications, yes, any publication of this sort will tend to be on the conservative side.
  - mhh__ 5y ago
    Yeah, people think these types of things are blown up and manipulated as if the scientists actually make a buck out of it versus their usually very meagre salary and huge workload, Someone I know who used to work for a non-specific policy related group of scientists investigating something pretty important (pollution, the kind that gives your kids fucked up lungs not something relatively abstract like global warming) and that he was explicitly told (in response to a warning their data looked bad for the government) "That's awful, we must do something about it, in the meantime please lower the figure"
    - dylan604 5y ago
      From a different viewpoint, these scientists are just trying to shut down companies and have employees lose their jobs by making things too expensive because the happen to pollute "a little". So intead of polluter pays, consumer pays after the prices get raised to compensate the expense of the polluter fines/taxes, the equipment upgrade to reduce emissions, etc. If the damn scientists would just shut up already, everything would be fine! /s
      - mhh__ 5y ago
        If you tax the carbon then the market will adjust by favouring more efficient products. If poor people can't afford them then that's a different societal issue which is not being caused by a relatively small tax.
        bryanrasmussen 5y ago
        the /s at the end of the post is meant to indicate sarcasm, so I don't think they actually meant what was said.
- dbingham 5y ago
  They almost certainly are. Retroactive studies of climate predictions made by the IPCC found that they were consistently much too conservative. And there have been multiple climate related events in the last few years that were worse than the worst case models. (The heat wave in the US's pascific northwest last summer.) Others that are occurring way ahead of schedule - for instance, models predict the equatorial region having days of deadly heat by 2080, it happened in 2020. So, any time you see a climate prediction put forth by a major institution, I would assume it's going to be too conservative. That has been our pattern so far.

kahrl 5y ago

You can scream and scream and scream these facts at people for half a century, and they'll still be "startled."

gameswithgo 5y ago
Well we have only tried for about 40 years so far, maybe in 10 people will take it seriously?
- willis936 5y ago
  We've only really tried for 0 years. Exxon knew about climate change in 1957 [0]. People beat the drum hard from 1977 to 1990. What's happened? Regulatory capture has only gotten worse. There is nothing to be optimistic about here. 0. https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1029/tr038i005p00643.pdf?download=true https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1029/tr038i005p00643.pdf?downloa...
  - jimbob45 5y ago
    Nothing? We’re well on the way to making gas-powered vehicles obsolete and nuclear power widespread. I think some level of saying “the sky is falling” is okay but you’re only going to be able to inspire voters with progress - negativity doesn’t win elections.
    - willis936 5y ago
      The negativity is needed because too many people think the sky is not falling. The can has been sufficiently kicked and the problem has become a fact of life. There hasn't been mass mobilizations for climate policy in 30 years. The oil barons won. People need to be fucking angry.
      - hunterb123 5y ago
        Yet people still rail against an EV company because "tweets" and continue to suck on big auto that held us back on purpose because their factories were built for ICE engines, and ya'know, cheated on emission tests. But no, getting angry and emotional is not the answer. We're reducing our emissions, mostly thanks to natural gas (fracking) displacing coal, but part due to alternatives like wind and solar. Some states like Texas run on wind for the full day at times, only tapping into non-renewables during peak loads. We've made great progress and some people need to calm down or they look crazy (some are), diminishing their cause. Some people seem to treat "green" as a religion. The sin you're born with is your carbon footprint. You can do everything and it's still not enough. You have to flagellate yourself, you need to convert everyone else to live your lifestyle, you need to give this and that up. You need to live without electricity, without transportation, without meat, etc. Some positions are counter productive to the cause or are simply useless (banning straws instead of sanctioning foreign countries/companies for dumping plastic waste that they buy from us) Be a conservationist, not an environmentalist. Clean the Earth, make it better, but stop with the doomsday speeches and flagellation.

jandrese 5y ago

At some point in our lifetime we are going to have to effectively abandon cities like Miami, and our politicians will still be in denial about climate change.

_3u10 5y ago
Yeah, I don't know of any technology capable of holding back nearly a foot of water. Hopefully they figure it out before it's too late for Miami.
- ortusdux 5y ago
  The technology exists, but it wouldn't help Miami. The city is built on porous limestone, so even encircling it with a 50' wall wouldn't do anything.
  - zie 5y ago
    Maybe Miami will be the new Venice :)
- Day1 5y ago
  You can find a below sea-level hole inland then redirect the water to it. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-scientist-explains-the-mystery-of-recent-sea-level-drop/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-scientist-expla...
distrill 5y ago
FWIW, I'm not sure if any main stream politicians are arguing today that there is no climate change. I could be wrong, but most of what I hear is a question of how much is human caused/accelerated, rather than whether it's happening at all. There are some obvious exceptions like people pandering with "record low today, how about that global warming libs", but as far as I can tell this isn't the official position of any political office.
- jandrese 5y ago

missedthecue 5y ago

If this is true why will any bank give me a 40 year mortgage on beachfront property today?

jamiek88 5y ago
Because the people issuing those mortgages will be long retired by the time it comes home to roost and also they are probably banking on a federal govt bailout.
- mhh__ 5y ago
  Who cares about tomorrow when the bonus pays out today
- dylan604 5y ago
  If you mortgage a property and the property is destroyed, you are still on the hook to repay the loan. If you have insurance that will cover it, then great. If not, you still owe the note. Sound like sound logic for the banker types.
  - cobookman 5y ago
    That's not the case in NON recourse states, such-as California. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-a-recourse-state.html https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/what-is-a-rec...
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    Except that you don't buy insurance in 40 year contracts. Once the water gets too close, it will become uninsurable. It would be like selling insurance on a house that is burning.
    - dylan604 5y ago
      Nah, some insurance company will continue to take people's money, but when it comes time to make a claim, they will come back with this was not an act of god event, but a malicious man made event. Claim denied!

throwawaymanbot 5y ago