4 ms·

It seems apprent that climate disaster is inevitable. Might as well experience coastal life before flooding makes the central/inner state areas the "new coast"

It seems apprent that climate disaster is inevitable. Might as well experience coastal life before flooding makes the central/inner state areas the "new coast" haha

throw93232 5y ago
Or maybe new ice age is coming.
- exac 5y ago
  > Or maybe new ice age is coming. The science does not support that. Your particular corner of the planet is not indicative of the world's changing climate: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global...
  - throw93232 5y ago
    I wrote MAYBE, science definitely says there is some propability of ice age. Qestion is what is propability of that maybe. But science is now religion I guess. I moved to warmer country to save on energy bills. Our politicians say hot shower is a luxury now!
    - themitigating 5y ago
      Science isn't a religion because it can change with new information
      - aww_dang 5y ago
        Scientism is a more precise term here: https://sciencereligiondialogue.org/resources/what-is-scientism/ https://sciencereligiondialogue.org/resources/what-is-scient... >It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can’t catch in his nets does not exist (15). Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific.
        mattst88 5y ago
        What is an example of something that we know outside of science?
        aww_dang 5y ago
        Mathematics
        majewsky 5y ago
        Mathematics is not a field of natural science, but it is a science too. I've seen it classified as "structural science" before. It operates on the same tenets of the scientific method (which, in one sentence, can be described as "methodically testing falsifiable hypotheses"). The only difference to natural science is that the testing does not involve interrogating the physical world through experiments.
        aww_dang 5y ago
        There is also "political science" and "social science". There are also those who advance the premise that mathematics is empirical, but for the context of the discussion I'm not sure that either is relevant. Mathematical "testing" can be described as deduction. We can present math axioms, but can we present scientific axioms? Science as a religion or science as an all encompassing worldview is unscientific. This is better described as scientism. If you examine the premises of climate doom, you'll find unscientific presuppositions. There are also necessarily moral implications to the goals of regulating consumption and population size. It becomes even less scientific for cynics who question if the climate scientist's "experiments" and models are incentivized to necessitate certain conclusions. These are items which are best disputed in their respective arenas. "Believe the science" doesn't tell us anything about morality or the ideological progenitors of the climate movement. It narrows the issue while mischaracterizing science as a system of belief which can inform us on moral matters or the historical record of climate doom ideologues.
        5y ago
  - upsidesinclude 5y ago
  - hedora 5y ago
    There is definitely scientific evidence that continued CO2 emissions will eventually stop the atlantic currents and plunge Europe into an ice age. The thing you linked seems completely irrelevant to this discussion.
- akvadrako 5y ago
  Estimates of when the next glacial period would naturally start range from about 2ky to 12ky, so too far away to worry about now. The glacial transitions are somewhat predictable as they are triggered by favorable isolation conditions due to the eccentricity, obliquity and precession of the Earth. That's why we can have high confidence it won't happen in the next few hundred years. https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/24/nature-unbound-i-the-glacial-cycle/ https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/24/nature-unbound-i-the-glac... http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=7344 http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=7344
RC_ITR 5y ago
Weird take. Isn’t the right answer “build as much housing/infrastructure in ‘safe’ areas as possible and do as little investment as possible on the ‘unsafe’ areas?” People moving to Florida are doing the exact opposite of that.
- spacehome 5y ago
  It means rent the beach house.
- rtpg 5y ago
  I mean coastal areas have always been dangerous, and people seem to be bad at imagining Florida disappearing. I do wonder tho, like … the Netherlands exist. Is it not possible to do that in Florida (in theory?) People always say “well Florida is under sea level you doofuses” but loads of cities build stuff below sea level or just raise the ground outright.
  - Scarblac 5y ago
    What I have heard is that the Netherlands uses levees on clay, but in Florida the ground is porous so the water would just go under them.
  - hedora 5y ago
    It's not possible, even in theory. Flordia soil is sand, which is permeable. The Netherlands soil is clay, which is water tight. They already have problems where sea water infiltrates some neighborhoods. It basically creates salt water springs.
  - slavik81 5y ago
    My understanding is that the water will come up through the ground once Florida is below sea level. The geology will make it very difficult to prevent water from encroaching. > The Floridian peninsula is a porous plateau of karst limestone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Florida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Florida
osigurdson 5y ago
While it may cause a lot of economic damage, I don't think the location of the coasts will change dramatically. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_09.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_...

It seems apprent that climate disaster is inevitable. Might as well experience coastal life before flooding makes the central/inner state areas the "new coast" haha

throw93232 5y ago

Or maybe new ice age is coming.

exac 5y ago
> Or maybe new ice age is coming. The science does not support that. Your particular corner of the planet is not indicative of the world's changing climate: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global-warming-mean-it%E2%80%99s-warming-everywhere https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/does-global...
- throw93232 5y ago
  I wrote MAYBE, science definitely says there is some propability of ice age. Qestion is what is propability of that maybe. But science is now religion I guess. I moved to warmer country to save on energy bills. Our politicians say hot shower is a luxury now!
  - themitigating 5y ago
    Science isn't a religion because it can change with new information
    - aww_dang 5y ago
      Scientism is a more precise term here: https://sciencereligiondialogue.org/resources/what-is-scientism/ https://sciencereligiondialogue.org/resources/what-is-scient... >It is one thing to celebrate science for its achievements and remarkable ability to explain a wide variety of phenomena in the natural world. But to claim there is nothing knowable outside the scope of science would be similar to a successful fisherman saying that whatever he can’t catch in his nets does not exist (15). Once you accept that science is the only source of human knowledge, you have adopted a philosophical position (scientism) that cannot be verified, or falsified, by science itself. It is, in a word, unscientific.
      - mattst88 5y ago
        What is an example of something that we know outside of science?
        aww_dang 5y ago
        Mathematics
        majewsky 5y ago
        Mathematics is not a field of natural science, but it is a science too. I've seen it classified as "structural science" before. It operates on the same tenets of the scientific method (which, in one sentence, can be described as "methodically testing falsifiable hypotheses"). The only difference to natural science is that the testing does not involve interrogating the physical world through experiments.
        aww_dang 5y ago
        There is also "political science" and "social science". There are also those who advance the premise that mathematics is empirical, but for the context of the discussion I'm not sure that either is relevant. Mathematical "testing" can be described as deduction. We can present math axioms, but can we present scientific axioms? Science as a religion or science as an all encompassing worldview is unscientific. This is better described as scientism. If you examine the premises of climate doom, you'll find unscientific presuppositions. There are also necessarily moral implications to the goals of regulating consumption and population size. It becomes even less scientific for cynics who question if the climate scientist's "experiments" and models are incentivized to necessitate certain conclusions. These are items which are best disputed in their respective arenas. "Believe the science" doesn't tell us anything about morality or the ideological progenitors of the climate movement. It narrows the issue while mischaracterizing science as a system of belief which can inform us on moral matters or the historical record of climate doom ideologues.
        5y ago
- upsidesinclude 5y ago
- hedora 5y ago
  There is definitely scientific evidence that continued CO2 emissions will eventually stop the atlantic currents and plunge Europe into an ice age. The thing you linked seems completely irrelevant to this discussion.
akvadrako 5y ago
Estimates of when the next glacial period would naturally start range from about 2ky to 12ky, so too far away to worry about now. The glacial transitions are somewhat predictable as they are triggered by favorable isolation conditions due to the eccentricity, obliquity and precession of the Earth. That's why we can have high confidence it won't happen in the next few hundred years. https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/24/nature-unbound-i-the-glacial-cycle/ https://judithcurry.com/2016/10/24/nature-unbound-i-the-glac... http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=7344 http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=7344

RC_ITR 5y ago

Weird take. Isn’t the right answer “build as much housing/infrastructure in ‘safe’ areas as possible and do as little investment as possible on the ‘unsafe’ areas?” People moving to Florida are doing the exact opposite of that.

spacehome 5y ago
It means rent the beach house.
rtpg 5y ago
I mean coastal areas have always been dangerous, and people seem to be bad at imagining Florida disappearing. I do wonder tho, like … the Netherlands exist. Is it not possible to do that in Florida (in theory?) People always say “well Florida is under sea level you doofuses” but loads of cities build stuff below sea level or just raise the ground outright.
- Scarblac 5y ago
  What I have heard is that the Netherlands uses levees on clay, but in Florida the ground is porous so the water would just go under them.
- hedora 5y ago
  It's not possible, even in theory. Flordia soil is sand, which is permeable. The Netherlands soil is clay, which is water tight. They already have problems where sea water infiltrates some neighborhoods. It basically creates salt water springs.
- slavik81 5y ago
  My understanding is that the water will come up through the ground once Florida is below sea level. The geology will make it very difficult to prevent water from encroaching. > The Floridian peninsula is a porous plateau of karst limestone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Florida https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Florida

osigurdson 5y ago

While it may cause a lot of economic damage, I don't think the location of the coasts will change dramatically. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_09.pdf https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/ipcc_far_wg_...