Rising seas will cut off many properties before they’re flooded(arstechnica.com) |
Rising seas will cut off many properties before they’re flooded(arstechnica.com) |
https://www.wsj.com/articles/al-gores-climate-sequel-misses-...
^1: AR6 report: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/
AR4 report (2018) has more info about sea level rise specifically: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wg2-chap...
This is an important bit: https://i.imgur.com/inEZ1Lp.png
This is a climate change denial talking point that holds no weight in terms of actual scientific literature, climate modelling, and historical climate record proxies. Very few natural events can reverse the temperature trajectory of the next hundred years, other than large volcanic eruptions.
We know very well, that the Sun goes through cycles, that it changes its level of radiation; and that even the most cursory glance at the stats of different planets, which are at different distances from the Sun, show the effects of solar radiation.
> The results make it clear that isolation will be a significant problem for the US. Even under the lowest sea level rise scenario (0.5 meters by 2100),
Pretty sure we can deal with 1.5 feet of water, it seems somehow surmountable, like maybe add 2 feet of gravel and pave it again?
This is an extremely simplistic view of sea level rise. Even a small amount of sea level rise can cause a ton of coastline erosion, because the water is now frequently flooding into areas not already weathered. It's not compatible with our infrastructure, unless we spent a lot to renovate it.
It can't cause a lot of coastline erosion because it's only 1.5 feet, and we have 100 years to prepare for the gargantuan task of adding some sandbags around a few low lying roads.
No thanks
I say if the finance bros want their skyscrapers to remain above water they need to hire construction workers rather than make consumer goods in the developing world more expensive through regulation.
Massive amounts of resources are being wasted on bad climate ideas now. Poor people have bigger problems. That certain patches of land might be squishier in 100 years isn't in their top 10.
Is there anywhere someone can bet on this?
Infrastructure is one of the most expensive things people interact with on a regular basis. Choices in how we build infrastructure redirects society's resources on a massive scale. So yes, I do think it's plausible that huge investments in water-resistant infrastructure and wasteful attempts to build Dubai-style island suburbs will redirect resources away from more important issues, like the pressing need in the US to fix existing bridges and roads, build 1.5 million more houses, earthquake-proof the infrastructure in the pacific northwest, and figure out how to get 4800 GW more on the electrical grid cleanly.
But back to the story at hand: a few motivated people can shore up Old Town Road. All they need is an economic reason to do it.
But before prescribing solutions for the general case (the general idea of houses being cut off from the main land), assume that you will face the worst case scenario of complexity and tons of sub-problems -- for example, I'm sure some of the cases examined by this research will also have the problem of underground gas lines, plumbing, electrical, communications services -- and maybe a road that has been damaged beyond trivial repair. It's best to treat those scenarios as losses, especially if additional erosion is predicted in the next 20 or so years and the fix requires much more expensive engineering. Otherwise we will get trapped into a pattern that wastes the best resources of the entire system, for the sake of a few homeowners.
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names.
