[HN Gopher] 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report
___________________________________________________________________
2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report
Author : bryanrasmussen
Score : 108 points
Date : 2022-02-17 20:08 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (oceanservice.noaa.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (oceanservice.noaa.gov)
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| >About 2 feet (0.6 meters) of sea level rise along the U.S.
| coastline is increasingly likely between 2020 and 2100 because of
| emissions to date.
|
| Carbon capture and sequestration is an absolute must investment.
| That's massive damage and human suffering on the way if we don't
| remove the emissions that have already happened.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| >Carbon capture and sequestration is an absolute must
| investment. That's massive damage and human suffering on the
| way if we don't remove the emissions that have already
| happened.
|
| As long as it is cheaper to prevent emissions, we should do
| that instead of capture and sequestration. If you stop emitting
| CO2, the atmospheric levels take care of themselves. That is to
| say, we went to zero emissions tomorrow, they would go down
| quickly- faster than they went up.
|
| For this reason, we should only capture carbon if it is cheaper
| than prevention, or prevention is maxed out.
| kingsloi wrote:
| has there been any reports on how global sea level rise will
| effect (if any) the Great Lakes, like Lake Michigan?
| bagels wrote:
| How would it raise Lake Michigan? Different precipitation
| patterns or changes in consumption due to climate change maybe,
| but how could a foot of sea level change lake Michigan's level?
| kingsloi wrote:
| silly question I know. I know they're indepenent, and higher
| than sea-level, but just wondered, more precipitation, snow
| melt, etc.
|
| Should've googled it before I asked
|
| > The Great Lakes are land-locked bodies of water that drain
| via the St. Lawrence River into the Atlantic Ocean. Lake
| Ontario, the lowest of the Great Lakes, sits 246 feet above
| sea level. It (and the other four Great Lakes at elevations
| of 571 feet for Lake Erie, 577 feet for Lakes Michigan/Huron
| and 600 feet for Lake Superior) will not be affected by
| rising oceans, whose rise will be only about one foot by the
| year 2100. Oceans have been rising at an average rate of 0.14
| inches per year in recent years, but the rise is expected to
| increase slightly in coming years. The levels of the Great
| Lakes fluctuate a few feet in cycles that are independent of
| ocean levels.
|
| https://wgntv.com/weather/weather-blog/will-rising-ocean-
| lev...
| jnmandal wrote:
| Its not as silly as you might think. Levels in Lake Huron-
| Michigan recently reached an all time high (I believe last
| year). Some towns in Indiana were expecting to be
| completely wiped out. Of course, this is not due to melting
| glaciers but due to changing weather patterns.
|
| For a region like ours though, its a similar problem. Water
| levels here also could move a lot faster than sea levels,
| however its not as steady or certain of a rise. Ultimately
| there is also already a geoengineering megaproject which
| has been built and is capable of flushing the lake into the
| Gulf of Mexico: the Chicago "river" (more of a canal at
| this point as its flow has been reversed).
| jliptzin wrote:
| I don't know how anyone could buy a property on the coast these
| days, I know it's some of the most expensive real estate but you
| could be looking at a total, 100% loss on that not too far into
| the future, definitely in our lifetimes. When it gets to the
| point where everyone starts to see that coastal areas are
| sinking, real estate values will plummet and you won't be able to
| sell even well before sea level rise makes the home
| uninhabitable. Unless of course the trend magically stalls or
| reverses.
| asoneth wrote:
| First, even if you lose the house you can recoup some of its
| value through flood insurance. Since 1968 in the US you can get
| flood insurance via the National Flood Insurance Program in
| many at-risk areas. Given that the program has operated at an
| ever-increasing loss since 2004 one could reasonably claim that
| taxpayers are subsidizing risky coastal building at an ever-
| increasing rate.
|
| Second, even if you believe that the property will be a total
| loss at some point in the future, it will still provide some
| value as you use it until that point.
|
| Third, it is entirely possible that the net costs above have
| already been (at least somewhat) factored in to the price, and
| that as high as the prices seem to you, they would be
| substantially more expensive if climate change was not a
| factor.
| alexk307 wrote:
| So you're saying it's worth it if you don't think about the
| financial solvency of the US subsidized flood insurance while
| you look away from the problem until your front porch is
| underwater. Enjoy your vacation!
| ur-whale wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsTKAqHwj0s
| sbierwagen wrote:
| There will also be unfortunate death spiral effects. Elevating
| sewer lines, rebuilding roads and drilling new wells as the old
| ones are infiltrated by seawater will cost money, leading to
| increased taxes. High taxes will force out marginal residents.
| As the tax base shrinks, per capita taxation will go up,
| pushing out more people...
|
| Your house could be a mile inland and fifty feet above
| sealevel, but you could still have to abandon your home as a
| direct result of sealevel rise.
|
| The minute any coastal community stops grows, they're screwed.
| Manhanttan and DC will (probably) be fine, but if you're living
| in Nowheresville, South Carolina, then you had better sell your
| house now, while you still can.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| This seems like hysteria.
|
| There are plenty of places in South Carolina - even close to
| the coast - that will be fine with a foot of sea level rise.
| It's not like everything is effected evenly.
|
| Some places will be devastated - others will be fine.
|
| Also - it's not like you need to get out now. This is going
| to happen slowly over 30 years. A lot of people who own will
| be dead before it gets noticeably worse.
|
| People have known this was a thing for a long time, and if it
| has affected property values at all - it's been minimal. It's
| not like there's going to be a flip of a switch and every
| coastal property in South Carolina - poof - becomes
| worthless.
|
| You might have a Katrina event that tanks property values by
| ~50% in highly effected areas. But for the most part - prices
| will just decline slightly. Or, with the state of interest
| rates - maybe just not accelerate as fast as other places.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Since these are going to be rich people, the rest of us are
| going to cover their losses through our taxes.
|
| We already technically do, individuals make decisions that we
| know - today - that are wrong decisions, but we subsidize those
| decisions.
|
| E.g. Suburbs that are going bankrupt, but legally can't go
| bankrupt. Heavy development in flood plains, etc.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| > you could be looking at a total, 100% loss
|
| could you please refer to the line in the document that says
| that?
| mhh__ wrote:
| Unless you have gills you might be in a spot of bother if
| your house was underwater / constantly flooding.
| jliptzin wrote:
| Is the report supposed to get into speculation on real estate
| values?
| jnmandal wrote:
| You can't be seriously contesting that statement...
| acover wrote:
| From what I've read the dramatic drop your discussing is priced
| in at about a 7% discount. You can easily see why a 100% loss
| is unlikely - a fifty year leasehold sells for about 50% of a
| freehold.
| mhh__ wrote:
| If a house is going to be sold to a rich idiot who should know
| it won't last, then I'm mostly in favour of letter them be
| stupid.
|
| If it was a home for average people then it would be bad, but I
| don't think risk-taking like that (for the rich) leading to a
| transfer of money from the stupid to the not-stupid is such a
| bad thing.
| jcfrei wrote:
| It's politically tough to do but you really need to ensure that
| federal subsidies for flood insurance in coastal areas are
| gradually reduced to zero. Some people will fight this tooth
| and nail while denying the effects of climate change. But it's
| a worthwhile fight.
| Gravityloss wrote:
| It's very hard to predict what will happen to sea level in the
| next 30 years. Marine ice sheet instability is the crux of the
| issue.
|
| Here's a simulation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLdaAKIkpKA
|
| Once the melting point moves beyond a "gate" where the ground
| starts going downwards, then water will just go in there and the
| melt will accelerate tremendously. We don't know if it's a decade
| or a century, as it's not been witnessed in history.
| anonporridge wrote:
| 10-12 inches of US coastal sea level rise in the next 30 years is
| a pretty startling predicted acceleration if true.
| missedthecue wrote:
| If this is true why will any bank give me a 40 year mortgage on
| beachfront property today?
| jamiek88 wrote:
| 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__ wrote:
| Who cares about tomorrow when the bonus pays out today
| dylan604 wrote:
| 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.
| missedthecue wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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!
| cobookman wrote:
| That's not the case in NON recourse states, such-as
| California. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-
| library/article/what-is-a-rec...
| wnevets wrote:
| which banks give out 40 year mortgages?
| nopeYouAreWrong wrote:
| all of them
| wnevets wrote:
| It's not an option from mine. A 40 year mortgage sounds
| so much better than a 30.
| sbierwagen wrote:
| "As long as the music is playing, you've got to get up and
| dance."
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Prince#Credit_crisis
|
| Publicly traded banks have an obligation to their
| shareholders to make money. Nobody wants to be the first to
| abandon a profit center. A classic multipolar coordination
| trap that, theoretically, governments are here to fix.
| missedthecue wrote:
| Why will my credit union do this? Why will state run banks
| in other countries do it?
| jliptzin wrote:
| Because they package up your loan with a bunch of others and
| sell it to another company within a year, no sweat off their
| back. What does flood insurance cost?
| missedthecue wrote:
| Flood insurance is immaterial to the arguments here
| considered. You buy it year by year, not in 40 year
| contracts. They will stop selling to you once your house is
| about to go underwater. Who would insure a house at the
| bottom of the ocean?
| BobbyJo wrote:
| If your expected return from an insurance isn't negative,
| don't expect it to exist next year.
| missedthecue wrote:
| If an insurance company is guaranteed to have an $800,000
| claim filed on their policy within the next 12 months
| because your house is already flooded, they won't sell
| you the policy.
| m0llusk wrote:
| The increasing number and intensity of disasters is causing
| many types of insurance, particularly flood and fire, to
| become scarcely available. We are beyond basic cost
| accounting at this point.
| drclau wrote:
| Because greed.
| missedthecue wrote:
| I don't buy this. There are plenty of things a bank will
| not lend you money for. I can't get a 2 million mortgage
| for instance. I can't get a mortgage to buy undeveloped
| land. I can't get a loan to start a business. I can't get a
| loan to buy a business. Why is this very specific
| circumstance one where all risk parameters fly out the
| window? Why aren't they recklessly greedy in the other
| situations I list?
| TigeriusKirk wrote:
| I feel like you've asked a good question. I don't doubt
| the conclusions of the report, and I don't think the
| banks do either.
|
| Why, then, would they make what the facts indicate are
| bad loans?
|
| Greed is a partial answer, sure. This is hardly the only
| place where corporations trade risk in the distant future
| for revenue today.
|
| But my instinct is that the greater part of it is
| inertia. They make the loans because they've always made
| the loans and it will take a good deal of energy to
| change that.
|
| My guess is that it's an area where change will come as a
| short, very sharp shock. One year all the banks will make
| these loans and the next year none of them will.
| reincarnate0x14 wrote:
| Because the money train is still running ... until it stops.
| As with most systemic problems the vested interests in the
| status quo will prop something up as long as possible,
| ignoring the underlying failures until all at once a domino
| effect kicks off and years of collapse appear to hit all at
| once.
|
| I'd imagine it'll be around insurance underwriting for the
| structures and the financial instruments attached to them.
| colechristensen wrote:
| By the time your home will be worthless you'll at least have
| paid back the principal. Add in the uncertainty of so many
| too big to fail bailouts of bad mortgages probably happening
| and large scale engineering projects to save homes probably
| happening and you've still got a decent bet by the bank.
| lkxijlewlf wrote:
| Why wouldn't they? You still owe the money even after your
| house washes away into the ocean.
| mathieubordere wrote:
| "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 wrote:
| It should be. I'm worried that these predictions are actually
| too conservative.
| dbingham wrote:
| 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.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| In my experience with government publications, yes, any
| publication of this sort will tend to be on the
| conservative side.
| mhh__ wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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__ wrote:
| 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.
| kahrl wrote:
| You can scream and scream and scream these facts at people for
| half a century, and they'll still be "startled."
| belter wrote:
| Don't look up...
|
| https://www.netflix.com/nl-en/title/81252357
| belter wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory
| [deleted]
| agumonkey wrote:
| There's an undescribable absurdism of this era. People have
| data, history, sociology, models, medias. You make
| conferences, reports, warnings, yet the sad prophecy still
| lands just as remembered.
|
| It's like Hofstadter's law applied to catastrophe.
| lukifer wrote:
| I'm always reminded of Kubrick's comments on the risk of
| nuclear weapons:
|
| "People react primarily to direct experience and not to
| abstractions; it is very rare to find anyone who can become
| emotionally involved with an abstraction. The longer the
| bomb is around without anything happening, the better the
| job that people do in psychologically denying its
| existence. It has become as abstract as the fact that we
| are all going to die someday, which we usually do an
| excellent job of denying." [0]
|
| That last bit invokes some of the research behind Terror
| Management Theory: first and foremost, we are wired to
| avoid risks to our survival. But that drive is mediated by
| subjective qualia: avoiding mortal fear. The best way to do
| that is to prevent circumstances of immediate danger: don't
| poke the bear, don't play near the edge of a cliff. But
| when it comes to dangers of limited individual agency
| (systemic risk, black swans), it makes complete sense that
| evolution would select for "try not to think about it".
|
| [0] https://www.themarginalian.org/2013/11/27/jeremy-
| bernstein-s...
| agumonkey wrote:
| Maybe the scope limit of our deep brains is only a
| "thing" in large groups. Being short sighted is nothing
| if you're alone, you trip, you choke, you get whacked by
| a rock. In a semi organized society, the sudden too-late-
| bound reflex triggers an avalanche of failure.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| And people like Leonardo DiCaprio fly their private jet to
| a conference, to tell Johnny average not to drive his car
| to work but instead use a bike. The same issues are
| apearing in many other future catastrophies, where a few
| big actors cause most of the damage, and the governments
| want to "do something", and then ban straws and make fuel a
| bit more expensive for average people, while not touching
| the main polluters.
| Melatonic wrote:
| I thought Leo was mostly calling out huge companies and
| industry for polluting? They are after all the majority
| of polluters by far compared to any individuals - rich or
| poor.
|
| Then again just by living in most western societies on an
| individual level, even if we do try our best, we are
| essentially guaranteed to have a massively higher
| footprint than someone living in most third world
| countries.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| I was talking in general, rich people polluting a lot,
| telling poor people, not to do things, that they do every
| day.
|
| Even "the terminator" has a "climate initiative" -
| https://www.schwarzeneggerclimateinitiative.com/
|
| Of course people forget he brough hummers to
| civilians,... And being a rich guy, caring for the
| environment, he could be driving a tesla (or something
| smaller, to use even less energy), but nope... he drives
| a monostrosity of a SUV (GMC Yukon - https://www.dailymai
| l.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-10440521/Arnol... )
| throwawaymanbot wrote:
| Vadoff wrote:
| It's not like people don't know, it's more like there's not
| much we can do about it (other than voting).
|
| It's up to governments to come up with and enforce laws
| that prevent corporations from releasing millions of metric
| tons of greenhouse gasses. Without strict laws in place,
| there's too little incentive from being moral or being
| long-term oriented, also your competition who don't will
| run you out of business with the extra profits.
|
| There's also very few consumers willing to
| investigate/research the pollution generated from all
| companies related to making/delivering the products they
| buy. So being "greener" isn't really much of an advantage.
| agumonkey wrote:
| Nah, Covid showed that even with epidemic projections
| people would still under react at first, causing the
| exponential rise, then over reacting too late.
|
| Our data don't take mob psychology enough in account, the
| curve is not really a quantitative map it's a psychology
| fractal. It means 'even with this curve in front of you,
| you will still follow the pattern causing it to happen'
| ur-whale wrote:
| > There's an undescribable absurdism of this era.
|
| One observation I've made time and again throughout my
| life: a large chunk people live their life using a very
| simple, greedy algorithm (not as in greed, but greedy in
| the sense algo theory): deal with problems when they
| appear, and don't think about them until they do.
|
| This is why people build houses in the path of lava
| erupting from a volcano: it's never an issue until it
| becomes one.
|
| The smaller portion of folks who do plan ahead (because
| they are capable of it) and anticipate problems before they
| occur is the portion that gets ahead.
|
| I don't think this is something that is specific to this
| era.
| agumonkey wrote:
| Sure, it's happened since the dawn of humanity. What is
| different is that we have tools and structures that are
| leagues ahead of any previous era. Stats, math,
| communication, everything is up to 11, and yet it doesn't
| affect much of the social response.
| jmnicolas wrote:
| We're just bombarded with fear every day, even more so since
| COVID. More often than not it's BS (example in the 70's they
| feared that we would freeze to death by year 2000).
|
| At one point the brain (at least mine) just lets go and tries
| to focus on something less draining.
|
| We (humans) are just slightly evolved monkeys. We can
| rationalize all we want, our decisions are taken based on
| emotions.
|
| We have built a much more complex world than we can really
| handle.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| Well we have only tried for about 40 years so far, maybe in
| 10 people will take it seriously?
| willis936 wrote:
| 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?dow
| nloa...
| jimbob45 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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.
| kahrl wrote:
| Source? Nuclear power is highly unpopular and hanging on
| by a thread in the United States. Our reactors are in
| disrepair and do not make a profit without subsidies.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Nuclear power is shrinking with no new plants being built
| and old ones being decommisioned. So spreading is
| definitely not the word I would have used either.
| LinuxBender wrote:
| Micro nuclear reactors are being built not far from me. I
| expect nuclear to grow substantially in the US at least
| in the midwest. My state is already green with many
| windmills, solar farms, hydro plants. The only thing they
| have not explored very far yet is geothermal and there is
| plenty of opportunities for that here too.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Nuclear power is unpopular but sometimes leaders need to
| lead by doing the unpopular thing, every now and again we
| get good ones.
|
| For all their flaws (and there are _many_ , don't trust a
| Tory) our government in the UK has done a good-ish job
| with environmental policy. Not great, but not like the
| early Trump admin going full retard over fossil fuels,
| science etc.
|
| We even did a carbon tax and it seems to work.
| Sharlin wrote:
| > Not great, but not like the early Trump admin going
| full retard over fossil fuels, science etc.
|
| It's really concerning if "good-ish" now means "being
| better than the Trump admin at least"
| this15testing wrote:
| the drop in emissions we need to not pass 1.5C of warming
| is not within the time frame of construction/operation of
| full nuclear power (for the entire world, not just the
| US).
|
| Electric cars exist to (temporarily?) save the auto
| industry. The decrease we get in purely tailpipe
| emissions does not offset the supporting infrastructure,
| their construction, and the sprawl that they demand.
|
| Even Exxon is not putting 1.5C targets (where even then a
| lot of _real people_ die) in their "sustainability"
| reports anymore. Everything needs to stop at 2030 at the
| latest, and I personally have no hope that that is
| possible.
| vkou wrote:
| > We're well on the way to making gas-powered vehicles
| obsolete
|
| One out of every 250 vehicles on the road is electric.
|
| > nuclear power widespread.
|
| We're not. What we're doing is burning natural gas for
| power generation widespread. We're _slightly_ eased up
| off the accelerator.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| Hitting the brakes, after the car went over the cliff.
|
| We broke the planet. About the only we can do is to try
| to mitigate the damage. However, I don't have a lot of
| hope for that.
|
| I'll be fine. My kids _might_ be fine. My grandchildren
| are screwed.
| Sharlin wrote:
| Not even hitting the brakes. We're over the cliff and
| people are still arguing over whether we should ease on
| the accelerator a bit and if so, how much.
| twofornone wrote:
| No one _knew_ about climate change in 1957. It was a
| theoretical possibility that required decades of
| research, development, and infrastructure to prove. You
| 're talking about literal terraforming - no one was sure
| that such a thing was actually possible. And even today
| we are still discovering novel mechanisms which obscure,
| regulate, or amplify temperature fluctuations. The case
| against 195X oil companies is overstated - though it
| makes for a convenient scapegoat.
| runnerup wrote:
| In response to: _> "No one knew about climate change in
| 1957."_
|
| Climate change due to industrial emissions of CO2 has
| been known and published in mainstream news articles
| since at least 110 years ago.[0][1]
|
| It's been known and discussed in public by professional
| scientists for over 140 years[2].
|
| The great inaugural Nobel Prize winner, Arrhenius, wrote
| a paper on the topic in 1896[3] which cited Fourier's
| publication from 1827[4].
|
| More generally, global greenhouse effect of CO2 has been
| known for at least 185 years[4], _a decade before the
| last founding father of the United States died._
|
| ----------
|
| 0: The Rodney and Otamatea Times (Aug 1912)
| https://www.livescience.com/63334-coal-affecting-climate-
| cen...
|
| 1: Popular Mechanics (Mar 1912): https://books.google.com
| /books?id=Tt4DAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA341&lpg=...
|
| 2: Nature (1882):
| https://www.nature.com/articles/027127c0
|
| 3: Journal of Science (Apr 1896)
| https://doi.org/10.1080/14786449608620846
|
| 4: M emoire sur les Temp eratures du Globe Terrestre et
| des Espaces Plan etaires, M emoires d l'Acad emie Royale
| des Sciences de l'Institute de France VII 570-604 (1827):
| https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/Fourier1827Trans
| .pd... (English Translation)
| twofornone wrote:
| [0] >the effect may be considerable in a few centuries
|
| [1] >and whether there any important ways in which it
| [CO2] is being removed from the atmosphere
|
| [2] Even more interesting, the doomsday predictions are
| more than a hundred years old as well:
|
| >THERE was a letter in NATURE some time since, calling
| attention to the pollution of the atmosphere by the
| burning of coal; and it was calculated that in the year
| 1900, all animal life would cease, from the amount of
| carbonic dioxide
|
| Hindsight is 20/20. Yes, now, after decades of study and
| billions of dollars in measurement and modeling
| infrastructure, this particular theory appears to be
| panning out. But to pretend that we knew with any
| certainty 100 or even 60 years ago that this was a likely
| outcome drastically oversimplifies the complex and
| chaotic global climate system. It is effectively
| revisionist history and even more importantly _the
| warming necessary to confirm such theories did not really
| take off until the last few decades_ , ignoring that 60
| years ago we did not have the spatial coverage to measure
| it with sufficient density and precision to verify a
| phenomenon on the scale of _global_ climate change.
|
| And on top of all that, we are measuring a chaotic,
| periodic, _oscillating_ system, and it is impractical to
| draw any conclusions about differences in future trends
| about without at an absolute minimum decades of quality
| sampling.
|
| So, again, people who claim that the petroleum industry
| knew about climate change and irresponsibly and continued
| to put the future of the planet in peril in the name of
| profits are dramatically underestimating the scope and
| scale of the theory and the degree of infrastructure and
| analysis necessary to prove it with any certainty.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| my own particular PDF copy of Big Oil research showing
| climate change from carbon burning, is dated in the
| 1970s. It is a clear research result at the time. They
| even predict a two percent rise in temps, around now..
| there is no question at all. I read it from time to time.
| willis936 wrote:
| What you're saying is directly contradictory to the 1957
| article authored by Humble Oil scientists. It's linked
| above.
|
| Also, your points are echoes of (wildly successful)
| fossil fuel disinformation campaigns.
|
| https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/resrep00046.7.pdf
| [deleted]
| jandrese wrote:
| 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.
| distrill wrote:
| 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.
| cryptoz wrote:
| "FWIW", the last president declared that climate change was
| a hoax invented by China to make the US weaker. I don't
| know about "official position of any political office" but
| "climate change is a hoax" (or similar) is a common
| position on one half of the US political divide.
| distrill wrote:
| Yes, that's an example of the obvious pandering that I
| left room for.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I'm still a big fan of making all elected officials wear
| NASCAR inspired suits with the patches of all of their
| corporate sponsors so we know who's actually talking when
| the elected person's mouth moves.
| mmmpop wrote:
| You can say his name, it's not like we're going to cause
| him to appear if we say his name 3 times.
| [deleted]
| mhh__ wrote:
| You do tend to get Downvoted when you say it.
|
| Depending on the thread I think it's either people
| annoyed that they're seeing his name at all, and people
| who don't like seeing their guy getting criticized, but
| either way the result is the same. HN does generally
| swing much righter than the rest of the internet, too.
| mmmpop wrote:
| Haha I got downvoted just for that, incredible the petty
| children on here.
| ska wrote:
| Perhaps the down votes were just because you called
| someone out for a perfectly fine phrasing? Referring to
| him differently wouldn't add any value.
| mmmpop wrote:
| >> most of what I hear is a question of how much is human
| caused/accelerated, rather than whether it's happening at
| all.
|
| I feel like that's last decade's news.
|
| Many people I hear now are just fed up of the hypocrites
| and would as soon watch it all melt/burn/explode rather
| than let smug folk like Kerry be the "Climate Czar" while
| tooling around the globe on his Airstream.
|
| Greta has a point when she starts raving about the climate
| change conferences where each of the attendees all flew in
| on their private jets. It's pretty shameful.
| [deleted]
| mikestew wrote:
| _but most of what I hear is a question of how much is human
| caused /accelerated_
|
| That's just another form of denialism. "Climate change is a
| hoax, I don't have to change my behavior." is little
| different from "Climate change is real, but I'm not
| convinced it human-caused, so I don't have to change my
| behavior."
| asoneth wrote:
| I suspect the next stage will be to admit that it's real
| and was caused by humans, but argue that it's too
| late/expensive to do anything about it. (And therefore I
| don't have to change my behavior.)
| jandrese wrote:
| https://www.americanprogress.org/article/climate-
| deniers-117...
|
| Climate Change denial is alive and well in the US. In some
| areas it is considered a political liability to acknowledge
| climate change.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| And everyone who doesn't live near a coastal city is going to
| pay for the relocation of everyone who continues to live
| there despite recurring flooding and a bleak future outlook.
| dylan604 wrote:
| Sounds like a perfect time to invest in coastal properties
| then /s
| lkxijlewlf wrote:
| It isn't that they're in denial. They know full well what is
| happening. It is just that they are selfish. They're going to
| get theirs while there is still something to get in the hopes
| that they'll be able to weather this disaster until they are
| no more.
| Tuna-Fish wrote:
| It's entirely possible to wall off the sea and pump river
| water over it to keep cities dry. The Dutch have been doing
| it for centuries. All that is required is quite a bit of
| money and political will.
|
| I don't see Miami ever being abandoned, even if they have to
| float it.
| zipswitch wrote:
| It's not just will and money that are needed. You need
| competence, actual ability, as well. Otherwise you're just
| playing at being King Canute while someones get rich.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| Anything south of Orlando is basically drained swamp. The
| bedrock is eroding due to over development (which causes
| the land to sink) and salt water has encroached on the
| fresh water aquifer. Miami spent half a billion $ a few
| years ago on a pump project that is already being
| overwhelmed.
|
| I would be stunned if Miami survives as anything but a
| billionaires island 20 years from now.
| cool_dude85 wrote:
| Miami is built on limestone. The water comes right out of
| the ground.
| ur-whale wrote:
| Aside from all the misery this will cause, it'll be
| interesting to see what happens to property rights once you
| coastal parcel gets submerged.
|
| Will you still own it?
|
| Will you be able to build some sort of platform above sea
| level with a house on it given that the submerged land was
| once yours?
|
| Will it eventually give rise to a "living on the sea"
| movement?
| _3u10 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Maybe Miami will be the new Venice :)
| throwawaymanbot wrote:
| brandnamehq wrote:
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Anyone know if there is a database for converting GPS elevation
| to local peak- or mean-high-tide elevation? I live in a coastal
| city and would be interested to know which areas are SOL...
| LesZedCB wrote:
| https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Neat link!
|
| Looked not nearly as bad as I would have thought, until I saw
| the disclaimer that it doesn't take erosion into
| consideration. Considering that the lagoons will become bays
| and that the soil is sandy here, I suspect erosion around
| them could be considerable.
| gumby wrote:
| I've given up on any hope of meaningful emissions reduction and
| have f switched my work to climate repair, specifically methane
| removal.
|
| It seems that we will have to bite the bullet and seriously work
| on repair, despite heavy opposition. And because of hysteresis,
| even when we get the climate back preindustrial levels, clean up
| the oceans, etc humans will have to continue to actively curate
| the climate, likely forever.
|
| And it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
| jnmandal wrote:
| What are you doing to facilitate methane removal?
| davzie wrote:
| Eating less beans.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| I was fortunate to receive an invite to a semi-private video
| conference call, of international commercial Port authorities,
| some professionals from shipping, and their close employees. I
| felt the discussion was frank for such a call between
| competitors, which is often quite guarded. Each nation and
| company must clear with their local chain of command, but, the
| economic value of the shipping is not lost on anyone.
|
| The take-away for me, and reinforced by some urban planning I
| know of, is that centers of commerce, and major urban centers,
| will deal with this in a timely manner. The further you are from
| that description, you may well have troubles.
|
| Also some academic specialty research has noted that the
| underground infrastructure of sewers, water pipes and
| electrical/communications, will be affected by small changes in
| mean water height. Salinization of fresh water sources will be
| affected. The roads and houses, in many cases, less than you
| might imagine at first.
|
| US Citizen here, California coastal dweller
| bostonsre wrote:
| Yea, I have a feeling well off communities will be ok as well.
| I live in one such community in the sf bay where residents
| already paid for and construction is well under way for a
| higher sea wall:
|
| https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2021/san-francisco-bay-...
| Melatonic wrote:
| At least California is getting a lot less than the other coast
| - I was worried it would be the entire country fairly
| equally.....
|
| There is an artist out there making maps of what major cities
| will look like after coastal flooding - the one of Los Angeles
| is particularly interesting. Lot of new islands pop up
| smm11 wrote:
| Nobody who can do "anything" about this cares. They'll be gone.
|
| The only amazing thing here is that those people continue to get
| elected.
| Jedd wrote:
| Barely related, I'm about a quarter the way through Neal
| Stephenson's latest book [0], which beautifully / distressingly
| describes a relatively near future where this has already
| happened.
|
| Also, while I appreciate this is a publication with an intended
| readership of US citizens:
|
| "Sea level along the U.S. coastline is projected to rise ..."
|
| Presumably this means sea level along _everyone 's_ coastline is
| projected to rise this amount.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_Shock_(novel)
| [deleted]
| svnpenn wrote:
| > this has already happened.
|
| Where what has already happened?
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| based on context, "what" is sea level rise.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-17 23:01 UTC)