Rising sea level, should we act or not?

Disheartening maps show how sea-level rise would affect different aspects of New York City
CityLab, Tanvi Misra
Jun 5, 2016 | 9:49 AM ET
Disheartening maps show how sea-level rise would affect different aspects of New York City - Business Insider
http://www.citylab.com/weather/2016...-will-affect-nyc-mapped-new-york-city/485123/

Snip
"Low-lying, coastal cities are in hot water. As temperatures keep rising, so do sea levels, and that means that big chunks of major U.S. cities will be submerged in the centuries to come."

While we all argue about how climate change is being caused, are we missing what really matters? Maybe instead of arguing if it's more human caused or just cyclical we need to focus on what rising temperatures mean.

No matter your opinion about man-made climate change, do you think rising seal level is a concern we should worry about now?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

What's your opinion?

 

The only way to protect NYC would be to build seawalls and harbor gates. That was be massively expensive and release tons extra CO2 into the atmosphere just to do it. In addition, studies suggest that it would destroy the coastal ecosystems. So my question to you is which in the more environmentally responsible choice--protect NYC at great costs or not protect NYC at great costs?

 

[MENTION=67062]Deckel[/MENTION] and [MENTION=61697]Small Town Guy[/MENTION]

I don't know to be honest. I mean I think we need to change how we use resources to at least try to reduce our carbon footprint. Coastlines are always changing though. I guess that's why I live in a nice landlocked state haha! In all seriousness though, let's say sea level does indeed rise by that much by 2099, some of us know people who will live then. It isn't that far into the future. I was surprised at some of what was rebuilt in New Orleans after Katrina. Perhaps some things should be rebuilt further inland in situations like that. Although we still need places like that for ports so I realize not everything can be moved. We want tornado and hurricane warnings to seek safety, and with this we're getting decades of time but not really planning or strategizing. If we do nothing I guess the earth will naturally handle the demolition for us. I remember watching something video talked about New Jersey after Super Storm Sandy. The areas that faired the best had well establish and undisturbed dunes with vegetation. Those dunes are a natural barrier for storms but in most coastal towns they build almost right to the water. Perhaps all we can do is stop new construction from going too close to the water and ensure the natural dunes are preserved.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Okay. What are you personally doing that reduces your carbon foot print in an elective fashion? None of this "I recycle" if you live in an area that fines you if you do not. See the thing is I do not believe that man has anything significant to do with the warming climate. We are still moving out of the little ice age on the climate scale. That said, I would be willing to bet that I have a much smaller carbon footprint than most of the people I know who believe that man is causing global warming and something needs to be done about it. I do believe that pollution is bad so I try to make an effort to reduce that some; but I am also a cheapskate and that alone lowers my carbon footprint. Most of the stuff in my house is inherited/used/salvaged & re-purposed. I joke that even my dog and cat were used when I got them. My house was neglected with good bones so I got it very cheap after the recession and have energy-efficiency'ed as much as I possibly can. Almost every light is an LED. The AC/heat I had put in have high SEER's. My appliances are all energy efficient except for my dishwasher that was the original to the house 30+ years ago and still works like a champ. I have a clothes line I use instead of a dryer when weather allows. Most of the landscaping that did not come with the house is salvaged/pass-along/propagated by me. I grew significantly more food than we need mostly from harvest seeds/propagated plants. I compost like mad. If it can't be composted, it probably gets recycled in my house even though we are not legally obligated to recycle. I harvest water for irrigation. I purposefully bought a house that puts me at work or in walking distance of any place I need to be routinely if necessary. On an average week, I put less than 100 miles on my car. The last time I had my oil changed in it, it wasn't until the sensor told me to and it was almost 8 months past the "next oil change" date they stuck on my windshield the time before that. I set aside areas on my property for wildlife including one ugly brush hedge row the neighbor despises but wildlife loves. Many of my garden tools are rechargeable electrics or manual.

I do lots of green things, but it isn't because I believe the A and AGW is true. So I would really like to know what those who do believe in the A actually do.

 

I do several of the things you mentioned. I also take the train whenever possible or carpool. My commute sucks and that is a bummer, I did buy a hybrid to at least get better mileage. It's not uncommon that I get 60+mpg on my way to work. The down side is the resources used to make the battery used in a Prius. I'm not naive to the fact that strip mining is how my car got its battery. To offset this at least a little I bought it used and will literally drive it to death. I don't have children which is very green. I do not upgrade my phone. I have an iPhone from 4 years ago that I got from a previous employer. They upgrade constantly so they let me keep it when I left. I use it as an iPod because my actual phone is a 10 year old flip phone. Again, the mining needed to produce these fancy phones is not good. I use a reusable feminine hygiene product for menstruation to avoid packaging and waste. Most of what I focus my efforts on is product life cycle. Can I buy it in bulk to avoid packaging? Can I buy it used? Can I buy it locally to avoid transportation resources?

Of all these little things though, my biggest is diet. I have gone to about a 90% vegetarian diet. I'm not opposed to meat, it's delicious in fact, but animal agriculture is more impactful to the planet than all of transportation combined and we eat far too much of it.

It's not just how we use resources and what we pump into the air. While we add carbon dioxide, we are removing things that store carbon. Deforestation is still a global crisis. Every tree we (as a species) cut down releases carbon and no longer can store it obviously. We continue to develop every square inch of land possible and as we stir up that dirt we are releasing carbon and replacing it with something that won't store carbon. So you have one end where we are releasing carbon and removing carbon storage, and you have another end where we are pumping carbon out. Eventually both of those lines will cross at a level that is no longer suitable for human life. Maybe that's in 50 years or maybe that's in 500 years.

To be honest though I do what I can because I love nature. I want to have some of it when I'm 40 and 50 and 60. I want to be able to see rolling hills, bird migrations, prairie dogs, clouds and the horizon. If humans disappear oh well. Things come and go and if it's our time it's our time. I just don't want to se us take everything else out with us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

What course of action is more "humanitarianly" responsible choice. The great increases in the standard of living of the human race have resulted from changing the environment. Why would anyone argue that actions in support of human life would not be the top priority ?? The course of action should be to monitor and react/adapt. Similarly to what has been done on the LA coast where a 26 foot high concrete storm surge barrier has been constructed after the damage caused by Katrina, a category 3 hurricane.

 

Gonna go up, gonna go down. Stupid not to plan for it.

 

More computer models based on false data and more scary predictions by warmers. Different day same ole (*)(*)(*)(*)

 

A little TMI in the feminine hygiene area. LOL

 

I don't know whether sea levels are rising or not, but I know that neither government, nor the people who usually bleat about such things, are acting like it.

The government should stop subsidizing coastal beachfront properties. The feds should never have been doing this in the first place since it's a subsidy to the rich, but if you think sea levels are going to rise, why subsidize development right on the coast? There should probably be a fund set up to start buying up beachfront property and take it out of development. Why does Barbra Streisand, who cares so much about global warming, but lives right on Malibu Beach? Every house there and on the coasts needs to be flattened.

 

So, just as a matter of curiosity, what evidence might change your opinion on the existence of global warming? Let's take it as a given that scientists are advancing some sort of agenda, etc, etc. Even bad guys can be right. What would have to happen for you to see warming as a long term trend, and not a short term variation?

 

Well, warming is normal since it has been warming since the end of the last cool period which warmed before that, etc. Long term or short term, it will warm or cool.

 

For starters I would like to see real data that hasn't been fudged, manipulated and massaged by the warmer mongers. Then we could move on to having opposing theories on what the data means instead of having it deleted, thrown in the garbage etc. Then we could have real historical content instead of charts and graphs that purposely mislead. Finally I'd like to see an honest respectful dialog between those that push the agw hypothesis and those that are skeptics without the skeptics being ignored and labeled flat earthers or shills of fossil fuel companies or greedy capitalist etc. As of now I see wild eyed hysteria on the agw side of the ledger with no room for questions by skeptics and that is not science it is religion. Hope I have answered your question

 

For sea level rise, the longest record are tide gauges. Tide gauges are what are used for coastal planning since they are regional. Some tide gauges show rising seas and some show receding seas (like in Norway where the land is still rebounding from the last glaciation). No tide gauge shows any acceleration or change in rate. The claim about acceleration only comes from tacking on the satellite data to the tide gauges (like Mann's hockey stick where he tacked on recorded temperatures to his tree ring circus that eliminated the MWP and LIA) and leaves out showing that there is no acceleration in any tide gauge. That is one of the indications of 'fiddling' with the data to appeal to the useful idiots.

 

There is no humanitarian choice. One protects NYC at the expense of a worsening environment and the expenditure of vast amounts of treasure and the other is the loss of a city.

 

Of course there is. NYC is protected which means that the citizens of NYC are protected. Human history is the story of changing the environment to make life easier by using energy resources and capital investment to do so. Sea walls are constructed to protect New Orleans, New York City if required, and the north shore of the Netherlands extended by a system of dykes and pumps to permit more farming lands with which to feed the Dutch citizens. The benevolent environment is a myth. Watch any episode of "Naked and Afraid" to see how easily human butts are kicked by mother nature.

 

Actually I was testing you. The humanitarian choice is the opposite of the one you selected. There is nothing humanitarian about worsening ecological damage; there is nothing humanitarian about leaving people vulnerable to the oceans; and there is nothing humanitarian about spending $50B that could be used for something more worthwhile like feeding the poor or finding a cure for jock itch or something.

 

Your test failed. There is nothing humanitarian over placing the importance of the environment over the well being of human beings. Leaving people unable to effectively control/adapt/respond to local adverse environmental conditions due to global alarmism policies such as limiting fossil fuel power availability is the true unhumanitarian choice. Energy feeds the poor and energy defends the poor from mother nature.

 

Why don't you look at this neat chart from the NRDC and explain what happened in previous Inter-Glacial Periods?



Do you think there were rising sea levels?

 

It is absolutely precious the way you think human beings are not part of the environment.

 

How do you arrive at that conclusion ?? Humans are capable of changing the environment to survive and raise their standards of living in just about every place on the globe. For example the Dutch have been changing their local environment since the 16th century by reclaiming arable land from the North Sea. And most of that progress has occurred after fossil fuel energy sources were implemented resulting in inexpensive, available, and concentrated raw materials to provide the energy necessary to change their environment. To argue that it is better to leave the sea shore where it has always been (which is in itself untrue) is to argue against human progress and well being. There is nothing "precious" about that.

 

If the technology already exists and has existed since the 16th century then humans do not progress any by using it today to save a city that should not be saved. I assume, however, you know that the Dutch will lose that land they have reclaimed the second the windmills stop turning the pumps to constantly extract the water from that "reclaimed" land....and you can buy a house in other parts of the country for what a few years of rent in Midtown will run you so it makes no economic sense for the people not to move.

 

Modern technology did not exist in the 16th century.

 

Walls existed in the 16th Century. Building yet another one is not progress. Seawalls go at least as far back as the Eastern Roman Empire. I am sure we build them better now. Just ask Japan how well theirs work.

[video=youtube;75vAlPHuOIo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75vAlPHuOIo[/video]