They said the same crap about Greenland and Australia. Then some folks figured it out anyway. Obviously living on Mars right now would suck and prolly not last long. But also we cant run the world on solar either. But thats not stopping us from deciding to anyway. 'The technology will catch up.' Its true, but not just for renewables. Its true for everything.
I think we could create a science station on Mars where occupants have limited residency and are rotated back to Earth. We do that on Antarctica. But, we can't propose the Arctic or Antarctica as a place for a major population - let alone Mars.
Well, your idea of melting the poles with climate change would raise the ocean level by more than 200 feet. Think up names of coastal cities and consider what a 200 foot sea rise would mean. Remember that the average height of FL is 6'. Washington, DC is about 40'(!!) Philadelphia is 40'. NYC - toast. Paris is at 100'. London is 36'. But, to get a better view of people movement, check out cities in South Asia, the Mediterranean, Tokyo, China, India, Bangladesh, etc. Your idea of the melting poles would take a considerable time, but I think there are reasons to doubt this as a great idea!!
Sure, but the topic of the thread was scientific method. I was essentially agreeing with you, I was just framing it more in the context of the OP question.
A meter of sea level rise per century is the realistic projection at current warming rates. Sounds like a lot of fear of change to me. No one alive today will even be effected by it. Cities are just people and people can move. We can call the new cities New New York, New Paris and New DC if that makes you feel better.
I don't see a cite that claims there is a constant rate of rise over time. I see projections for the end of the century and for mid next century. However there are significant caveats. One comes from estimating what will be accomplished in slowing Earth's temperature rise. This has to include a political assessment. Plus, the glacier activity in Antarctica is specifically pointed out as a risk that could have significant affect. Yes, I started this with the issue of people movement. Humans do not like people movement. We are not unique in that. Our DoD considers climate change as a national security threat for this reason. I don't accept your downplay of this issue of people movement.
People movement happens anyway. Right now we're being hit with refugees fleeing the disaster of covid lockdowns. No climate change needed. Politics are always going to be an issue. Thats not really a reason for making large scale policy.
Almost NOBODY is moving or has moved due to COVID. America does NOT want people crossing our borders. No other country does, either. India has a major wall against Bangladesh, for example. Indian forces are working under a shoot-on-sight directive.
Well thats what nearly every asylum seeker headed to the US through central America says thats what they're fleeing- covid lockdowns killed their economies. I guess they might be lieing, but what do you think is causing the immigration surge instead?
There are all sorts of seriously bad governments and drug operations south of our border - south of Mexico. One would have to do a more serious analysis of this. Maybe someone did, and shows what you are suggesting, but I don't know of a country down there that did a particularly good job of government lockdowns for COVID.
Its not just countries in central and south America. Refugees from all over the world, like China, for example (Darien Gap, Panama being one of the premier crossroads), are flocking to Central America because thats where they know they can get in to the US from. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/worl...nized-crime-and-migrant-smugglers/ar-AA1c2VHV https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/17/politics/darien-gap-migrants-panama-what-matters/index.html
I was responding to the comment about government lockdowns due to COVID. But yes, immigration here does have a lot to do with refugees. This connects to comments about more northerly agriculture being benefitted by a warming Earth. That involves people movement toward those places, as their own places become inundated or difficult for agriculture.
You said you based your doubt on SA countries not locking down enough for covid. But its not just SAns coming. The immigration is global. Surely we can agree the lockdowns were pretty bad in China... well, now we have people from China (as example) using SAn cartel human smugglers to get them into the US illegally. https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/17/politics/darien-gap-migrants-panama-what-matters/index.html
If they just reduced pumping of groundwater in most endangered coastal regions it would buy a lot of time. Subsidence is as responsible or more responsible for relative sea level rise than melting ice/warming water in many of the most talked about coastal areas.
That water is going to people's homes and to agricultural businesses. In the gulf region, subsidence is also from oil production. Stopping pumping oil and water will have an effect over time, but not immediately as subsidence will continue due to past pumping - that is, the effect isn't immediate. At NOLA, another issue is that the Mississippi delta continues to compact (as do other deltas).
How long do you reckon it will take to stop absolute sea level rise by reducing global carbon emissions? Be specific. Japan has decreased subsidence rates by a factor of 24 in 30 years just by reducing pumping. Other coastal areas are seeing rapid results from injection of wastewater back into sandy aquifers. It’s just like floating a toy boat in a bathtub. Add more water or drain less water and the boat rises or decreases the rate of fall. The best part of addressing subsidence is you don’t have to convince China and India to stop emissions to make a difference. Local areas have complete control. But you’re right. It’s too hard. We should keep trying to stop sea level rise by hoping China and India etc. will save our coastal cities.
It makes more sense to use all methods. The gulf subsidence isn't easy to slow even in the long term, because we can't just demand companies to stop oil extraction and the population does need water. Plus, let's remember that China is STRONGLY moving away from gas cars and is the world leader in clean energy - in patents, manufacturing, exports and in installation. Also, let's remember that the USA is way worse than China in terms of per capita greenhouse gas emissions. Lucky for us, the world doesn't live like we do in terms of how much greenhouse gas each of us is responsible for. I'd prefer to see the USA as providing leadership.
There's a study that found smoking marijuana prevents lung cancer. But the overwhelming scientific consensus is smoking marijuana can cause cancer. Sometimes scientific consensus matters.
As long as we can agree that the consensus doesnt invalidate the findings of the differing study. Only analysis of the study and/or further study can do that.
