Knowing about your history of linking to cites that have nothing to do with the linked claim, I looked this up, searching first for “three”, “feet”, and “2100.” None of those appear in the cite. I read the whole thing. Your link has nothing whatsoever to do with the claim that you’re making about sea level rise.
You may, of course, wish to keep linking to articles that talk about what a teenager Greta Thunberg is; but it’d be nice if you’d link to such only to support claims about Thunberg’s psychology, not about sea level rises.
These estimates are for “Global Mean Sea Level Rise,” not for rises in each area. The sea level will rise much more in some places, and even lower in some places.
The idea that “a very small number of” people would need to worry about this is ignorant. Coastal communities are also shipping communities and fishing communities; they’re major food and trade hubs. A 1-meter sea level rise can weaken their infrastructure, making them more vulnerable to the major storms that accompany climate change. If Boston or Charleston or New Orleans is devastated by a storm because sea level rise has stressed their infrastructure, everyone inland is gonna feel the effects.
My brother and his wife feel the same way I do: Do not follow the party line without questioning it - that while we cannot dispute that we are experiencing climate change, it’s unknown just how responsible people are, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take care of our planet. And that’s what they told their kids, who are 18 and 20.
(Our dad has always told us not to believe everything we hear or read about the JFK assassination, either.)
It’s “unknown” in the sense that, like, we can’t ever really KNOW anything, maaaaaan. But there’s a pretty high degree of scientific confidence about how much humans are contributing to climate change.
Yeah, everybody says that, but do they really believe it? Florida has been among the fastest-growing states every year for the past several decades. Florida’s coastal cities have zoned for construction of billions of dollars of new real estate in low-lying areas during this century, and they keep allowing more to be built. Banks and insurance companies remain willing to pay for all this. It seems that everybody loves moving to Florida or investing in real estate there.
If climate disaster is going to drown half of Florida, why to people and money keep moving there?
The same question could be asked all over the place. I’ve already mentioned the Obamas’ recent purchase of a very expensive new beach home, which nobody seems to have any explanation for, but there are equally clear examples everywhere. The city of Boston is building hugely expensive towers right by the harbor, just a few feet above sea level. Meanwhile the city government also issue reports about how they expect increased flooding and storm surges due to climate change. It seems there’s a bit of a disconnect here. If everyone believes the consensus about how climate change will endanger coastal areas, why are we putting billions of dollars of new real estate in those same areas?
If any teenager ever asks me about climate change, I’ll pose that question to them and suggest that they think about it.
On that I completely agree.
My mistake, here is the Atlantic article I intended to link to.
I’ve been an active member of the Environmental movement for nearly 30 years now. Nothing big but helping with Environmental Festivals, cleanups, some political action, volunteering on the Clearwater, running or helping to run a miniature version of said program now in Central Jersey. Also a frequent board member or officer of a small local group.
My kids have been part of the Environmental movement there entire lives.
The science is actually fairly clear we are contributing greatly to climate change and climate destruction for that matter. When you stop and consider the percentage of humanity that lives near the water, there is a lot of incentive to try to slow climate change. Additionally, most of the solutions to climate change have other very good benefits. Cleaner air & water being 2 of them. Most of us are old enough to remember how bad things have in our lifetime as far as air & water pollution goes. It was well worth the changes to counter these problems and keep improving.
Okay. So the article that you claim implies that “A very small number of people have reason to care about [a rise of less than three feet]” is the same article that says,
As always, nice summarizing of your article there, ITR Champion.
It is for this reason that I encourage others either to click through to ITR’s articles to see what they actually say, or just to dismiss his linked claims as unreliable.
Now, that Atlantic article is based itself off of the IPCC’s new report. I’m linking to the “summary for policymakers” PDF.
Some choice bits:
And especially:
…
The average intensity of tropical cyclones, the proportion of Category 4 and 5 tropical cyclones and the associated average precipitation rates are projected to increase for a 2°C global temperature rise above any baseline period (medium confidence). Rising mean sea levels will contribute to higher extreme sea levels associated with tropical cyclones (very high confidence).
[/quote]
To cite the Atlantic in order to bolster a claim that “a very small number of people” should worry about rising sea levels is–I’ll be charitable, and call it extremely unfortunate.
Tough? I’m a fuckin softie and I know it. I’m just saying, you can believe whatever you want, but the folks who have any power in this situation know that I teach facts and want me to keep doing so.
I teach all subjects, and science is one of them. I’m not going to be derelict in my duties because some people don’t like science.
I expect my precocious just-pre-teen grandkids to school us well on climate change when we visit next. Hopefully a bear won’t interrupt, like last time. Yes, they’re rural, and well above high-tide levels.
I don’t expect human-factors deniers to prove their convictions by moving to Florida waterfront trailer parks. That’s just too much bravery to ask for. Even without black bears. Or with only small sharks.
I also don’t expect insurers to continue enabling development in climate-disaster areas i.e. most coasts. I expect more state-subsidized coverage, like for quakes in California. Who decides when a zone is uninsurable? My mountain area lost most fire coverage. Will the Sierras and foothills be a sacrifice zone?
Home-buying and -building decisions usually do NOT look beyond a short-term future. This may not be wrong. With an 8% discount rate — reasonable when depreciation is considered? — ¾ of a home’s value comes from the first 18 years.
I have a personal anecdote that demonstrates this.
In the 1980’s I rented a nice home atop a cliff that overlooked the Pacific Ocean. We were told the cliff lost, on average, a foot annually due to erosion. (A neighbor joked(?) that she wished for faster erosion, to speed up the day when the house in front of hers would fall into the ocean and she would have the cliff-top ocean view instead!) Between the house and the cliff’s edge was an “Avenue;” but I used the entire “Avenue” as my parking spot — after that it was a foot-path, though it had obviously been a real avenue in the not-too-distant past. (A few years later, the City blocked access to my parking spot.)
Anyway, the landlord told us one day that she had an offer to buy; we could match the offer or leave. The price-tag was the better part of a million dollars. This was out of our league and, anyway, it seemed wrong to spend so much for a home scheduled to fall into the ocean a few decades ahead! Boy was that a mistake!
Checking Google Maps now, I see that that avenue is closed to traffic along its entire length now; and some of the erosion-wishers got their wishes — the houses adjacent to the one I rented appear to have been dismantled. But the house I rented is still standing and I’m sure it would have gotten a pretty price at the height of the housing boom.
Yup. You don’t necessarily have to avoid stupid decisions in order to avoid losing money in real estate. You just have to be able to persuade some other sucker(s) to make stupider decisions than you did.
That said, there seems to be a groundswell of opinion that treating the Florida real estate economy as “business as usual” is indeed a stupid decision.
In any case, anybody invoking the popularity of Florida real estate to argue that popular appeal implies good judgement and fair dealing does not have history on their side.
Ok, perhaps it’s possible for a given person to believe that rising sea levels may drown coastal areas in the coming decades, but simultaneously it’s rational (in the strictly economic sense) for that person to buy expensive beach-side property that may someday be underwater.
But construction of coastal properties doesn’t just happen. Local governments have control of the process through zoning boards and the like. So if a city government has reason to believe that a certain area has fairly high likelihood of being uninhabitable in the not-too-distant future, surely that government has an obligation to not support or allow more construction in that particular place. It’s an almost literal application of the cliche: “If you’re in a hole, stop digging.”
I didn’t make any attempt to summarize that article, just used it as a source for one specific piece of data.
Your claim that “A very small number of people have reason to care about [a rise of less than three feet]” might be something that’s not precisely a summary, but this is like the kid that says, “I DIDN’T HIT HER” when he simply pushed his hand against her shoulder with enough force to knock her off balance.
I don’t give a shit whether you call it a summary, or a contextualization of a factoid, or a paraphrase, or a flying purple people eater. What you said was directly contradicted by the next two sentences in your cite.
Your replacement of those contextualizations/FPPEs/whatevers with the “very small number” claim is at best–AT BEST–such totally incompetent comprehension that you should take a major step back and re-examine your posting habits.
There are much less charitable interpretations of your substitution, of course. But I’ll leave it with the charitable one.
This is worth responding to as well. In a perfect world, in which local governments perfectly represented their people, you’d be right. In our world, tourist towns (such as a lot of coastal communities) often see their governments influenced very strongly by developers and realtors, pushing for policies that will help them make short-term profit. It’s hardly surprising that a lot of these communities lack regulations that would lead to long-term health for their community.
(Hopefully you won’t take this as an opportunity to try a libertarianism gotcha, since that’d be both off-topic and off-base.)
Yawn. I claimed that the expected value of sea level rise was less than 3 feet. The article says that the expected value of sea level rise was less than 3 feet. If you want to go on with your rant, go ahead. It’s kind of entertaining.
Wikipedia - Sea level rise. First chart shows increasing rate of change. Second chart shows projections to 2100 - 1) Current projected range: 0.3-1.2 meters. 2) Possible increase from Antarctic ice melt: up to 2.4 meters. Those are global scales, but: “The sea level will not rise uniformly everywhere on Earth, and it will even drop in some locations. Local factors include tectonic effects and subsidence of the land, tides, currents and storms.”
My California is quite susceptible. Minimally, rising seawater will poison the freshwater Delta and aqueduct system. A long Pineapple Express (atmospheric river) can collapse the Delta levees, devastating industrial, agricultural, and population centers. A slightly higher rise will damage West Coast ports from Alaska to Chile.
We’re in frog-boiling territory here, folks. More is yet to come. I’ll quote (young) Cosby quoting (traditional) God to Noah: “How long can you tread water?”
I won’t tell my grandkids about frog-boiling. They just might try it; they live with a frog pond. No, don’t throw hot coals in the pond to simulate sunspots! But I wonder - are primary-grade kids’ climate-change science kits available? How can they get a hands-on experience - without frogs? (search results here)
I note that this is a continuation of your original response to me in post #65, following the comment from septimus. This line of argument is rather silly, and is similar to the old argument that “polls show that x% of the population doesn’t believe that climate change is a serious problem (where “x” used to be a fairly substantial number, at least in the past); therefore, the science must not be persuasive; therefore, the science is probably wrong”. Whereas the obviously simple answer to that one is that x% of the population either doesn’t understand the science because they’re not sufficiently educated about the facts, or willfully refuses to understand it.
The reality here about coastal construction is that the motivations for building and selling are completely disconnected from medium-term and long-term climate trends, and are related only to market demand and profits. Why is there market demand? The cynical answer may just be that some people are stupid, which is likely a component of it, but more realistically, many people probably don’t think so far into the future that what happens by 2100 or even 2050 is very meaningful to them.
As for your comment that local governments would recognize the hazards of rising sea levels and prohibit coastal development that would come under threat, all I can say is: you gotta be kidding! Seriously? Take a look at these articles:
"*Florida, one of the states most susceptible to the effects of climate change and sea-level rise, verbally banned state environmental officials from using the term “climate change,” an investigation revealed. But the Sunshine State isn’t the only U.S. state that has attempted to “outlaw” climate science.
North Carolina, Louisiana and Tennessee have all passed laws that attempt to cast doubt on established climate science in boardrooms and classrooms.*"
Indeed some of the states most susceptible to the effects of sea level rise, storm surges, flooding, and hurricane damage are so deeply in denial that they have actually forbidden public officials from talking about it by banning the use of important words and phrases from climate science! And you think those governments are going disallow coastal real estate development? In fact, a major reason for the denialism is specifically to NOT impact lucrative development on some of the most expensive land in those states. Local governments in those areas would be even more motivated to keep the revenue streams going. As always with climate change denialism, it’s driven by mercenary motivations.
Finally, I can’t comment authoritatively on why the Obamas bought a summer house on Martha’s Vineyard but I think one can reasonably speculate, and it has nothing to do with them not believing in sea level rise. No doubt they bought it because it’s a beautiful place in a beautiful location and will remain so for many years to come. That remains true even if it will be under water by 2100. Also, I believe that Martha’s Vineyard is at a much higher average elevation than the state of Florida, from what I could see it’s an average of some 42 to 50 ft above sea level versus Florida being an average of about 6, with some places only 3 ft above present sea level. Obama’s property may well be safe for his children and grandchildren far beyond 2100.
ETA: Forgot to add this news article about the project effects of sea level rise on Martha’s Vineyard. It will in fact be significant in some parts of it.
End-stage capitalism doesn’t try to make profitable products, but to forge monopolies for price-jacking, and to find suckers (investors) to sell-out to before the collapse. Much ‘desirable’ real estate, anywhere, fits a similar pattern: Buy something hot and hope to sell it before doomsday. Enjoy while you can, then find the next sucker.
(My rich inlaws missed the cycle. Built a house for two million; can’t sell it for half that.)
Many coastal properties will likely remain commercially desirable for decades, awaiting. generations of suckers yet unborn. Insurers and lenders may hinder really stupid construction - or may seek government subsidies. Expect money-grubbing to continue.