Miami faces an underwater future

TJ, when do you suppose "economic conditions" will dictate we do something about rising sea levels? Or is it cheaper for Miami to just disappear off the map in the next hundred years and move all those people elsewhere than to stop the process that will cause it to happen?


Continuing on "economic conditions" and technological progress: say that in the future, even as the earth gets warmer, we cannot find technology that makes renewable energy cheaper than burning fossil fuels. Should we ever stop burning fossil fuels, as long as it is the cheaper option? Even in 100 years when Miami is underwater, should we say "markets gonna market" and let anyone in the energy business continue pursuing their profits as the rest of the planet bears the cost of paying for their negative externalities?

Agreed.

The planet itself doesn't care that much - it's been colder and it's been warmer - but our current civilisation has developed in a period of relative climate stability and it won't take much to screw it all up.


I defer to the experts on how our current changing climate is a major contributing factor to more extreme events.

The simplest could be more, and more intense, Hurricanes due to increased ocean temperatures - the thing that feeds those storm systems.

Sea level rises will have a bigger effect on human civilisation now than they would have a couple of hundred years ago. There are alot more of us to begin with and our global society in vastly more interconnected, and interdependent, than it was.

I try not to waste energy where I can - and technology is developing to help that - LEDs, insulation etc - but I don't believe anyone really thinks we are going to reduce our energy consumption but are advocating for renewable energy sources.

It took millions of years for the oil and gas we are consuming to be laid down - the extraction of which is generally becoming more difficult and more expensive.

There are a stack of alternative options - inc solar, wind, tidal - that are industries in themselves.

The Energy Industry will always be a huge part of the world economy but we need to move to sources that don't negatively effect the environment we live in.


Do read the mass of information available on this topic but don't do so thinking that scientists are only saying what they're saying so they can keep their grant money - that's really not how it works - and instead question the motives of those that deny those scientists conclusions.

Potholer54 channel on YouTube has some good videos if you are legitimately looking to learn more. You will learn more there than you will on gambling forums. Peter Hadfield/Potholer54 is a scientific journalist and sources everything to peer reviewed scientific papers.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nVyYwtewvo0

Its almost like Scientists can work out other inputs into global warming/climate and then check those inputs to see if they are responsible for global warming/climate variation.

See stuff like this is so obvious that if someone cant work it out for themselves they cant really be trying because for some emotional reason they dont want to believe in MMGW.

Temperature swings are a symptom of increased atmospheric CO2, they're not the main problem. That was a Category 4. It's likely that hurricanes today cause less damage despite being more powerful because we've greatly improved building technology to be able to withstand hurricanes in the past 119 years, not to mention being able to use radar to prepare for incoming Category 5 storms. Luckily for us, there are scientists providing data.
There's a relatively old technology that can easily satisfy our energy needs without releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. It's funny to me that the main reason people give for not doing anything about climate change is "We can't ruin the economy!" as if environmental regulations have never been previously put into place, or that when they have they've caused irreparable financial harm. California is a great example of just how successful businesses can be even in the face of strong environmental regulations: For two and a half decades, California’s GDP and population have continued to rise, while per capita carbon dioxide emissions have stayed flat.

We need callypigan.

I mean, if you arent on board at this point, highly doubt anything is gonna change your mind.

OP, you've basically said that you'd rather accept the damage from warming than sacrifice to stop it. So there's really nothing to convince you about, other than a few details.

It sounds to me you're thinking there'll just be a few flooded coastal neighborhoods, some real estate shifts, but no biblical calamities. I do not think that is sound because of the potential runaway heating after certain tipping points.

Something like 1/7 of Earth's organic matter, iirc, is locked up in permafrost. Once that begins melting seasonally, decomposition will gush methane into the atmosphere, which is a more potent greenhouse gas that CO2. That creates a feedback loop heating more permafrost.

A large portion of the Sun's energy is reflected back into space by the icecaps. Once those melt, heating will race ahead. You think humanity will be able to replace icecaps?

How many refugees from Florida are you willing to tolerate? And once it is a crisis, it is probably too late to do anything, even with a World War II style single-minded mobilization.

We've already crossed the point where significant warming can be prevented. There's no sign of expedited measures.

I think the more realistic stance for the selfish would be: Party down, buy a Trans Am, we are already fugged.

First of all, I claim to be pretty far from the anti-science "hoovering up" of the GOP propaganda.

Maybe attributing the solution of changing "economic conditions" wasn't the best way to put forth my position.

Obviously, I don't think that in 20 years of more carbon emissions, if in 2039 some mega-tsunami-cyclone-orwhatever wipes out a million Southeastern Asians, that DER MARKT will somehow SHIFT to PICK UP THE SLACK...

and bring about MARKET INCENTIVES that somehow lead to lower carbon emissions... and the millennial reign of Christ.

I think what I meant is, if things start to get worse, the low/no emission alternatives that now aren't economically feasible will become so

These are the sort of posts I was hoping to elicit.

I'm going to dive in here and report back

Maybe climate change is going to hugely shorten the window that humankind can survive on this planet, or maybe it’ll just shorten it a little bit. Probably not worth it to hedge against it since we don’t know EXACTLY how bad it’ll be or EXACTLY how much of the change is due to our modifiable behaviors because yada yada economy.

^ I don't see how this is compatible with <insert down arrow>:

Did you mean "politically feasible" rather than "economically feasible"? My whole point, which you seem to agree with, is that the economics of energy don't magically change based on climate change getting worse.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...t-40-years-ago

Do you have a personal philosophy regarding how externalities should be dealt with in general? Is it morally right to you that the people who will likely suffer most from climate change are not the ones causing it, and that they are likely to get no support from the biggest polluters?

If you oppose penalizing carbon emissions do you also oppose government incentives for cleaner alternative energy?

The developed world are also the biggest polluters.

(Yes, I know China leads the world in carbon emissions, but that's basically the first world outsourcing their pollution)

I'm guessing you're not living in Chittagong.

What's going to happen when Bangladesh is underwater and 200M people need to relocate? Maybe Myanmar will take them, oh wait...

You know that the scientists who study climate for a living are aware of this, right?

OP been watching Louder with Crowder

TJ,

Would you say that you are generally skeptical when there is an apparent scientific consensus (e.g., vaccines don't cause autism, the universe is expanding, PCBs in drinking water are a health hazard)?

If yes, why? If no, why are you skeptical about climate change?

the planet isn't "supposed" to be inhabitable

What about the nation's biggest utility company filing for bankruptcy just yesterday because of the California wildfires?

Could that failure be considered a casualty of climate change?

TJ answer your PMs I’ve not put my contacts back in and it’s because of you

1. The only political party on the planet that refuses to acknowledge Climate Change is the GOP. Even NK is part of the Paris Accord. North Korea. The same country that says it's illegal to look at the stars. Even they are like "Yo man, this is ****ed up. We need to do something."

2. The very same people that tell you the Earth has been warm in the past (Climate Scientists) are the same people that warn you the Earth is getting warmer. So why do people believe what they say about the past but not the future?

3. You have 100 structural engineers in a room. 97 of them say if you cross that bridge, it will fall. 3 say "LOL, go ahead, it's fine." Which group do you believe?

4. People that say Global Warming is a "theory" do not understand the Scientific Method.