Global Warming | Fact or Fiction?

[Trey of Diamonds]

Significant Sea Level Rise in a 2-Degree Warming World

If temperatures are allowed to rise by 3 degrees, the expected sea-level rise could range between 2 and 5 metres, with the best estimate being at 3.5 metres.

3.5 meters is almost 11.5 feet. Parts if not most of New Orleans would be under water. Baton Rouge, where I live, would be prone to intense flooding anytime it rained.

What would this much of a sea level increase do where you live?

 

[painted wolf]

Significant Sea Level Rise in a 2-Degree Warming World



3.5 meters is almost 11.5 feet. Parts if not most of New Orleans would be under water. Baton Rouge, where I live, would be prone to intense flooding anytime it rained.

What would this much of a sea level increase do where you live?

Some very expensive homes would be lost... but, we would end up with way more coastline than before... so I suppose it balances out. Depending on how we manage it, we could end up with much more habitat for our coastal species, including the endangered ones.

wa:do

 

[Revoltingest]

Some very expensive homes would be lost... but, we would end up with way more coastline than before... so I suppose it balances out. Depending on how we manage it, we could end up with much more habitat for our coastal species, including the endangered ones.wa:do

Is that so clear? Florida, The Maldives, & Bangladesh would largely disappear.
But drawing on my real estate experience, I'd say that more coastline with less
interior land would be a net loss in value. And then there'd be the whole uprooted
population effect on wars, resources, etc. I'd rather keep the climate we have.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I'd rather keep the climate we have.

Not sure that's an option anymore. Not that it ever really was. Climate will change, with or without our help. Trying to keep it stagnant can do more damage than letting it take its course.

 

[painted wolf]

Is that so clear? Florida, The Maldives, & Bangladesh would largely disappear.
But drawing on my real estate experience, I'd say that more coastline with less
interior land would be a net loss in value. And then there'd be the whole uprooted
population effect on wars, resources, etc. I'd rather keep the climate we have.

I agree... but the question is about how it will impact where you personally live. Not how it will harm the billions of people outside of your home range.

Unfortunately, we can't stop the climate from changing... we can only try to limit the extent and mitigate the effects. And given our current state of behavior... I have doubts that we will avoid a great deal of strife in the near future. Humans are not good at planning for the true long term

wa:do

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I agree... but the question is about how it will impact where you personally live. Not how it will harm the billions of people outside of your home range.

Unfortunately, we can't stop the climate from changing... we can only try to limit the extent and mitigate the effects. And given our current state of behavior... I have doubts that we will avoid a great deal of strife in the near future. Humans are not good at planning for the true long term

wa:do

The Chinese give it a fair go but the rest of humanity is purely reactive when it comes to long term thinking.

 

[painted wolf]

The Chinese give it a fair go but the rest of humanity is purely reactive when it comes to long term thinking.

yes and no... they are just as short sighted about the current problem as any of us.
Perhaps more so.

wa:do

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

yes and no... they are just as short sighted about the current problem as any of us.
Perhaps more so.

wa:do

Agreed. I was speaking in a more general way. The Chinese do seem to be able to think in long term goals better than Westerners do but they obviously don't think that the environment is worthy of their notice. They probably have bigger problems to deal with at the moment.

 

[painted wolf]

Agreed. I was speaking in a more general way. The Chinese do seem to be able to think in long term goals better than Westerners do but they obviously don't think that the environment is worthy of their notice. They probably have bigger problems to deal with at the moment.

They have discovered the power of capitalism while still enjoying the corruption of a one party state.
They are focused on expanding their power globally while at the same time keeping it on the home-front. Adapting to sudden economic exccess and the need to keep the population from seeking an open government leave little time to plan beyond your own immediate personal goals.

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

I agree... but the question is about how it will impact where you personally live. Not how it will harm the billions of people outside of your home range.

Unfortunately, we can't stop the climate from changing... we can only try to limit the extent and mitigate the effects. And given our current state of behavior... I have doubts that we will avoid a great deal of strife in the near future. Humans are not good at planning for the true long term

wa:do

This is why we left the UK and moved to the rural West Coast, and also why we don't plan to have children. We might not be good at long term thinking, but we are doing our best.

 

[painted wolf]

This is why we left the UK and moved to the rural West Coast, and also why we don't plan to have children. We might not be good at long term thinking, but we are doing our best.

I'm speaking in a more general cultural/governmental level.

That's why my family is involved in the Transition Movement, why we only have one child and a host of other decisions.

But it's not stopping what is coming because it's not being implemented on a wide enough scale yet. Short term profits almost always win out over long term sustainability.

wa:do

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I'm speaking in a more general cultural/governmental level.

That's why my family is involved in the Transition Movement, why we only have one child and a host of other decisions.

But it's not stopping what is coming because it's not being implemented on a wide enough scale yet. Short term profits almost always win out over long term sustainability.

wa:do

And lets face it. The things that would be necessary to force everyone to take such actions would be totalitarian at best. Look how the the one child rule is working out for China.

 

[Alceste]

I'm speaking in a more general cultural/governmental level.

That's why my family is involved in the Transition Movement, why we only have one child and a host of other decisions.

But it's not stopping what is coming because it's not being implemented on a wide enough scale yet. Short term profits almost always win out over long term sustainability.

wa:do

Oh, I know governments will fail to address the problem. I was particularly responding to this part:

"I agree... but the question is about how it will impact where you personally live".

We specifically chose to live in a part of the world where government has very little control, and people who live here are relatively less dependent on it. In the UK, the government has it's fingers in all your business, all the time, or is trying its hardest to get them in. That's a dangerous situation in a climate of political instability.

 

[painted wolf]

And lets face it. The things that would be necessary to force everyone to take such actions would be totalitarian at best. Look how the the one child rule is working out for China.

I don't think so... most of what we need to do is infrastructure work (Updating our energy grid and power production) and reducing the tax breaks that keep fossil fuels artificially competitive ... hardly totalitarian.

wa:do

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I don't think so... most of what we need to do is infrastructure work (Updating our energy grid and power production) and reducing the tax breaks that keep fossil fuels artificially competitive ... hardly totalitarian.

wa:do

I was thinking more along the lines of forced behavior modifications such as reducing the number of children. Too many cultures and religions are all about making more and more babies. And while you might convince Western cultures in the need for infrastructure work, developing nations tend to demand their own period of industrial revolution where they can pollute and poison the Earth and there people. Forcing them to use more expensive green methods will be considered very totalitarian. To change things globally will require global participation.

 

[painted wolf]

I was thinking more along the lines of forced behavior modifications such as reducing the number of children. Too many cultures and religions are all about making more and more babies. And while you might convince Western cultures in the need for infrastructure work, developing nations tend to demand their own period of industrial revolution where they can pollute and poison the Earth and there people. Forcing them to use more expensive green methods will be considered very totalitarian. To change things globally will require global participation.

Population is expected to decline on it's own due to improving lifestyles and access to healthcare. Most women don't want to be breeding factories.

If we can stop the industrialized nations from polluting then the developing countries will be able to develop without significant additions to the problem. Especially if there is a working green alternative to build up to. Plus, most developing nations are already feeling the crunch of climate change and are not as oblivious to the problem as comfortable developed nations are, they already want to go green and choose it whenever they have the option. Solar power is already a major player in Africa, where it powers most rural communities.
More and more Africa is pumping oil to sell to us while building a green power grid for it's own use.
There are also major power projects in the works to sell green electricity to European markets... DESERTEC has a goal to provide 15% of Europe's electricity by 2050 and provide power to the local communities.

Certain developed nations like to use the specter of developing nations to avoid action, but it's just an excuse. While our century old infrastructure crumbles due to complacency the developing world is building to surpass us in the next few decades.

It's sad when a single storm system can leave large sections of the USA without electricity sometimes for more than a week at a time... and that this now happens almost annually.

wa:do

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Population is expected to decline on it's own due to improving lifestyles and access to healthcare. Most women don't want to be breeding factories.

If we can stop the industrialized nations from polluting then the developing countries will be able to develop without significant additions to the problem. Especially if there is a working green alternative to build up to. Plus, most developing nations are already feeling the crunch of climate change and are not as oblivious to the problem as comfortable developed nations are, they already want to go green and choose it whenever they have the option. Solar power is already a major player in Africa, where it powers most rural communities.
More and more Africa is pumping oil to sell to us while building a green power grid for it's own use.
There are also major power projects in the works to sell green electricity to European markets... DESERTEC has a goal to provide 15% of Europe's electricity by 2050 and provide power to the local communities.

Certain developed nations like to use the specter of developing nations to avoid action, but it's just an excuse. While our century old infrastructure crumbles due to complacency the developing world is building to surpass us in the next few decades.

It's sad when a single storm system can leave large sections of the USA without electricity sometimes for more than a week at a time... and that this now happens almost annually.

wa:do

Not sure about all of that. I hope your right but I certainly didn't see any of that when I was in Africa and Asia. Been a lot of years though so maybe they changed.

 

[painted wolf]

Not sure about all of that. I hope your right but I certainly didn't see any of that when I was in Africa and Asia. Been a lot of years though so maybe they changed.

They have a long way to go... but at least many of the nations are moving in the right direction.

The appeal of solar in Africa is that it's hyper local power that doesn't require infrastructure to maintain. You don't need massive power plants and miles of lines to provide power when a few solar panels hooked to a generator can provide enough power for the whole village. Just like the vast majority of Africans use cell phones and wireless internet and skip much of the unneeded infrastructure.

wa:do

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

They have a long way to go... but at least many of the nations are moving in the right direction.

The appeal of solar in Africa is that it's hyper local power that doesn't require infrastructure to maintain. You don't need massive power plants and miles of lines to provide power when a few solar panels hooked to a generator can provide enough power for the whole village. Just like the vast majority of Africans use cell phones and wireless internet and skip much of the unneeded infrastructure.

wa:do

The question is how well they maintain their solar installations. The issues we saw in Africa was a total lack of regard for routine maintenance. I was in Algeria in the 70s and most of the French infrastructure was still in place. Things were nice and everyone thought they might have a shot. But the government didn't spend anything on maintaining the infrastructure and as it broke down the country plunged into violence.

I hope you're right about all this but I'll wait to see what happens myself.

 

[painted wolf]

The question is how well they maintain their solar installations. The issues we saw in Africa was a total lack of regard for routine maintenance. I was in Algeria in the 70s and most of the French infrastructure was still in place. Things were nice and everyone thought they might have a shot. But the government didn't spend anything on maintaining the infrastructure and as it broke down the country plunged into violence.

I hope you're right about all this but I'll wait to see what happens myself.

To be fair, the 70's were a rough time... Most nations had governments that didn't have any real experience in governing.

But if it makes you feel any better... we aren't showing much more regard for our infrastructure here in the USA (it's taken a major bridge collapse, levy failure and massive power-outages for us to start talking about it again). So infrastructure is just chronically neglected when people want to spend money on other things.

... Yay....

wa:do