Climate Change Causes Sea Level Rise to Accelerate 50 Percent in Past 20 years

[PC2]

I think everyone is just too held up on the climate change, global warming, over-population, dwindling resources.. Either for it, against it, or denying it.

Why don't we just focus on leaving Earth?
If we have somewhere else to go, A. We have somewhere else to go. B. Maybe it would be enough to "save" Earth, if we take some pressure off?

All the other known planets are terrible. Earth is by far the best so far. Dwindling resources isn't a fundamental problem. The scarcity of everything we need can be reduced with better science and technology.

Overpopulation is only a local problem, such as in Bangladesh. When other countries get fed up by mass migration from these places the borders will be closed.

[Endus]

All the other known planets are terrible. Earth is by far the best so far. Dwindling resources isn't a fundamental problem. The scarcity of everything we need can be reduced with better science and technology.

Overpopulation is only a local problem, such as in Bangladesh. When other countries get fed up by mass migration from these places the borders will be closed.

There's a valid argument to be made that developing the technology to terraform planets like Mars would create technologies we could use to fix the damage we're causing here, too. So it's not a wasted effort.

Plus, moving into orbital platforms is probably short-term easier/cheaper. The big barrier to that is the cost of lifting materials to orbit, and that could be fixed by pushing a metal-rich asteroid close enough to build orbital mining/smelting facilities. It's a massive investment (tens of billions, minimum), with a long payoff (it's probably going to take 20-30 years to push that asteroid into place, minimum), but the potential gains in the long run are comparably huge. It's gonna take a figure like Elon Musk to get something like that off the ground, though. It's probably a necessary next step if we want to get serious about spreading into the rest of the solar system, though.

[Powerogue]

The thing to keep in mind is that small things build up over time.

...Unless you're a loon who thinks the world is only 6000 years old, in which case we'll be fine!

[Hammerfest]

We'll be fine.

[RaoBurning]

We should be given 100% proof before being asked to pay for it

This level of proof does not exist outside of alcohol and Mathematics, for the record. And even if it did, some people don't want to be convinced, despite the cries for evidence. We have people in this very thread and elsewhere on the forums who cannot be convinced that the world is round, old, and not the center of the universe, despite figuring all of these things out to some degree centuries ago.

If you're actually curious, though, listen to Endus, and search through the past threads on the topic. He and others have linked a mountain of data and breakdowns and "explain it like I'm 5" type sources for anyone actually inclined to learn.

Edit: I could not have asked for a more perfect example than the two preceding posts. Thanks to both of you.

[Shadee]

This level of proof does not exist outside of alcohol and Mathematics, for the record. And even if it did, some people don't want to be convinced, despite the cries for evidence. We have people in this very thread and elsewhere on the forums who cannot be convinced that the world is round, old, and not the center of the universe, despite figuring all of these things out to some degree centuries ago.

If you're actually curious, though, listen to Endus, and search through the past threads on the topic. He and others have linked a mountain of data and breakdowns and "explain it like I'm 5" type sources for anyone actually inclined to learn.

Edit: I could not have asked for a more perfect example than the two preceding posts. Thanks to both of you.

Bahahahahaha

[cubby]

I know people don't generally think of things like concrete and steel being limited resources but they do have limits.

There may not be enough resources to embark on construction projects big enough to save the worlds cities. We might actually run out of concrete trying to hold back the ocean or lift ourselves above it. Think about how insanely massive an undertaking of this size would be and how it would all happen at roughly the same time all over the world exhausting the supply of materials. It would probably be more practical to start building inland.

In addition to materials there is also a limited number of companies capable of undertaking construction projects this large. Also in order to actually accomplish something this massive we would need to start now and I don't see a lot of preemptive preparation going on.

Steel is definitely a limited resource, in the sense that someday we might run out of it - especially if the world all of a sudden embarks on massive city-saving projects when the oceans rise up.

However, concrete is almost unlimited, because it's so easy to make. I get what you're saying, however, that we need to start thinking about this stuff now.

But we won't - because humanity in it's current political iteration, doesn't think 3 inches past it's nose. So it's only after the oceans rise, and the coastal cities drown, that we as a species will finally have to rise up and take account for what we've done, and especially what we'll need to do.

As far as large projects go, if it's necessary, the world can rally behind anything and accomplish almost everything. When the time is right, we will prevail.

[Deleted]

I'm having hard time believing they can accurately measure such thing with precision of tenth milimeter.

[Zmaniac17]

Steel is definitely a limited resource, in the sense that someday we might run out of it - especially if the world all of a sudden embarks on massive city-saving projects when the oceans rise up.

However, concrete is almost unlimited, because it's so easy to make. I get what you're saying, however, that we need to start thinking about this stuff now.

But we won't - because humanity in it's current political iteration, doesn't think 3 inches past it's nose. So it's only after the oceans rise, and the coastal cities drown, that we as a species will finally have to rise up and take account for what we've done, and especially what we'll need to do.

As far as large projects go, if it's necessary, the world can rally behind anything and accomplish almost everything. When the time is right, we will prevail.

That's true, but we can only produce a certain amount of concrete every year. If suddenly we need 50 times as much concrete for massive building projects we're going to be short and it will be cost prohibitive for anyone but the wealthiest to use it until production ramps up to scale which may take a long time.

[cubby]

That's true, but we can only produce a certain amount of concrete every year. If suddenly we need 50 times as much concrete for massive building projects we're going to be short and it will be cost prohibitive for anyone but the wealthiest to use it until production ramps up to scale which may take a long time.

And I agree. However, if/when we come to the point of needing 50x or 1,000x the current output of concrete, I would bet that the world could ramp up that production quickly. Government purse strings are notoriously bottomless when it comes to "hero" projects.

[Aehl]

I'm having hard time believing they can accurately measure such thing with precision of tenth milimeter.

They cant. Never have been able to and all of these "theories" and "projections" and "models" are for 50 to 200 years from now. You will forgive me if I dont treat such claims with a healthy amount of skepticism and a grain of salt the size of Mt Etna.

I will be happy to believe them when someone comes back from 200 years from now and shows me photos that prove these "models" correct.

"Probably", "most likely", "maybe" , "possibly"..but we are supposed to accept this as incontrovertible truth?

Nope.

"Listen to Endus"???

Endus: The UN is fine.

Yeah...........no.

[Spectral]

The original post seems like a failure to deal with what a change in the rate of change actually means for long term outputs of a given function. Might be time for a quick lesson how integrals work.

[Endus]

They cant. Never have been able to and all of these "theories" and "projections" and "models" are for 50 to 200 years from now.

I really don't know what you think you're going to get by lying like that.

Models and projections go 50+ years into the future, but they start now, and those same models are tested by ensuring they accurately model the past changes to begin with. They don't start in the distant future, and there's no excuse for lying about that.

"Probably", "most likely", "maybe" , "possibly"..but we are supposed to accept this as incontrovertible truth?

Science, by definition, isn't "incontrovertible". The thing is, they expect you to have actual evidence with which to contradict the arguments that make up the current body of theory.

[satimy]

We need to invest a trillion dollars in new nuclear infrastructure and adopt the France model. Cheaper, Cleaner energy.

[Jastall]

Civilization is adapting to climate change. That mean's there isn't going to be a "shit hits the fan" climate era.

It is adapting precisely because people pushed for it. Had we listened to the people who said everything is fine, it might have been another story.

And even then, the actual rate of adaptation is more than variable to say the least.

[TwistedSkull]

When shit hits the fan and we have real problems; can we ship all the deniers/oil tycoons to the desert? By force if necessarily.

Just move them to florida and let them be in charge of pumping the flooding back into the ocean from the streets.

[Jastall]

-We need to invest a trillion dollars

-Cheaper.

One of these is not like the other. Nuclear is avoided precisely because it's incredibly expensive, and that's not going to change anytime soon. It is not a solution.

[Aehl]

I really don't know what you think you're going to get by lying like that.

Oh? Saying that models that predict maybe possibly perhaps what happens 50 years from now may be wrong is lying?

No it isnt.

Models and projections go 50+ years into the future, but they start now, and those same models are tested by ensuring they accurately model the past changes to begin with. They don't start in the distant future, and there's no excuse for lying about that.

50 years is 2067. Got any facts to state that the models you talk about are accurate and that this is what **will*** happen in 50 years?

Got any evidence? You have been to 2067?

No?

Then how can you state with any degree of certainty that the models are accurate or correct?

You cant. No one can.

Science, by definition, isn't "incontrovertible". The thing is, they expect you to have actual evidence with which to contradict the arguments that make up the current body of theory.

Well what Id like you to do, is prove to me with evidence that what these models say is in any way shape or form correct.

See Endus, thats the thing with this entire garbage...NOWHERE do I see the words "We could be wrong". That, btw is a fact. All these models, all these projections, could very well be 100% wrong.

Yes or no?

Be honest.

[Zmaniac17]

And I agree. However, if/when we come to the point of needing 50x or 1,000x the current output of concrete, I would bet that the world could ramp up that production quickly. Government purse strings are notoriously bottomless when it comes to "hero" projects.

Oh money is probably not an issue, money is just paper. The resources available (mineral/human/energy) involved in the production of concrete / steel would be limiting factors in our ability to ramp up production as well. And you kind of have a chicken and egg problem with the fact that the production of concrete and steel is one of the biggest industry producers of CO2.

We really are in a bind here.

- - - Updated - - -

Well what Id like you to do, is prove to me with evidence that what these models say is in any way shape or form correct.

See Endus, thats the thing with this entire garbage...NOWHERE do I see the words "We could be wrong". That, btw is a fact. All these models, all these projections, could very well be 100% wrong.

Yes or no?

Be honest.

I would suggest to you that the scientific method has a long history of being an effective means of understanding the natural world and there is currently no valid reason to doubt the majority opinion of experts in this field.

If there's a 90% chance it's going to poor rain, most people will bring an umbrella. If you want to argue that there is reasonable doubt that's fine. This isn't a court case though. So your response should still be the same as if it was 100%, otherwise there's a high chance you're going to be very wet.

[Stonecloak]

I find it interesting that people who don't believe we are causing global warming tend to think its just happening naturally. Is there any evidence to support this?