@ribbont Make the case.
All things being equal, it's reasonable to think a stable climate and sea level is desirable given the amount of human capital invested in ocean adjacent cities and infrastructure.
What's the counter argument?
New waterfront property to develop?
um, the snorkeling business would boom in downtown LA and NYC. Definite plus!
If men were any more stupid, we would have breed for the extinction of women. Proof yet again that WE are the best thing they have going for them.
.
Sea levels have risen 8-10 INCHES since 1880. It would take 17000 years to cover LA. Plus we will spend more protecting infrastructure compared to what it would cost to rebuild.
it's happening faster and faster, though. Four inches just since 1993.
Sea levels have risen 8-10 INCHES since 1880. It would take 17000 years to cover LA. Plus we will spend more protecting infrastructure compared to what it would cost to rebuild.
Not sure what makes LA special, but at current rates, low lying cities like Miami will be under water this century. Some, like New Orleans, already are under water.
@ribbont so you’re not arguing about why it would be a bad thing if it happened, just that it’s not happening.
That’s a different argument altogether.
@ribbont Make the case.
All things being equal, it's reasonable to think a stable climate and sea level is desirable given the amount of human capital invested in ocean adjacent cities and infrastructure.
What's the counter argument?
All things must pass.
This argument could be used in an endless variety of circumstances.
.
Both. Why is it bad? Who says this time in history is the perfect climate? Maybe highrt sea levels will be better for humanity.
And to worry about is silly. And if levels are accelerating, as @goat said, then make a plan for the next 50 years. And the govt plan should not be to spend trillions when China and others don't care.
Both. Why is it bad? Who says this time in history is the perfect climate? Maybe highrt sea levels will be better for humanity.
And to worry about is silly. And if levels are accelerating, as @goat said, then make a plan for the next 50 years. And the govt plan should not be to spend trillions when China and others don't care.
Different times are probably better for different areas of the world. For much of the Northern hemisphere, especially Europe, and perhaps much of North America, the optimum time was probably the medieval warm period, which, in terms of temperature, corresponds with what we had in the middle of the 20th century. We're probably not going back to that. We're going to end up with sustained global temperatures (and eventually sea levels) that haven't really been tested by humans since the advent of civilization. I.e., the last time it was this warm, we were living in caves and making tools out of rocks and sticks. So it's hard to predict how easily we'll be able to manage it. We will certainly have to decide what to do with certain coastal areas. It takes a lot of effort to make New Orleans remain habitable. Might not be worth the effort everywhere.
it’s where the edge of the earth is.Why don’t commercial flights go over Antarctica? They are hiding something.
@ribbont, read my post where I ask you to make the case again. I gave an answer to your question, why is it bad? Burying your head in the sand about that cost doesn't really advance the discussion, does it?
The other things you list are straw men. I haven't made those arguments.
Latest Post: Portal Kombat (Basketball Edition) Our newest member: Mark Wittenbrink Recent Posts Unread Posts
