Al Gore does not represent the scientific community. If you're looking for up-to-date info, you should read the IPCC's recently finished AR6 report^1, which combines together 13,500 research citations to evaluate estimate ranges for impacts like sea level rise and coastal erosion.
'End of the century' meaning 77 years from now? On models that are tissue-thin? This isn't news, just conjecture. We have no idea of what the Sun will do during that time, for instance...
> We have no idea of what the Sun will do during that time, for instance...
This is a climate change denial talking point that holds no weight in terms of actual scientific literature, climate modelling, and historical climate record proxies. Very few natural events can reverse the temperature trajectory of the next hundred years, other than large volcanic eruptions.
Good to know that the temperature stays the same in my south facing living room, whether it is night or daytime... thanks.
We know very well, that the Sun goes through cycles, that it changes its level of radiation; and that even the most cursory glance at the stats of different planets, which are at different distances from the Sun, show the effects of solar radiation.
They're not saying the sun doesn't have an effect, they're saying the sun's cycles aren't significant enough to have a chance at negating climate change.
If only there was some kind of technology to allow roads to cross water, that would be highly convenient, I guess until that tech gets invented we'll just have to allow flooded roads to cut people off from the rest of the country.
> The results make it clear that isolation will be a significant problem for the US. Even under the lowest sea level rise scenario (0.5 meters by 2100),
Pretty sure we can deal with 1.5 feet of water, it seems somehow surmountable, like maybe add 2 feet of gravel and pave it again?
> Pretty sure we can deal with 1.5 feet of water, it seems somehow surmountable, like maybe add 2 feet of gravel and pave it again?
This is an extremely simplistic view of sea level rise. Even a small amount of sea level rise can cause a ton of coastline erosion, because the water is now frequently flooding into areas not already weathered. It's not compatible with our infrastructure, unless we spent a lot to renovate it.
So the waves only erode coastline when the sea is above the mean from the start of the industrial revolution?
It can't cause a lot of coastline erosion because it's only 1.5 feet, and we have 100 years to prepare for the gargantuan task of adding some sandbags around a few low lying roads.
Yes, society will "adapt", by exacerbating inequality. Massive amounts of resources will be wasted on ideas like "add 2 feet of gravel and pave it again" to allow the super rich to keep their properties for a few years longer, and the only actual workable solution (building new sustainable homes and allowing people to relocate to them for free) will be ignored.
Wouldn't society focusing on construction jobs for blue collar workers over global recycling and carbon trading schemes be less unequal.
I say if the finance bros want their skyscrapers to remain above water they need to hire construction workers rather than make consumer goods in the developing world more expensive through regulation.
There's the authoritarian collectivist power differential take! I knew you were coming, you little rascal!
Massive amounts of resources are being wasted on bad climate ideas now. Poor people have bigger problems. That certain patches of land might be squishier in 100 years isn't in their top 10.
Yep. Been reading variations of the same article for decades. Captain Planet up there says building bridges and moving dirt around causes inequity, though, so I guess we have to live with it.
> says building bridges and moving dirt around causes inequity
Infrastructure is one of the most expensive things people interact with on a regular basis. Choices in how we build infrastructure redirects society's resources on a massive scale. So yes, I do think it's plausible that huge investments in water-resistant infrastructure and wasteful attempts to build Dubai-style island suburbs will redirect resources away from more important issues, like the pressing need in the US to fix existing bridges and roads, build 1.5 million more houses, earthquake-proof the infrastructure in the pacific northwest, and figure out how to get 4800 GW more on the electrical grid cleanly.
When solutions really are that simple, yes, go for the solution that is simple. Of course. Society in general doesn't put enough weight on simple low-tech solutions.
But before prescribing solutions for the general case (the general idea of houses being cut off from the main land), assume that you will face the worst case scenario of complexity and tons of sub-problems -- for example, I'm sure some of the cases examined by this research will also have the problem of underground gas lines, plumbing, electrical, communications services -- and maybe a road that has been damaged beyond trivial repair. It's best to treat those scenarios as losses, especially if additional erosion is predicted in the next 20 or so years and the fix requires much more expensive engineering. Otherwise we will get trapped into a pattern that wastes the best resources of the entire system, for the sake of a few homeowners.
OK: I believe authoritarians should be laughed at early and often. If anybody happens construe the people I mistakenly described as authoritarians as fucking authoritarian, please mock the motherfuckers.
It's interesting that the collectivist power differential never extends to the state vs. the individual, no the state is always grand and good, except when it's run by other collectivists.
Definitely, these anti-elite luddites think they can just put gravel on roads til it's above water without proper expertise and oversight. We definitely need a global authority to issue permits for people to put extra gravel, or move dirt from the above water part of the hill to the below water part.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/al-gores-climate-sequel-misses-...