[AgentR11]

Defenses against ocean flooding are never futile; they are just not permanent. They are a temporary adaptation, where you compare their cost, vs the amount of time they'll likely serve the purpose. I'd suspect any structure that could give an extra 30 yrs would be more than cost effective in many built up locations. Just be sure to raise the property tax assessments of those
being protected by that structure.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Defenses against ocean flooding are never futile; they are just not permanent. They are a temporary adaptation, where you compare their cost, vs the amount of time they'll likely serve the purpose. I'd suspect any structure that could give an extra 30 yrs would be more than cost effective in many built up locations. Just be sure to raise the property tax assessments of those
being protected by that structure.

Excellent point on the last sentence. Reading along, I was going to point out that "cost effective" will be viewed from the angle of who's paying for it, until I saw that.

Given the politics thus far, as usual with such things, isn't that really the whole issue? People want to be taken care of, but don't want to pay for it.

People want good roads and bridges, but don't want a higher gasoline tax. People want safe and reliable water supplies, but don't want to pay higher water bills to properly maintain/replace our aging water infrastructure. People want a safe and reliable electric grid, but hate electricity rates (implying they won't want to pay extra to improve the grid).

And on and on.

...

It reminds me of this PBS documentary I saw years ago about this rural community that was basically paradise, except they had a big raw sewage problem when it rained. And the documentary acted like (but didn't state) that they couldn't get the money to build the sewage plant/improvements to fix it.

Those poor people, I thought. Shouldn't the federal government help out with a loan, which could be paid off via sewage taxes over 20 years or so?

Well, it turns out money was the ENTIRE problem. Finally PBS admitted the federal government HAD offered a loan to build the sewage plant to solve the problem. But the local residents didn't want to pay for it. They wanted it to come 100% from the feds. $100ish a month per resident in sewer taxes would have fixed the entire problem. Not a bad price to restore paradise.

And so it goes.

[Newfie]

When I filled up the rental this morning I saw a sticker breaking down the taxes. HST/excise/ something else. Added up to 58%. $1.30/liter. About $5/gallon.

[KaiserJeep]

When I filled up the rental this morning I saw a sticker breaking down the taxes. HST/excise/ something else. Added up to 58%. $1.30/liter. About $5/gallon.

Well, if you have paid the taxes, and the government collected the taxes to alleviate the problems caused by burning the fuel, then the government is assuming some of the direct responsibility borne for burning the fuel, versus all blame for the pollution belonging to the consumer who burned the fuel in their vehicle. If paying the taxes didn't resolve such problems, that would be the one scenario where some of the blame gets transferred to the government.

But in neither case is the FF supplier responsible. There are green transportation alternatives available. If a fuel consumer chooses to burn fuel versus choosing a green alternative, they bear the responsibility. I should think you would be glad to pay the taxes and resolve yourself of some of the blame.

Automobile and truck drivers could choose to walk, ride a bicycle, or ride a horse. Sailboat owners could choose the laborious process of sailing into the wind, versus burning marine fuels. (Yes, both us former Coasties understand how difficult that is.)

The facts are that no government can stop, slow, or reverse SLR. The taxes are either going to be wasted on temporary fixes, or (more likely) going to enrich the politicians.

[dohboi]

I'm sure the the poor little richest corporations in the world are happy that they have brave KJ to run to their defense!

[KaiserJeep]

Doughboy, note now that for decades, solar photovoltaics, wind turbines, and other sources of renewable energy have been available as alternatives to burning fossil fuels. Likewise, practical Battery EVs, hydrogen fuelled buses, and electric railways exist as alternative transportation. Locally sourced organic foods have been made available as alternatives to processed and packaged foods.

Yet YOU the consumer choose to continue the use of cheaper FF energy because YOU the consumer are greedy and refuse to pay the premium price associated with Green energy sources. You do this because you wish to buy even more "stuff" you don't need, but still want.

Note that the "poor little richest corporations in the world" have also provided the Green energy alternatives and the organic foods that the vast majority of people do not use. You are breaking their greedy little hearts because you refuse to buy these new Green products, and continue to purchase FF's, which they are finding harder and more expensive to supply to your voracious demands.

The consequences are (if you AGW fanboys can be believed) additional global warming, a faster rate of seal level rise, and increasing pollution that sickens everyone and further poisons the environment.

So when are YOU going to change YOUR murderous and destructive habits?

My guess is never, because YOU are a selfish, globe destroying, thoughtless consumer, and always will be. Likewise you will always be in denial of your own choices.



Now you reflect upon your role in the destruction of the planet, and decide whether your behavior will change or continue unchanged.

[dohboi]

KJ, YOU know nothing about ME, so kindly STFU.


tHaNk YoU!

[dohboi]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 184443.htm

Historical records may underestimate global sea level rise

...our best historical sea level records tend to be located where past sea level rise was most likely less than the true global average...

[kiwichick]

@ d......is the global average from 2015 available somewhere?

[KaiserJeep]

KJ, YOU know nothing about ME, so kindly STFU.


tHaNk YoU!

No, I don't know the personal steps you have taken to minimize your Fossil Fuel consumption. I know what I did, and I published my lifestyle changes in these forum pages more than once.

You have not done so. You have never even acknowledged your own responsibility as a consumer. You can select green alternatives. You can reduce personal consumption. Yet all you ever do is blame the "richest corporations" for the things you do.

I have told you before that energy securities are mostly owned by elderly folks as part of their "blue chip" retirement mix. In fact if you have any form of a retirement account managed by a 3rd party, you probably have a major chunk of your own money in energy corporate securities.

In other words, you have been attacking yourself.

So please share with us (in general terms) what you have done to preserve the planet. Because I think you haven't done anything at all, and that is what eats at your conscience.

[dohboi]

KJ: I've shared plenty enough already. It's not my problem that you aren't paying attention, and I owe you no explanation for anything anyways.

Have a nice day!

kiwichick--I'll see if I can track something down, but others should pitch in if they have it at their finger tips. In any case, individual years don't tell you much since there can be quite a bit of variation in the such short term data, as I understand it.

ETA: The following link seems to indicate that the last reading in 2014 was 75.8 mm and the last in 2015 was 85.5, so that would be just short of a ten mm rise for 2015, much more than the long term average of about 3.4 mm/yr, but others should double check. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

[jedrider]

My calculations show:

May 2011 54
May 2016 86

5 yrs 32mm = 6mm

So, about double the rate from 1995-2010, which was about 3mm.

So, say it doubles again in maybe the following decade, then it is 12mm/yr.

You can easily get to a meter by 2100 OR multiple meters. That is not good.

[KaiserJeep]

KJ: I've shared plenty enough already. It's not my problem that you aren't paying attention, and I owe you no explanation for anything anyways.

Have a nice day!

kiwichick--I'll see if I can track something down, but others should pitch in if they have it at their finger tips. In any case, individual years don't tell you much since there can be quite a bit of variation in the such short term data, as I understand it.

ETA: The following link seems to indicate that the last reading in 2014 was 75.8 mm and the last in 2015 was 85.5, so that would be just short of a ten mm rise for 2015, much more than the long term average of about 3.4 mm/yr, but others should double check. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Nope, you can't blow me off again. I scanned your posts last time you made your empty claim about lifestyle changes, and you haven't shared anything since. Which means that you are the rankest of hypocrites, unwilling to change anything which might possibly help the planet, while blaming others for the choices you make, and refusing to even acknowledge your own role in the destruction of the ecology.

I knew this, I didn't even have to ask. But I wanted everyone else that you interact with here to understand that you don't act in accordance with your claimed opinions, and all you do is blame others.

Now they know.

[dohboi]

I'll just say this to this a$$hole: I score 'less than one earth' on www.myfootprint.org

How are others doing on that one?

[dohboi]

And congratulations, KJ--you are now the only person on my 'ignore' list.

Have a nice life.

[KaiserJeep]

I count coup on the doughboy!

[Tanada]

If rise really has doubled to 6mm per annum that adds up to roughly an inch every four years. Not exactly a tsunami, but about two feet of rise between now and the 2101.

[dohboi]

The question, T, is what is the doubling time.

[kiwichick]

@ d..........+1

[Tanada]

The question, T, is what is the doubling time.

If we accept the 1 meter per decade limit as being reasonable (historical examples range from 300mm to 600mm per decade maximums) then the most we can get will be 100mm per year and much lower amounts are increasingly more likely as you approach the current rate.

100mm is just under 4 inches, 60mm is 1.7 inches and the most likely result of 30mm is just over 1 inch, 1.18 inches.

This is not to down play sea level rise, but the historical limit when there were massive ice sheets in Europe, Asia, North America and even South America was 60mm. It seems incredibly unlikely to me that with just the remnant ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica left to melt the rate would exceed the 30mm rate. Taking that as a likely limit then you can double to 12mm and double again to 24mm per year, but it is extraordinarily unlikely you could double after that to 48mm per year.

So here is a scenario for you,
2000-2009 rise 3mm per annum.
2010-2019 rise 6mm per annum.
2020-2029 rise 24mm per annum (West Antarctic Ice Sheet Collapse scenario)

The WAIS is expected to contribute 5000mm of average sea level rise. How long does that take at 24mm per annum? 208 years. Okay you say, but we have geological examples of as much as 60mm per annum! Well if you insist, how long does it take for 5000mm rise at a rate of 60mm per year? 83 years. Yes for my worst case scenario of 100mm per year it only take 50 years.

I dunno about the rest of you reading this, but on a human time scale 50 years is a very long time, long enough to be born, mature, have children, have those children mature, and have grandchildren born without rushing any of the marriages.