Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Climate Refugees Pt. 2

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Wed 04 May 2016, 22:56:52

Absolute and utter BS.


as usual insults with no substance. Exactly what do you know about the subject? Perhaps more than Richard Feynman who said in his famous 1960"s presentation

"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true.Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works. 

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.


Or Sir Peter Medawar one of the most influential scientists of the nineteenth century:

In the hypothetico-deductive scheme the inferences we draw from a hypothesis are, in a sense, its logical output. If they are true, the hypothesis need not be altered, but correction is obligatory if they are false.


Or if you like the more popular science types Carl Sagan:

[Science] is not perfect. It can be misused. It is only a tool. But it is by far the best tool we have, self-correcting, ongoing, applicable to everything. It has two rules. First: there are no sacred truths; all assumptions must be critically examined; arguments from authority are worthless. Second: whatever is inconsistent with the facts must be discarded or revised. ... The obvious is sometimes false; the unexpected is sometimes true.


but given you aren't a scientist but perhaps might go somewhere on the internet for school teachers how about this:
[url]http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html
[/url]
I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory


I could go on but I think that should be sufficient to indicate you have your head planted firmly where the sun doesn't shine.
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7086
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Plantagenet » Wed 04 May 2016, 23:49:14

KaiserJeep wrote: Venus is uninhabited, no fossil fuel burning.


The CO2 in Venus' atmosphere came from volcanic eruptions. There is so much CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere there that the greenhouse effect results in a surface temperature of ca. 864°F.

That is one heck of a greenhouse effect!

Cheers!
hall of shame
People who buy new cars and then cry crocodile tears over climate change. The manufacture of a typical new car emits ca. 16 tons of CO2 and a new EV is actually much worse since the battery also has to be manufactured, resulting in a total carbon footprint of ca. 30 tons of CO2
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 22661
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 05 May 2016, 02:37:12

Plantagenet wrote:
KaiserJeep wrote: Venus is uninhabited, no fossil fuel burning.


The CO2 in Venus' atmosphere came from volcanic eruptions. There is so much CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere there that the greenhouse effect results in a surface temperature of ca. 864°F.

That is one heck of a greenhouse effect!

Cheers!


I agree, and it does not prove that AGW is happening on Earth. The greenhouse effect exists and can be confirmed via experiments, in accordance with the scientific method. AGW remains an unproven theory that cannot be confirmed via the scientific method. Planetary models of climate do not work. The opinions of how ever many people you can count are meaningless. The world is warming because it is natural for it to do so and the warming cannot be slowed, stopped, or reversed.

Can we at least agree that a) We need to stop burning FF's for a lot of good reasons, all unrelated to AGW and b) This is a senseless argument that can never be settled, resolved, confirmed, denied, or ended in any way.

So don't ever mention AGW as more than a theory. That's what it is, all it can ever be. Even if you were up to your neck in warm salt water, the theory would not be "proved" and can never be. Because that's the way science works.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby clif » Thu 05 May 2016, 03:12:02

So don't ever mention AGW as more than a theory. That's what it is, all it can ever be.


So is gravity, nothing more than a theory.

Blackholes are the best theoretical explanation of the evidence.

Light is made up of photons, is a theory, very usable but unprovable especially if you consider the two slit interference experiment.

So is the big bang, just an unprovable theory but the best working one we currently have for the origin of the universe. You're probably still a steady state person eh?

the theory would not be "proved" and can never be. Because that's the way science works.


Too bad for you AGW is currently the best theory as to what is happening to the planets climate.

Just as gravity is the best theory as to why we do not float away. Even those who are as full of hot air as you seem to be. :mrgreen: 8O
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 12:04:10

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 05 May 2016, 04:16:24

We don't even need a theory of what is happening to the Earth's climate, because what is happening cannot be changed.

Once you understand and admit to that, then you are prepared to move on, versus being obsessed with getting other people to believe you, agree with you, congratulate you, worship your wisdom, or whatever dark desire lies at the root of your obsessive behavior.

The facts are that AGW fanboys are the prime example of that psychological phenomenon known as groupthink. The rest of us normal humans can't ignore you, you are a significant minority and so shrilly insistent that we listen to you, praise you, or whatever your obsessive need is all about.

Now understand this: You are the lunatic fringe of our society. We can barely tolerate your behavior. You are completely and utterly tiresome in your obsession.

The people that should be talking about this topic are climate scientists. YOU have no especial expertise, in fact not even enough knowledge to have a valid opinion about a topic that takes decades of study and advanced degrees to understand. A fair number of politicians have joined in and all that they are interested in is the power they can accumulate by claiming to "fix" AGW. Ask yourself why Al Gore claims to care about AGW while he flies around in his personal 737 jetliner, spewing tons of carbon on every flight, and why he drives around in a tuna boat of a full-sized Buick instead of a bicycle or a Segway. That would be because he is playing to your obsession so that you worship his wisdom and give him power over you to "fix" your silly AGW. So go buy some stock in his company that manufactures carbon sequestration equipment, if it will make you feel better.

Just please, do the rest of us a favor and STFU about AGW forevermore.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby clif » Thu 05 May 2016, 04:31:29

We don't even need a theory of what is happening to the Earth's climate, because what is happening cannot be changed.


Not if you don't WANT to even try.

Once you understand and admit to that, then you are prepared to move on, versus being obsessed with getting other people to believe you, agree with you, congratulate you, worship your wisdom, or whatever dark desire lies at the root of your obsessive behavior.


Funny that YOU try so hard to do exactly what you claim is a waste of time for others to do.

The facts are that AGW fanboys are the prime example of that psychological phenomenon known as groupthink. The rest of us normal humans can't ignore you, you are a significant minority and so shrilly insistent that we listen to you, praise you, or whatever your obsessive need is all about.


So we FORCE you to turn on your computer, and click on this very website all against your will?

Interesting that you give the others here at peak oil that kind of power over you.

Now understand this: You are the lunatic fringe of our society. We can barely tolerate your behavior. You are completely and utterly tiresome in your obsession.


And you have NO ability to do something different, you are forced against your will to come here and read this blog, even though your're the only one in your abode, and we all are elsewhere.


Just please, do the rest of us a favor and STFU about AGW forevermore.


Somebody seems to have gotten a wee bit under your thin skin eh?

Too bad you haven't refuted anything except your own words with the fact you posted them.

PS; interesting but very unconvincing theory you have for the rest of our motives.

The words you post about obsession, and the anger you seem to spew them with, seem to be projecting more about your self, than any pseudo-psychological attempt at pigeon holing the rest of us. But do continue KJ, at least for the entertainment value you provide. It is enlightening but not in the way you imagine.
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 12:04:10

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby ralfy » Thu 05 May 2016, 05:00:05

It is a waste of time looking for absolute proof concerning AGW because if that is proven then it would likely be too late to counter the effects.

And given problems such as pollution, peak oil, overpopulation, and chronic financial crises it is also futile to hope that there's no AGW.
http://sites.google.com/site/peakoilreports/
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4974
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 10:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Lore » Thu 05 May 2016, 07:21:53

First of all, maybe we should explain to KJ what the difference is between a scientific theory and a hypothesis is?

Theory vs Hypothesis

What "theory" means in ordinary speech:

The term "theory" means a very different thing when used in everyday conversation and in science. In our day to day speech, we often use "theory" to mean a guess or unsubstantiated idea about how something works (as in "I have a theory that gremlins are hiding my car keys").

In science, we would call such a guess a hypothesis, not a theory. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observation. In this case, I am proposing that the explanation for why I can't find my car keys is that gremlins are hiding them.*

The distinction between the words "Theory" and "Hypothesis" is very important because in science "Theory" does not mean "guess". I repeat, "Theory" does not mean "guess".

So, what does the word "theory" mean in science?

According to the National Academies of Sciences, "some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena".

People who don't understand this distinction sometimes dismiss ideas saying "it's just a theory" (this is very commonly used to suggest that evolution is just speculation, for example). But, when scientists speak of the theory of gravity or the theory of evolution, they don't mean that these are random untested ideas that someone came up with after too many beers.

The AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), the world's largest scientific society, has this explanation of what scientists mean when they use the word "theory":

" A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."

Because of this crucial difference in meaning, I will ask students to use the word "hypothesis" whenever they are referring to a speculation or guess about how something works.

* Note, that unfortunately, my hypothesis about gremlins is not useful in science, since it is notoriously difficult to detect gremlins. A hypothesis that cannot be shown to be wrong is of no use in science.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb31 ... ories.html
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 05 May 2016, 07:23:08

Ralfy, how absolute does your proof need to be?

It's really just basic physics and basic facts:

1) CO2 (and methane...) is a Greenhouse Gas...the more there is in the atmosphere, the more the atmosphere will warm. This is a fact of physics, established about two hundred years ago. It has to do with absorption spectrum of these molecules. It's the kind of thing that's so well established, it's just listed in tables in the back of physics text books, like the boiling point of water...

2) We have been dumping hundreds of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. To deny this, you would have to either deny that we have been burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and methane) for about two centuries, or you would have to claim that burning these carbon-based fuels (which is a process of oxidation) somehow does not produce CO2.

3) CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been steadily going up. Well established by Keeling many decades ago and by countless studies since.

4) Average global temperatures have been going up. Again, affirmed by countless studies, include those studies that set out to prove that all the other studies were wrong!

One would have to be a total imbecile to deny any of these, and would have to be an even bigger imbecile to not be able to connect these very obvious dots.

So when you are arguing with denialists, you are arguing either with total imbeciles (which...why bother), or you are arguing with people pretending to be imbeciles, who are, of course, even more pathetic, and with whom it is an even bigger waste of time to argue.

As the saying goes, you can't wake someone up who is only pretending to be asleep.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 18450
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Lore » Thu 05 May 2016, 07:30:11

Really, bringing up this same old argument with a confirmed denier like KJ is rather pointless. All it does it take everybody off track from the original discussion. We've plowed this ground many times before and the answers keep coming up the same.

Just a suggestion, but ignore the ignorance and carry on with the original topic.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Lore » Thu 05 May 2016, 07:51:50

pstarr wrote:Thanks for the bump Lore :) As I previously noted, these island have been sinking for decades by a measurable amount every year. Where is the science that attributes any of that to GW? Got journal article for science?


No, you're not actually trying to suggest that with all the icecap melt and thermal expansion that the sea levels aren't actually rising, but it's all the continents that are submerging? :lol:

You seem to be confusing your AGW with plate tectonics.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 05 May 2016, 08:10:18

Lore wrote:Really, bringing up this same old argument with a confirmed denier like KJ is rather pointless. All it does it take everybody off track from the original discussion. We've plowed this ground many times before and the answers keep coming up the same.

Just a suggestion, but ignore the ignorance and carry on with the original topic.


Yup!
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13072
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Newfie » Thu 05 May 2016, 08:21:36

Erosion, subduction, land reclamation, etc are all more or less local issues. As noted they have been around for a long time.

SLR is different because it is pervasive on every coast with some local variations.

Most of our great cities have been built upon the coast because when they were conceived shipping was done by ship. Therefore most of our great cities are at some degree of risk.

Resettlement is ONE factor in the risk. Probably a minor factor. Damage to the infrastructure is a much greater problem. Besides the foundations, there is the underground infrastructure of pipes, cables, and tunnels. The ground structure itself may be changed due to it becoming wetter and not able to support the building weight. The water table and potable water supplies change.

These cities were built at a time of cheap calories, almost free energy. They would have to be repaired, replaced, remediated during a time of increasingly dear energy. The energy cost involved is significant.

When was the last time we built a new tunnel across the Hudson River? When was the last time we abandoned an old tunnel because we built a new one to replace it?

We are like someone who won a million dollars in the lottery and went out and bought a huge mansion. Paid cash and spent all the winnings. But now we can't pay the taxes or fix the roof.

And it's not just somewhere, it's a planetary issue.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13072
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby ennui2 » Thu 05 May 2016, 08:36:12

I don't think even in the most optimistic economic scenarios that the US will be able to afford to just push all coastal cities inward. What you'll see instead is an attempt to kind of hold onto the cities as-is with the minimum amount of effort. Rickety seawall and bilge pump approaches, or trying to make cities operate with water all around ala Venice. It's gonna be pretty messy and a huge drain on GDP. It won't be regular sealevel that does cities in probably but rather a flooding/storm-surge event ala Katrina or Sandy. You can rebuild after one or two of these after which it just becomes too costly.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 09:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Lore » Thu 05 May 2016, 08:38:43

Good points Newfie. Major metropolitan areas are not going to just pick up their whole population and move them 100 miles further inland intact. There to build multi-billion dollar new gleaming cities. People will scatter as well as the former businesses as this plays out over decades.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 05 May 2016, 09:11:06

clif wrote:
“We’re going to lose all our heritage, all our culture,” lamented Chief Albert Naquin of the Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw, the tribe to which most Isle de Jean Charles residents belong. “It’s all going to be history.”


It always does.
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 16:10:26

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby rockdoc123 » Thu 05 May 2016, 09:14:36

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world."


But only so when they are falsifiable, have been tested extensively and do not show major inconsistencies with observations.

You guys seem to like Wikipedia so here is the definition from there

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.


and as I have already pointed out the scientific method requires either tossing out a theory or revising it when observation or experimentation shows it to be incorrect in part or in whole.

One of the best quotes on this is from Paul Sabatier a famous French chemist given when he recieved the Nobel Prize for his work in organic chemical reactions

“Theories cannot claim to be indestructible. They are only the plough which the ploughman uses to draw his furrow and which he has every right to discard for another one, of improved design, after the harvest. To be this ploughman, to see my labours result in the furtherance of scientific progress, was the height of my ambition, and now the Swedish Academy of Sciences has come, at this harvest, to add the most brilliant of crowns.” 


It's really just basic physics and basic facts:

1) CO2 (and methane...) is a Greenhouse Gas...the more there is in the atmosphere, the more the atmosphere will warm. This is a fact of physics, established about two hundred years ago. It has to do with absorption spectrum of these molecules. It's the kind of thing that's so well established, it's just listed in tables in the back of physics text books, like the boiling point of water...

2) We have been dumping hundreds of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. To deny this, you would have to either deny that we have been burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, and methane) for about two centuries, or you would have to claim that burning these carbon-based fuels (which is a process of oxidation) somehow does not produce CO2.

3) CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been steadily going up. Well established by Keeling many decades ago and by countless studies since.

4) Average global temperatures have been going up. Again, affirmed by countless studies, include those studies that set out to prove that all the other studies were wrong!

One would have to be a total imbecile to deny any of these, and would have to be an even bigger imbecile to not be able to connect these very obvious dots.


Actually one IS a total imbecile to believe that correlation proves causation.

Perhaps you could also point out that the number of teenage pregnancies has been steadily rising over this period....or the number of microbreweries has been steadily increasing....these are also observations that correlate with rising temperature. Hence increased friskiness of the teenage population or the need for a multitude of different varieties of Indian Pale Ale must be responsible for climate change. :roll:
User avatar
rockdoc123
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7086
Joined: Mon 16 May 2005, 02:00:00

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 05 May 2016, 09:30:17

I was looking around for geography info on cities like New York or Baltimore. Turns out for NYC the move is not a great distance to be above even melt it all levels of deglaciation. The city will need to move less than 20 miles to be above 300 feet from today's sea level. Will it be inconvenient and expensive? Yes and yes, but positive steps could be taken today to start. Tying the nearby uplands into the mass transit grid has already been done because these areas are considered the near in suburbs of the city. Same with utilities and regular road/rail networks. Taking the next step of selecting the 'ideal location' for the new city center should be done ASAP. Once that is done tax incentives for the big businesses in Manhattan to build new energy efficient skyscrapers along with high density housing for the employees of those businesses could be put into place which would cause a land rush building boom not seen since the 1940's as companies build and relocate their offices to the new city business center. Once they have moved the heart of the city to the new location demolition of the old structures, or disassembly and moving the historic ones to the new center would free up all the lowest laying areas first as new parks, then later as the water rise they would become prime fishing grounds for pleasure/recreational fishing.

Of course all of that would require two things, leaders who take an honest look at the future of sea level rise and who act in a proactive way through law to promote transition to a new location with the least cost to the city that exists today.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15509
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 05 May 2016, 09:38:33

Yes, those are very good points, Newf. And I also second Lore's idea to just ignore those so deeply sunk in their own wilful ignorance that they wouldn't recognize the light of knowledge if it were shining brightly in their eyes (which it is, actually!).

To further Newf's excellent points:

On pretty much every coast everywhere in the world at about the same time all infrastructure and people will have to be moved at a steady and accelerating rate.

This will happen at a time when all resources are in terminal decline.

But in particular, it will have to happen with essentially zero energy use from fossil-death-fuels.

Also with now use of concrete manufacturing, at least not by conventional means, since that is another important source of GHGs.

And it will come at a time of huge and rapidly increasing demands on those same resources from many other sectors. Food requirements will likely mean massive shifts of the population to the countryside (where the food is and can be grown in quantity).

Internal and external immigration will continue to spiral out of control as more and more areas that could once support ag and herding will dry up or flood out or just be impossible to live in.

And ever bigger and ever more damaging storms and wildfires will be wiping out neighborhoods and even entire cities (as we are now witnessing in Canada) at a greater and greater pace. All of which infrastructure will have to be rebuilt, or people and activities squeezed into ever fewer still-viable structures.

To people who tend to look at these things in isolation and from a pre-Age-of-Limits perspective, specific projects, even if it moving the entire city of Houston, look doable. And they may be right if it were just that one project and we were still in the Age of (relative) Abundance.

But we finally, finally have to start looking at whole pictures rather than isolated pieces of the picture if we want to even have some slight glimmering notion of what sort of sh!t storm we are rushing into.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 18450
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: The resettling begins

Unread postby dohboi » Thu 05 May 2016, 09:50:03

We posted at the same time, but, T, as smart as your plan looks on the face of it, it is a prime example of looking at one situation outside of the broader context.

Whether it is moving all cities inland (and places like Miami will have an enormously longer distance than NYC would), or building enormous and ever growing dikes around everything, these are projects that every country with a coast in the world will be doing at the same time.

There may be some advantages, then to be the ones starting these processes early, I suppose. But on the other hand, moving NYC inland would put it at a big disadvantage wrt to maritime trade. But perhaps we will return to situations like ancient Athens and Rome which were located inland (safer from pirate raids) but that each had port cities (in the case of Athens, one attached to the city with long walls.)

In any case, it is relatively easy to come up with solutions in individual isolated cases, even though they would be hugely disruptive. But the moment you think about the global context in which any such projects would be taking place, things start to look quite a bit less...tractable.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 18450
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests