Suppose Climate Change is real, but we can’t stop it (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,111
Reaction score
1,346
Age
42
Location
Earth
Online
At some point even the Greatas of the world may have to admit that climate change is not something we can prevent. Whether or not it is human caused, there will be a point if no return.

Where is the point where humanity is better served by focusing resources on adaptation rather than prevention?

There is likely much overlap between prevention and adaptation.

One example of this might be the activists’ push against fossil fuels...

Maybe we should be trying use as much solar power as possible now to save fossil fuels for a time when we have a period of glaciation in an area where humans live today? Maybe we will need that oil and gas should there be a time when the Midwest is below freezing five months a year. This is not an uncommon situation in Earth’s relatively recent history.

I do believe that the climate is changing and that we will fail to stop it, and we are the ancestors of people who will have to grow their food in different regions from us and get their energy from different places.

The sooner humanity begins to diversify these necessities the better.
 
Last edited:

Intensesaint

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
473
Reaction score
328
Location
Florida
Offline
The thing that amazes me most about this is the fact that huge multibillion dollar companies continue to develop real estate along coastlines. Not just the developers, but also the investment bankers who back the projects. And we are talking about projects that will take years and years to see payoffs.

Often in political theater, people will many times pull the charlatan classic move of do as I say not as I do. Knowing full well they don't practice what they preach. If these billion dollar companies really believed that the land they are investing in would be worthless in a decade or two, you can be your arse they would not be putting their money anywhere near it. So it begs the question, why are they continuing to pour money into these projects? They are clearly savvy companies and not idiots.
 

dtc

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
618
Reaction score
1,004
Age
52
Location
Florida
Offline
The thing that amazes me most about this is the fact that huge multibillion dollar companies continue to develop real estate along coastlines. Not just the developers, but also the investment bankers who back the projects. And we are talking about projects that will take years and years to see payoffs.

Often in political theater, people will many times pull the charlatan classic move of do as I say not as I do. Knowing full well they don't practice what they preach. If these billion dollar companies really believed that the land they are investing in would be worthless in a decade or two, you can be your arse they would not be putting their money anywhere near it. So it begs the question, why are they continuing to pour money into these projects? They are clearly savvy companies and not idiots.
I build stuff along the coast for billion dollar entities.

They're not stupid.

You're framing of this is a little odd. Coastal degradation isn't going to make the waterfront useless or less valuable. And an investment horizon of 20 30 60 years doesn't exclude coastal development. Hell, even the NFIP's elevation requirements for new coastal construction are so high that rising water isn't going to render new work useless. Nor is it making your point.

Big money developments know that water is rising and build higher.

Nothing is going to save Grand Isle.

Destin, on the other hand, can be built 100 yards inland and 10' higher and survive another 200 years.
 

Port City JJ

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2020
Messages
40
Reaction score
102
Age
44
Location
Shreveport
Offline
There are some interesting new developments that can potentially make removing CO2 from the atmosphere cheaper and scale-able.

 

N.O.Bronco

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
732
Reaction score
1,421
Location
Houston
Offline
The thing that amazes me most about this is the fact that huge multibillion dollar companies continue to develop real estate along coastlines. Not just the developers, but also the investment bankers who back the projects. And we are talking about projects that will take years and years to see payoffs.

Often in political theater, people will many times pull the charlatan classic move of do as I say not as I do. Knowing full well they don't practice what they preach. If these billion dollar companies really believed that the land they are investing in would be worthless in a decade or two, you can be your arse they would not be putting their money anywhere near it. So it begs the question, why are they continuing to pour money into these projects? They are clearly savvy companies and not idiots.
You’re right, we certainly can look at what the market has decided, so perhaps we should check in with the facet of the market that’s entire existence is to price risk, the insurance market. What do they have to say?




But what about other organizations that’s job is purposed on analyzing risk? Like the military. Maybe we can check in with them next??? See what they have to say... I wonder?


 
Last edited:

N.O.Bronco

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
732
Reaction score
1,421
Location
Houston
Offline
At some point even the Greatas of the world may have to admit that climate change is not something we can prevent. Whether or not it is human caused, there will be a point if no return.

Where is the point where humanity is better served by focusing resources on adaptation rather than prevention?

There is likely much overlap between prevention and adaptation.

One example of this might be the activists’ push against fossil fuels...

Maybe we should be trying use as much solar power as possible now to save fossil fuels for a time when we have a period of glaciation in an area where humans live today? Maybe we will need that oil and gas should there be a time when the Midwest is below freezing five months a year. This is not an uncommon situation in Earth’s relatively recent history.

I do believe that the climate is changing and that we will fail to stop it, and we are the ancestors of people who will have to grow their food in different regions from us and get their energy from different places.

The sooner humanity begins to diversify these necessities the better.
There is so much factual ignorance in this I honestly dont know where to begin.

Yes humans are the primary driver, there is not a single alternative hypothesis that has stood up to peer review that offers a different causation than human induced dumping of GHG’s into the atmosphere. Yes we have time to mitigate the worst effects, but increasingly less and less because of people like you. But no matter what, unless we learn to successfully geo-engineer the planet, additional prevention is the only solution of humans want to continue to exist in healthy numbers on this planet.

Climate change is not some one time event that we just move ten miles up the road and change our crop placement, the changes continue indefinitely until we do something, that is the forking problem. If it were a one time shift we could adjust and move on. It’s not. You keep dumping GHG’s into the atmosphere and the concentration increases and the warming effect continues upward. Meaning changes continue indefinitely. I’m sorry, your entire premise is forked.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #8
OP

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,111
Reaction score
1,346
Age
42
Location
Earth
Online
There is so much factual ignorance in this I honestly dont know where to begin.

Yes humans are the primary driver, there is not a single alternative hypothesis that has stood up to peer review that offers a different causation than human induced dumping of GHG’s into the atmosphere. Yes we have time to mitigate the worst effects, but increasingly less and less because of people like you. But no matter what, unless we learn to successfully geo-engineer the planet, additional prevention is the only solution of humans want to continue to exist in healthy numbers on this planet.

Climate change is not some one time event that we just move ten miles up the road and change our crop placement, the changes continue indefinitely until we do something, that is the forking problem. If it were a one time shift we could adjust and move on. It’s not. You keep dumping GHG’s into the atmosphere and the concentration increases and the warming effect continues upward. Meaning changes continue indefinitely. I’m sorry, your entire premise is forked.
You seem to be under the impression that my post was denying climate change.

It was just a post about how we may be able to get deniers to support alternatives to fossil fuels.
 

N.O.Bronco

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
732
Reaction score
1,421
Location
Houston
Offline
You seem to be under the impression that my post was denying climate change.

It was just a post about how we may be able to get deniers to support alternatives to fossil fuels.
It does come off that way, yes.

But I do apologize for the cynicism a bit. As I have a low threshold of tolerance when it appears after all this time that people are being willfully ignorant to the largest existential threat the human race has ever faced.

However, I think much of what I said still stands.

The problem with that premise is the problem undergirding all of climate change. It is not a one time transition. As we fail to mitigate our activities, these changes continue. We can, though hopefully it won’t come to this, relocate people further up the Nile Delta, but if we don’t actually do anything about climate change, those million people will simply have to leave entiriely as salt water continues to creep up indefinitely and erode the fertile land and water they rely for their day to day survival.

The bread basket that feeds much of America may have to move further north. But you get less sunlight, forcing either more use of chemicals to compensate or yielding less return. But that also has a volatile shelf life, and who wants to go into that industry if your infrastructure you invested millions may be obsolete in a few years as volatility of climate change continues due to inaction?

I think we are quickly backing ourselves into solutions that we have very little experience with, like geoengineering, and that is worrisome because one, they won’t stop things like ocean acidification that billions rely upon as a source of food, and it is only a bandaid solution.

I don’t know what we do specifically, but I will say from my perspective, the solutions will come by going around denialists, not through them.
 

UncleTrvlingJim

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
831
Reaction score
1,673
Location
Virginia
Offline
The thing that amazes me most about this is the fact that huge multibillion dollar companies continue to develop real estate along coastlines. Not just the developers, but also the investment bankers who back the projects. And we are talking about projects that will take years and years to see payoffs.

Often in political theater, people will many times pull the charlatan classic move of do as I say not as I do. Knowing full well they don't practice what they preach. If these billion dollar companies really believed that the land they are investing in would be worthless in a decade or two, you can be your arse they would not be putting their money anywhere near it. So it begs the question, why are they continuing to pour money into these projects? They are clearly savvy companies and not idiots.
Development companies do take into account climate change. Perhaps you should illustrate an example of a coastal project that you think refutes the risk involved with climate change and we can take a look at what climate models predict and the ROI of said coastal project.
 

Intensesaint

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
473
Reaction score
328
Location
Florida
Offline
Development companies do take into account climate change. Perhaps you should illustrate an example of a coastal project that you think refutes the risk involved with climate change and we can take a look at what climate models predict and the ROI of said coastal project.
I can give you one that is local. Honestly with a simple google search of coastal cities you can find MANY projects being built and planned. This one is roughly 100ft away from the shoreline.

 

UncleTrvlingJim

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
831
Reaction score
1,673
Location
Virginia
Offline
I can give you one that is local. Honestly with a simple google search of coastal cities you can find MANY projects being built and planned. This one is roughly 100ft away from the shoreline.

So, I used this app from NOAA to check out what sea level rise will look like in different communities. You can adjust how much sea level rise you want to see.


So, I drilled down to this particular location (down to the stree level), and it appears this development project won't be affected unless there's over 2 feet of sea level rise.

So, next I go to a couple of different predictions for sea-level rise:





It looks like models don't predict over 2 feet of sea level rise for about 80 years, and they diverge based on whether we slow down carbon emissions or don't. But even in the bad scenario, Indian Rocks Beach won't be effected for another 80 years. And since this is a town home community, the builders are done with their commitment once someone buys it right? And most people looking for a home now will be dead in 80 years.

I'm pretty sure we can do this for pretty much every development project.
 
Last edited:

Devildog

Huge Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
105
Reaction score
254
Age
46
Location
DFW
Offline
So, I used this app from NOAA to check out what sea level rise will look like in different communities. You can adjust how much sea level rise you want to see.


So, I drilled down to this particular location (down to the stree level), and it appears this development project won't be affected unless there's over 2 feet of sea level rise.

So, next I go to a couple of different predictions for sea-level rise:





It looks like models don't predict over 2 feet of sea level rise for about 80 years, and they diverge based on whether we slow down carbon emissions or don't. But even in the bad scenario, Indian Rocks Beach won't be effected for another 80 years. And since this is a town home community, the builders are done with their commitment once someone buys it right? And most people looking for a home now will be dead in 80 years.

I'm pretty sure we can do this for pretty much every development project.

Ooooohhhhh!!! It's like you actually did the research! Bravo, sir!
 

The moose

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,147
Reaction score
927
Age
51
Location
New Orleans
Offline
I would think the beach front condos of the world are not the real problem here.

I have to say that app is cool as heck and you guys did a ton of good work.

But the problems the world will face with crop production from floods and drought will be a much greater problem than wet condos.

We have seen a mass of people migration from Central America because of drought already. We have seen historical fires and floods already.

The real problem we have is fires and floods kill the natural defense we have for global warming only speeding up the problems. We have to keep the trees and plants living or replant seedlings where fires have been.

Last year was the first time in the Mississippi spillway was ever opened two years in a row.

This is not a joke. If our old arse electric lines are starting massive fires we need to invest in fixing them.

We need to be proactive not reactivate.
 

UncleTrvlingJim

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
831
Reaction score
1,673
Location
Virginia
Offline
I'm honestly not trying to "win" a debate, but I am trying to figure out what the resistance is to the idea that the world is getting warmer, it is getting warmer faster than in past climate change events, humans are a significant part of that, and this is risky, greatly increasing the probability of high cost scenarios.

So, for skeptics out there, I am willing to talk through their concerns and see where I can hopefully clear things up.

IMO, the debate really shouldn't be over whether this is happening or not, but over what we should do about it and how.
 
Last edited:

CoolBrees

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
651
Reaction score
1,441
Age
43
Location
Portland, Oregon
Offline
I wasn’t going to post here anymore but this needs to be posted

Why aren’t companies taking climate change into account? Well, they are.....


The position that developers won’t develop beachfront because of rising tides is ridiculous. A public building (like a school) is built with a 40-50 year life. Houses? 25 tops. Once the property is sold and the warranty on construction expires (typically 1 year) you aren’t responsible. And if the big one hits tomorrow? The term is Force Majuere, or act of God. You, as a builder or supplier, are not responsible for these instances. The homeowner? Better have good flood insurance.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Fact Checkers News Feed

General News Feed

Top Bottom