The sea is rising (chicken little content)

So the current topic right now on "On Point Radio" is the new science saying that the sea level rise is now predicted to be 6' by the end of the century. For my part I look forward to a shorter drive to the ocean but I assume it'll be more inconvenient for others.

What would/will it mean to you?

I plan to continue to use that information to my benefit and strengthen my argument to my wife that we need more boats.

Not really worried about it because it's not something I can control.

We can all control it a tiny bit. Personally I have plenty of other problems to worry about so this one doesn't stand out.

I'm at ~850 feet above sea level, so no immediate concerns.

I'll be dead in less than 50 years. Maybe I'll have a casket that floats.

Not buying it.

http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml

There are enough ups and downs there. and the numbers are all super low, so it's probably going to be fine.

hmm. If you go back far enough on the geologic time line, the area I'm living in was just off shore. Like the Eocene epoch back. So...I guess I'll have beach front property for a while, and then a free anchorage for the boat? Of course, that will be after the great refugee evacuation from Florida's complete flooding.

I worry about it and how it will impact the great lakes. My dad is buying a waterfront place now. There is about 100 feet from the house to the water, and about a 4 foot high wall between the water and the lawn.

I live on the ICW. My garage floor is a little over 11' elevation. If the sea level rises at 2mm a year, it will take a long time before it is an issue.

So, it really means nothing to me one way or the other,.. [redacted].

[Edited to not be the reason for the lock]

In before the lock.

I am living on high ground, approx. 6 feet asl. This island will be gone some day, the only bridge will submerge and the lighthouse will be a good mooring point...

I am not so concerned, and not just because I will be long gone by then. Our planet is an ever changing dynamic system that forces adaptation and I am ok with that.

Whether we've contributed to it or not, we've got to get serious about oceanfront buffers. For those of you who think that being high above sealevel means you have nothing to worry about, realize that in 50-100 years, the property you own or bequest to your children may be overran by "sea-level refugees". The sooner we figure out better places for ports and surrounding populations the better off we'll be at the end of the century.

The way I look at it is that we're causing changes that require adaptation at a speed which nature simply can't keep up with even if human civilization can (with much hardship), and we have the capability to remove the need for this adaptation, so why shouldn't we? Prevention is much cheaper and easier than adaptation.

Tens of thousands of years in the future, if humanity hasn't wiped itself out, we may have the opportunity to prevent an ice age from occurring due to natural causes, and I think we should in much the same way (but in reverse).

We've had our shot.

The earth will be just fine without us.

The cockroaches really deserve to have their turn.

Tom_Spangler wrote: In before the lock.

I was thinking the exact same thing!!!

I like to look on the bright side of things. Every time some sort of serious disaster hits New York I end up with overtime until things get back to normal. Our motto is "In Chaos There Is Profit".

How to turn a light hearted post into a lock. Some people take themselves too seriously.

I see it more as a return to normal for the earth, we've known many places used to be under water, yet people still chose to live there. Either way, to be lore friendly to the world of Fallout, the bombs fall in 2077.

GameboyRMH wrote: The way I look at it is that we're causing changes that require adaptation at a speed which nature simply can't keep up with even if human civilization can (with much hardship), and we have the capability to remove the need for this adaptation, so why shouldn't we? Prevention is much cheaper and easier than adaptation. Tens of thousands of years in the future, if humanity hasn't wiped itself out, we may have the opportunity to prevent an ice age from occurring due to natural causes, and I think we should in much the same way (but in reverse).

I think we're doing the best we can with what we have. Unfortunately the people value other things more importantly than the environment.

Trans_Maro wrote: We've had our shot. The earth will be just fine without us. The cockroaches really deserve to have their turn.

+1

GameboyRMH wrote: We can all control it a tiny bit. Personally I have plenty of other problems to worry about so this one doesn't stand out.

We can, but we wont. Too many people out there that want their share of the pie so the environment will continue to take the back seat. Sucks for people that like to get outdoors but that's how it goes. I'll continue to do what I can on the microeconomic scale in my local communities and playgrounds.

Lowest high on record today. 29F. It's coming.

Yawn...

I have no children, what do I care?

It's a scorched earth policy for me.

(BTW - generally a WAY to political of a topic to discuss here)

It saddens me that science has become so politicized, but there you have it. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go back to opening car-related threads. So long, and thanks for all the fish!

In reply to Esoteric Nixon:

Little to do with science. Much to do with politics and economics.

I have a solution. Dig a big ditch from the Pacific to Death Valley. Turn that place into a giant lake and watch the tourist flock to it.