Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Sea Levels
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Old Man Jingles" data-source="post: 4889465" data-attributes="member: 18222"><p><h4><strong>Climate Feedback’s Misleading Claim:</strong></h4><p>Climate Feedback then cites Patrick Brown, assistant professor at San Jose State University, who argues: <em>“There are sufficient fossil fuels available to completely melt the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets and raise global sea levels approximately 60 meters or 200 feet[18]. This would represent an astronomical cost …”</em></p><p></p><h4><strong>Reality:</strong></h4><p><em>Obviously</em>, if sea level rose <em>200 feet</em>, that would be astronomically costly. But the UN IPCC does not consider that likely at all.</p><p>Brown subsequently told us that his 200-feet increase scenario is plausible over a period of a thousand years.</p><p>This is far outside the range of what the UN IPCC projects, with good reason. Imagine how different technology will be in a thousand years.</p><p>1,000 years from now, humans will probably have machines that suck carbon out of the air.</p><p>A thousand years ago, the height of technology was the crossbow.</p><p>It’s more reasonable to consider projections for a century, which Brown himself cites: a rise of about <em>1-3 feet</em>.</p><p>How does “adaptation” do as a strategy in that case?</p><p>Statistician and environmentalist Bjorn <a href="https://www.amazon.com/False-Alarm-Climate-Change-Trillions-ebook/dp/B0827TL851/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=lomborg+false+alarm&qid=1619047565&sr=8-1" target="_blank">Lomborg cites</a> a <a href="https://sci-hub.do/https:/www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0176-z" target="_blank">2018 study</a> in the journal <em>Nature Climate Change</em> that finds (his summary):</p><p><em>The total cost of coastal protection and of all remaining flood damage through the rest of the century, even in the absolutely worst-case scenario, will cost the United States just 0.037 percent of its GDP, and possibly five times less.</em></p><p></p><p>That’s a small price to pay, compared to reorganizing the entire economy to try to eliminate emissions.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Old Man Jingles, post: 4889465, member: 18222"] [HEADING=3][B]Climate Feedback’s Misleading Claim:[/B][/HEADING] Climate Feedback then cites Patrick Brown, assistant professor at San Jose State University, who argues: [I]“There are sufficient fossil fuels available to completely melt the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets and raise global sea levels approximately 60 meters or 200 feet[18]. This would represent an astronomical cost …”[/I] [HEADING=3][B]Reality:[/B][/HEADING] [I]Obviously[/I], if sea level rose [I]200 feet[/I], that would be astronomically costly. But the UN IPCC does not consider that likely at all. Brown subsequently told us that his 200-feet increase scenario is plausible over a period of a thousand years. This is far outside the range of what the UN IPCC projects, with good reason. Imagine how different technology will be in a thousand years. 1,000 years from now, humans will probably have machines that suck carbon out of the air. A thousand years ago, the height of technology was the crossbow. It’s more reasonable to consider projections for a century, which Brown himself cites: a rise of about [I]1-3 feet[/I]. How does “adaptation” do as a strategy in that case? Statistician and environmentalist Bjorn [URL='https://www.amazon.com/False-Alarm-Climate-Change-Trillions-ebook/dp/B0827TL851/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=lomborg+false+alarm&qid=1619047565&sr=8-1']Lomborg cites[/URL] a [URL='https://sci-hub.do/https:/www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0176-z']2018 study[/URL] in the journal [I]Nature Climate Change[/I] that finds (his summary): [I]The total cost of coastal protection and of all remaining flood damage through the rest of the century, even in the absolutely worst-case scenario, will cost the United States just 0.037 percent of its GDP, and possibly five times less.[/I] That’s a small price to pay, compared to reorganizing the entire economy to try to eliminate emissions. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Sea Levels
Top