Posted on 06/22/2019 4:17:15 AM PDT by Kaslin
Imagine that you live in a $450,000 home situated along a stream out in the country. With very heavy rains, the stream rises about three feet, but your home is two feet above that level.
One day, though, upstream, a landslide changes the flow of another stream. It previously fed into your stream below your home. Now it feeds into it upstream. So now your stream’s normal level is three feet higher than before, which means that with a three-foot rise from a heavy rain you’ll have a foot of water in your home. You’ve seen enough of the heavy rains to know you can’t just do nothing and hope they’ll never come again.
So what do you do?
You could try selling your home, but with that new flood risk you find that no one’s offering more than $200,000 for it---meaning you’ll lose $250,000.
You could hire a specialty contractor to raise your entire home five feet off the ground at a cost of $100,000. Better than losing $250,000, but not very welcome.
You could build a concrete barrier to keep flood waters from reaching your home. That would only cost you about $30,000.
Or maybe you could pay an earth-moving company to restore the area affected by the landslide, returning the tributary stream to its prior path, at a cost of $15,000.
Of all the options, which would you choose?
One thing’s pretty well certain: you won’t just abandon your home and lose its $450,000 value.
That is, you won’t become a landslide refugee.
And that’s the most obvious reason why alarming predictions of 187 million “climate refugees” driven from their homes by rising sea level by the end of this century are, as Bjørn Lomborg shows, nonsense. Those who made the predictions assumed that people would choose the most costly rather than the least costly way to respond to rising sea level: abandoning their homes (or farms or businesses) rather than building barriers.
But both human nature and human history tell us people tend to choose the least expensive ways to solve problems.
The Dutch, most of whose country is a low-lying alluvial plain built by rivers over thousands of years and once flooded by every daily high tide, began building dikes to prevent that flooding over a thousand years ago. They were desperately poor by the standards of today’s developed countries (including the Netherlands), but they managed it. They found the agricultural value of the rich alluvial lands great enough to justify the cost of building the dikes.
Today, with far greater wealth, and with earth-moving machinery and engineering skills that vastly exceed those of the Dutch a millennium ago, building dikes to protect low-lying areas from rising sea levels is far more affordable than it was then.
And that’s not to mention that the alarming predictions of 187 million “climate refugees” also assume sea-level rise through the end of this century of about 6.5 feet. That might happen only in response to worst-case scenarios for carbon dioxide emissions, worst-case scenarios for warming driven by those emissions, and worst-case scenarios for polar glacial ice melt driven by that warming. The far more likely scenarios for all three are much lower. And the 6.5 feet of sea-level rise would be 26 to 260 times the likely rise of 1/3 inch to 3 inches.
The only number you need to know is one inch (per decade). If they talk higher numbers, e.g. south Florida or Norfolk Virginia, that is from subsidence. Part of the subsidence is from ground water extraction. Ask them what they are going to do about ground water extraction, which has actual solutions.
Why haven’t leftists who own beachfront homes sold their homes and moved to a “safer” location?
Why are banks still lending money to purchase beachfront homes?
Why is OwlGore still living in his beachfront home in Mexifornia?
Perfectly intact pacific island make alarmist nonsense evident.
Quite a bit of the California coast has uplift (the opposite of subsidence) so there is no relative sea level change.
The only time I actually fell for the Globull warming AKA Climate Change HOAX ... 1970s ... back then it was Global Cooling. I almost turned off our AC, living on the Mosquito Coast - Texas Gulf Coast - where our highs were usually only 89F but it was so humid, it felt like 889F. I felt guilty, isn’t that what liberals want, to make us all feel guilty, about our modern conveniences! They hate Our nice cars with AC that give us the opportunity to go anywhere we want to go, at will... our flush toilets ... Our creature comforts! They want us to feel guilty, to be as miserable as they are. Have you noticed they are never happy, they never smile, they are depressed and on Prozac. This is the majority of my Oklahoma family, Liberal, Democrat, Depressed, Atheist, Grumpy... On Prozac.
I had never thought of land subsidence causing sea levels to rise. Well that does explain any “rise” in the sea levels. And in California the uplift from being along Earthquake Alley.
But I have been asking for YEARS, if Al Gore believed his own crap, wouldn’t he MOVE? He bought that California coast mansion AFTER he started preaching his lies. My husband calls Al Gore the Sex Poodle, because he got caught trying to molest his masseuse.
I truly believe IF anyone in our government really believed the Globull Warming Hoax/Lies... they would force all factories to close, they would confiscate all cars and trucks, they would stop all air travel... if they really believed they were causing our planet to heat up and die.
Of course they don’t really believe it! I have read 28 books about Globull Warming...
Calvin, you went “the long way ‘round” to say nothing. No one is going to engage in earthmoving on that scale even if sea level rise were a thing based on man made climate change. If you believe in such a thing you would know that the CO2 contribution of the earthmoving would offset the mitigation and you would be back to square one. Stupid premise, stupid column.
Fort Monroe is near me. It has a salt water moat that has been there since before the Civil War. The tide has left an 18 inch mark in the moat. That mark has been exactly where it is the entire time. Search for photos if you wish to see for yourself.
Water evaporates, makes clouds, sometime they get big and it causes rain, redistribution of water. God’s handiwork. Let it be. Anything else is BS.
This is a NOAA webpage which has looked at increments of 50 year “sea level trends” at many sites across the US. (and worldwide sites if you click around a little)
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8723170
Click on the tab that says, “Variation of 50-Year Relative Sea Level Trends” you can look at different gauges around the country for different 50 year averages.
If you look at the trends in the New England locations it has actually varied below average and drifted back to baseline. It’s all BS!
That is all assuming the basic premise, which is that carbon dioxide has a capacity to trap and hold heat far beyond what one would expect from its chemical and physical properties.
Ever notice that the global warmists never explain *how* CO2 has this effect on temperature? Yet that is such a key element of this supposition that the rest of it is irrelevant. (I won’t qualify “global warming” or “climate change” by calling it a theory, because the scientific word “theory” implies that there is actually a lot of evidence supporting it, and there is not.)
These global warming alarmists (watermelons) predicted in 1995 that the coastlines would be under 20ft of water by 2015. If even ONE high dollar oceanfront property was experiencing the most minute rise in sea level,they’d be squealing like a stuck pig.
Instead of building a house on the ocean, I’d buy a really nice houseboat and park it on the the property. When the ocean rises, I’d just drop anchor.......
Wouldn't the florida ground water be replenished by rain fall?
Why does Bernie have two waterfront homes?
Why do the Bushes have a waterfront compound? Yes, they’re deomonrats just like the Kennedys who also have a waterfront compound.
Why does obammy have a new waterfront house in Hawaii. Ok, he was gifted that place but just being there is a risk for his family when the planet floods. Oh, that’s right, the family isn’t in Hawaii, they’re living it up at the Clooney’s Italian villa which is... on the water.
Wake me up when Venice goes underwater.
Some of it is. Population is withdrawing it faster than rainfall can replenish. And population is going UP.
Most of them are already here.
Uh, hey where’s bill nye to take on these:
1. Define the “correct” temperature range for the planet.
2. Define the “correct” humidity range for the planet.
3. Define the “correct” mean sea level for the planet.
4. Define the “correct” amount of precipitation for the planet.
5. Define the “correct” makeup of the atmosphere.
6. Define the “correct” amount of sea ice at the N/S poles.
7. Define/explain past glaciation and subsequent warming without any input from humans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.